SGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]

Template:EpisodeList2010

2026-04-17T00:06:50Z

Xanderox: line break

<noinclude>
Programatically-generated episode list based on the style of [[Template:EpisodeList2024]].
</noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2010 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 232-285)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 285
|date = 12-29
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 284
|date = 12-22
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 284#theme|Winter Solstice]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 283
|date = 12-15
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 283#interview|Dan Gardner]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 282
|date = 12-08
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 281
|date = 12-01
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 280
|date = 11-24
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 280#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 280#theme|Australia]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 279
|date = 11-15
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 279#interview|DJ Grothe]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 278
|date = 11-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 277
|date = 11-03
|status = open
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 276
|date = 10-27
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 276#theme|Halloween]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 276#interview|The SGU Forum Moderatorsl]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 275
|date = 10-19
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 274
|date = 10-13
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 274#interview|Ben Goldacre]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 273
|date = 10-06
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 272
|date = 09-30
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 272#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 272#theme|Animals]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 272#interview|Bug Girl]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 271
|date = 09-22
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 271#interview|Simon Singh]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 270
|date = 09-15
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 270#theme|Study Habits]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 270#interview|Ben Radford, Joe Nickell, and Karen Stollznow]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 269
|date = 09-08
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 269#interview|Carol Tavris]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 268
|date = 09-01
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 268#interview|Donald Prothero]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 267
|date = 08-25
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 266
|date = 08-19
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 266#interview|Bruce Hood at TAM8]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 265
|date = 08-11
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 265#interview|Aubrey de Grey]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 264
|date = 08-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 263
|date = 07-29
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 263#interview|Jim Underdown from CFI West]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 262
|date = 07-21
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 262#interview|James Randi and Banachek]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 261
|date = 07-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 260
|date = 06-30
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 260#theme|Science facts]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 259
|date = 06-28
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 258
|date = 06-16
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 258#interview|Sanal Edamaruku]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 257
|date = 06-14
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 257#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 256
|date = 06-09
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 256#interview|Steve Matheson]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 255
|date = 06-02
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 254
|date = 05-26
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 254#interview|James Randi about Martin Gardner]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 253
|date = 05-19
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 252
|date = 05-12
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 251
|date = 05-05
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 250
|date = 04-28
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 250#theme|Biology]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 250#interview|Dr. Dean Edell]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 249
|date = 04-17
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 248
|date = 04-13
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 248#interview|Seth Shostak]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 247
|date = 04-07
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 247#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 246
|date = 03-31
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 246#theme|Earth History]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 245
|date = 03-25
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 245#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 245#theme|Little Known Facts about Scientists]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 245#interview|George Hrab]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 244
|date = 03-18
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 244#theme|Genetics]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 244#interview|Greg Grunberg]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 243
|date = 03-11
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 242
|date = 03-03
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 241
|date = 02-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 241#interview|Daniel Wilson]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 240
|date = 02-17
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 240#theme|Big Numbers]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 239
|date = 02-10
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 239#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 238
|date = 02-03
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 238#interview|Simon Conway Morris]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 237
|date = 01-27
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 237#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 236
|date = 01-20
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 236#interview|Jon Rosenberg]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 235
|date = 01-13
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 235#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 233
|date = 01-06
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 233#interview|D.J. Grothe]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 232
|date = 01-01
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2010 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 232-285)
|}

Template:EpisodeList2012

2026-04-17T00:05:50Z

Xanderox: tighter title

<noinclude>
Programatically-generated episode list based on the style of [[Template:EpisodeList2024]].
</noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2012 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 338-389)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 389
|date = 12-29
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 389#theme|Interesting New Species of 2012]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 388
|date = 12-22
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 388#theme|News from 2012]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 387
|date = 12-15
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 386
|date = 12-08
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 386#theme|Doomsday]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 385
|date = 12-01
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 385#interview|Banachek]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 384
|date = 11-24
|status = proofread
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 383
|date = 11-17
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 383#theme|Thanksgiving]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 383#interview|Bruce Hood]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 382
|date = 11-10
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 381
|date = 11-03
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 380
|date = 10-27
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 380#theme|Hagfish]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 379
|date = 10-20
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 379#theme|Nobel Prize]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 379#interview|Jamy Ian Swiss]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 378
|date = 10-13
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 378#interview|Robert Hutton]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 377
|date = 10-06
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 376
|date = 09-29
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 376#interview|Pamela Gaye]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 375
|date = 09-22
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 374
|date = 09-15
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 373
|date = 09-08
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 373#interview|Billy West]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 372
|date = 09-01
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 372#theme|Fat]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 371
|date = 08-25
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 371#interview|Chris Ford from Pixar]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 370
|date = 08-18
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 369
|date = 08-11
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 369#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 369#theme|etymology]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 368
|date = 08-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 368#interview|Brian Wecht]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 367
|date = 07-28
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 366
|date = 07-21
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 365
|date = 07-14
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 365#theme|The Oldest]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 364
|date = 07-07
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 364#theme|Astronomy]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 364#interview|Jann J. Bellamy]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 363
|date = 06-30
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 363#theme|Wisdom of Chopra]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 362
|date = 06-23
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 362#theme|Father's Day]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 361
|date = 06-16
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 361#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 361#theme|Dutch astronomer Christian Huygens]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 360
|date = 06-09
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 359
|date = 06-02
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 359#interview|Debbie Feldman]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 358
|date = 05-26
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 358#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 358#theme|Top 10 New Species of 2011]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 357
|date = 05-19
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 357#theme|Florence Nightingale]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 357#interview|Chris Lewicki]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 356
|date = 05-12
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 356#theme|Planetary Astronomy]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 355
|date = 05-05
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 355#theme|sloths]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 354
|date = 04-28
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 353
|date = 04-21
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 353#theme|Graphene and Carbon Nanotubes]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 352
|date = 04-14
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 351
|date = 04-07
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 351#interview|Gripp (Marshall Gillson)]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 350
|date = 03-31
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 350#interview|James Randi]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 349
|date = 03-24
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 349#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 348
|date = 03-17
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 347
|date = 03-10
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 347#interview|Scott Sigler]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 346
|date = 03-03
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 346#theme|Dinosaurs]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 346#interview|Gordon Maupin]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 345
|date = 02-25
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 345#interview|Fraser Cain and Pamela Gaye]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 344
|date = 02-18
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 344#theme|Smart computers]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 343
|date = 02-11
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 342
|date = 02-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 341
|date = 01-28
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 340
|date = 01-21
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 340#quickie|Quickie with Bobs]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 340#interview|Eugenie Scott]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 339
|date = 01-14
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 339#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 338
|date = 01-07
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 338#theme|Animal Mimicry]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 338#interview|Martin Rundkvist]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2012 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 338-389)
|}

Template:EpisodeList2011

2026-04-17T00:03:02Z

Xanderox: can't remember if we use Dr. or Ph.D. or neither

<noinclude>
Programatically-generated episode list based on the style of [[Template:EpisodeList2024]].
</noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2011 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 286-337)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 337
|date = 12-31
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 336
|date = 12-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 335
|date = 12-17
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 335#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 334
|date = 12-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 334#theme|Yawning]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 334#interview|Lawrence Krauss]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 333
|date = 12-03
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 333#interview|James Randi]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 332
|date = 11-26
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 331
|date = 11-19
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 331#interview|Neil deGrasse Tyson]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 330
|date = 11-12
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 330#theme|US Energy Use]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 329
|date = 11-05
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 329#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 328
|date = 10-29
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 328#interview|Banachek]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 327
|date = 10-22
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 327#interview|Richard Wiseman]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 326
|date = 10-15
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 326#interview|Stephen L. Macknik, Ph.D. and Susana Martinez-Conde, Ph.D.]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 325
|date = 10-08
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 325#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 324
|date = 10-01
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 324#interview|Australian Skeptics]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 323
|date = 09-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 322
|date = 09-17
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 322#interview|Sara Mayhew]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 321
|date = 09-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 320
|date = 08-29
|status = proofread
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 319
|date = 08-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 319#theme|News We Missed]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 318
|date = 08-17
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 317
|date = 08-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 316
|date = 08-03
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 316#interview|Elizabeth Loftus]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 315
|date = 07-27
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 315#interview|Bill Nye]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 314
|date = 07-20
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 313
|date = 07-13
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 313#theme|George W Bush Quotes]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 313#interview|Matthew Chapman]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 312
|date = 07-05
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 311
|date = 06-29
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 311#interview|Eugenie Scott]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 310
|date = 06-22
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 309
|date = 06-13
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 309#theme|Asteroid Vesta]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 308
|date = 06-08
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 307
|date = 05-31
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 307#interview|Jamie Bernstein]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 306
|date = 05-25
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 305
|date = 05-18
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 305#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 305#interview|James Randi]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 304
|date = 05-09
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 304#interview|Jon Ronson]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 303
|date = 05-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 302
|date = 04-27
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 302#interview|Seth Shostak]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 301
|date = 04-20
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 300
|date = 04-09
|status = open
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 299
|date = 04-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 298
|date = 03-30
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 298#interview|Kenny Feder]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 297
|date = 03-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 296
|date = 03-16
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 296#interview|Mark Mervine]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 295
|date = 03-09
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 295#interview|Ben Radford]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 294
|date = 03-02
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 294#theme|Advanced Technology]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 294#interview|Eric-Jan Wagenmakers]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 293
|date = 02-23
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 293#theme|Scientific Controversies]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 292
|date = 02-16
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 292#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 292#interview|Kevin Folta]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 291
|date = 02-09
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 291#interview|Jeff Ainslee]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 290
|date = 01-31
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 290#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]] [[SGU Episode 290#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 289
|date = 01-26
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 288
|date = 01-19
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 287
|date = 01-12
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 287#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 286
|date = 01-05
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2011 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 286-337)
|}

Template:EpisodeList2011

2026-04-17T00:01:52Z

Xanderox: tighter title

<noinclude>
Programatically-generated episode list based on the style of [[Template:EpisodeList2024]].
</noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2011 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 286-337)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 337
|date = 12-31
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 336
|date = 12-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 335
|date = 12-17
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 335#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 334
|date = 12-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 334#theme|Yawning]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 334#interview|Lawrence Krauss]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 333
|date = 12-03
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 333#interview|James Randi]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 332
|date = 11-26
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 331
|date = 11-19
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 331#interview|Neil deGrasse Tyson]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 330
|date = 11-12
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 330#theme|US Energy Use]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 329
|date = 11-05
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 329#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 328
|date = 10-29
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 328#interview|Banachek]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 327
|date = 10-22
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 327#interview|Richard Wiseman]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 326
|date = 10-15
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 326#interview|Stephen L. Macknik, Ph.D. and Susana Martinez-Conde, Ph.D.]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 325
|date = 10-08
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 325#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 324
|date = 10-01
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 324#interview|Australian Skeptics]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 323
|date = 09-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 322
|date = 09-17
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 322#interview|Sara Mayhew]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 321
|date = 09-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 320
|date = 08-29
|status = proofread
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 319
|date = 08-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 319#theme|News We Missed]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 318
|date = 08-17
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 317
|date = 08-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 316
|date = 08-03
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 316#interview|Elizabeth Loftus]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 315
|date = 07-27
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 315#interview|Bill Nye]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 314
|date = 07-20
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 313
|date = 07-13
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 313#theme|George W Bush Quotes]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 313#interview|Matthew Chapman]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 312
|date = 07-05
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 311
|date = 06-29
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 311#interview|Eugenie Scott]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 310
|date = 06-22
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 309
|date = 06-13
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 309#theme|Asteroid Vesta]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 308
|date = 06-08
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 307
|date = 05-31
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 307#interview|Jamie Bernstein]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 306
|date = 05-25
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 305
|date = 05-18
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 305#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 305#interview|James Randi]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 304
|date = 05-09
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 304#interview|Jon Ronson]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 303
|date = 05-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 302
|date = 04-27
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 302#interview|Seth Shostak]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 301
|date = 04-20
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 300
|date = 04-09
|status = open
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 299
|date = 04-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 298
|date = 03-30
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 298#interview|Kenny Feder]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 297
|date = 03-24
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 296
|date = 03-16
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 296#interview|Mark Mervine]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 295
|date = 03-09
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 295#interview|Ben Radford]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 294
|date = 03-02
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 294#theme|Advanced Technology]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 294#interview|Eric-Jan Wagenmakers]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 293
|date = 02-23
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 293#theme|Scientific Controversies]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 292
|date = 02-16
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 292#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 292#interview|Kevin Folta]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 291
|date = 02-09
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 291#interview|Jeff Ainslee]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 290
|date = 01-31
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 290#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]] [[SGU Episode 290#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 289
|date = 01-26
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 288
|date = 01-19
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 287
|date = 01-12
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 287#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 286
|date = 01-05
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2011 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 286-337)
|}

SGU Episode 309

2026-04-16T23:58:32Z

Xanderox: adding some anchors

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 309
|episodeDate = June 13th 2011 
|episodeIcon = File:Laser cell.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-06-13.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,36260.0.html
|qowText = 'In cases where prior knowledge is available, the alternative to 'an open mind' is not a 'closed mind'. It is 'an informed mind'. In such contexts, any appeal to 'keep an open mind' is an appeal to prefer ignorance over knowledge. This is not advisable.' 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Ian Rowland}} 
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''
== This Day in Skepticism () ==
* June 18: June 18 is … International Panic Day Don't Panic! http://www.eslholidaylessons.com/06/international_panic_day.htm
== News Items () ==

=== Two New Elements () ===
* http://www.npr.org/2011/06/10/137065238/how-to-put-a-new-element-on-the-periodic-table

=== The Decline Effect () ===
* http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-decline-effect-revisited/

=== Zicam Inventor Arrested () ===
* http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/02/state/n135609D39.DTL

=== Lasers from Human Cells () ===
* http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/26876/?ref=rss

=== Brain Wave Cat Ears () ===
* http://www.weirdasianews.com/2011/05/17/fashionable-cat-ears-japan-responds-brain-waves/
== Who's That Noisy () ==
* Answer to last week: Sara Silverman
== Questions and Emails () ==

=== Question #1 - The Enemy Within () ===
<blockquote>Hi guys. Love the show. Long time listener. Despite being a skeptic ever since I can remember, I find myself partaking in the superstitious act of 'knocking on wood' only very occasionally and usually when a unpleasant thought involving my kids or family pops into my head. Most often this will occur when my guard is down such as when I am drifting off to sleep for example. I know it's stupid and irrational but during these moments of vulnerability I am sometimes compelled to do it. Is this just a coping mechanism to get rid of the unpleasant thought? Or is there a believer buried in my subconscious trying to get out? This led me to ponder whether belief in a higher power could have a subconscious component and where these occasional lapses in rational thought could be coming from. Am I a closet believer? Or is this just a learned behavior or could it be some type repressed redundant evolutionary remnant? Wondering also if you guys have ever partaken in any superstitious activity recently. Kind regards. George. George Voulgaris Melbourne, Australia</blockquote>
{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}{{anchor|theme}}
== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/nasa-s-dawn-approaches-vesta-207791.aspx Item #1]: Despite the fact that Vesta has no clouds or snow cover, it is the brightest object in the asteroid belt with an albedo about the same as the Earth.
[http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/nasa-s-dawn-approaches-vesta-207791.aspx Item #2]: About 1 in every 20 meteorites that fall to the Earth come from Vesta.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Vesta Item #3]: When it was first discovered in 1807 Vesta was thought to be a moon of its larger cousin, Ceres, which was initially designated a planet.
== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>'In cases where prior knowledge is available, the alternative to 'an open mind' is not a 'closed mind'. It is 'an informed mind'. In such contexts, any appeal to 'keep an open mind' is an appeal to prefer ignorance over knowledge. This is not advisable.' - Ian Rowland</blockquote>

{{Outro301}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

Template:EpisodeList2012

2026-04-16T23:56:51Z

Xanderox: tighter title

<noinclude>
Programatically-generated episode list based on the style of [[Template:EpisodeList2024]].
</noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2012 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 338-389)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 389
|date = 12-29
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 389#theme|Interesting New Species of 2012]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 388
|date = 12-22
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 388#theme|News from 2012]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 387
|date = 12-15
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 386
|date = 12-08
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 386#theme|Doomsday]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 385
|date = 12-01
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 385#interview|Banachek]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 384
|date = 11-24
|status = proofread
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 383
|date = 11-17
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 383#theme|Thanksgiving]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 383#interview|Bruce Hood]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 382
|date = 11-10
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 381
|date = 11-03
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 380
|date = 10-27
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 380#theme|Hagfish]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 379
|date = 10-20
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 379#theme|Nobel Prize]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 379#interview|Jamy Ian Swiss]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 378
|date = 10-13
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 378#interview|Robert Hutton]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 377
|date = 10-06
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 376
|date = 09-29
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 376#interview|Pamela Gaye]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 375
|date = 09-22
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 374
|date = 09-15
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 373
|date = 09-08
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 373#interview|Billy West]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 372
|date = 09-01
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 372#theme|Fat]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 371
|date = 08-25
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 371#interview|Chris Ford from Pixar]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 370
|date = 08-18
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 369
|date = 08-11
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 369#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 369#theme|etymology]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 368
|date = 08-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 368#interview|Brian Wecht]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 367
|date = 07-28
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 366
|date = 07-21
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 365
|date = 07-14
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 365#theme|The Oldest]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 364
|date = 07-07
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 364#theme|Astronomy]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 364#interview|Jann J. Bellamy]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 363
|date = 06-30
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 363#theme|Wisdom of Chopra]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 362
|date = 06-23
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 362#theme|Father's Day]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 361
|date = 06-16
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 361#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 361#theme|Dutch astronomer Christian Huygens]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 360
|date = 06-09
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 359
|date = 06-02
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 359#interview|Debbie Feldman]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 358
|date = 05-26
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 358#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 358#theme|Top 10 New Species discovered in 2011]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 357
|date = 05-19
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 357#theme|Florence Nightingale]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 357#interview|Chris Lewicki]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 356
|date = 05-12
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 356#theme|Planetary Astronomy]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 355
|date = 05-05
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 355#theme|sloths]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 354
|date = 04-28
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 353
|date = 04-21
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 353#theme|Graphene and Carbon Nanotubes]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 352
|date = 04-14
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 351
|date = 04-07
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 351#interview|Gripp (Marshall Gillson)]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 350
|date = 03-31
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 350#interview|James Randi]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 349
|date = 03-24
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 349#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 348
|date = 03-17
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 347
|date = 03-10
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 347#interview|Scott Sigler]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 346
|date = 03-03
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 346#theme|Dinosaurs]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 346#interview|Gordon Maupin]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 345
|date = 02-25
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 345#interview|Fraser Cain and Pamela Gaye]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 344
|date = 02-18
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 344#theme|Smart computers]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 343
|date = 02-11
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 342
|date = 02-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 341
|date = 01-28
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 340
|date = 01-21
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 340#quickie|Quickie with Bobs]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 340#interview|Eugenie Scott]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 339
|date = 01-14
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 339#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 338
|date = 01-07
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 338#theme|Animal Mimicry]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 338#interview|Martin Rundkvist]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2012 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 338-389)
|}

SGU Episode 361

2026-04-16T23:54:26Z

Xanderox: /* Congruence Bias (53:19) */ adding some anchors

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 361
|episodeDate = 16th June 2012
|episodeIcon = File:Christian-Huygens.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2012-06-16.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,42172.0.html
|qowText = Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas; its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved.
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell Bertrand Russell's] "The ABC of Relativity" (4th revised edition)
|}}

== Introduction ==
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Monday June 11th 2012 and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella.

B: Hey Everybody.

S: Rebecca Watson.

R: Hello Everyone.

S: Jay Novella.

J: Hey guys.

S: And Evan Bernstein.

E: Make it so!

== This Day in Skepticism (0:26) ==
[http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2009/06/16/captain-picard-day/ Geeksaresexy.net: Captain Picard Day]

S: Why do you say that, Evan?

E: I don't know, why do I say that?

R: Well maybe because today is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_Picard Captain Picard] day, apparently.

B: For real!?

S: Captain Picard Day?

B: Who decided that?

R: Apparently someone on Evan's facebook page decided that.

B: Ah.

E: (laughs) They did. Sent me the link and everything.

J: Ensign Crusher.

E: Shut up [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Crusher Wesley].

R: Apparently there's a Star Trek episode and Captain Picard day is a thing on the episode and it was on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardate stardate] 47457.1 which apparently matches up with June 16th but apparently there are also other opinions about what that date would be, like November 4th or January 8th or January 10th so I see this a lot like the...

E: Throw a dart at a dart board.

R: ...a lot like how the creation of the universe happened on October 23rd, you know at exactly you know, which year that was. It depends on how you read the texts, basically. But apparently some geeks think today is Captain Picard day.

E: It's a geeky form of numerology.

S: Is there a specific formula for stardate conversion?

B: There can be, but it varies between various series and movies, so yeah just don't use it.

R: It depends if you're the people's front of the federation or the federation's front for the people.

J: (laughs) the front for the people of the federation.

R: Yeah, it depends which you subscribe to.

E: And you wonder why [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Nimoy Leonard Nimoy] isn't doing conventions any more. This is the stuff he gets.

S: Well what's supposed to happen on Captain Picard day?

R: Well, you talk about how awesome Captain Picard is.

J: You basically put on the British accent, telling people to engage, to disengage.

E: Make it so.

J: Wesley, you know, you just.

R: You tell [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worf Worf] he's wrong.

S: But apparently in the Star Trek episode, the Next Gen episode, on Captain Picard day, you're supposed to host school children and show them what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet Starfleet] is like. So we could turn this into a science/skepical thing and we could say on Captain Picard day we teach school children about science and skepticism.

R: We do that all the time though.

J: Yeah I mean we do that every week, Steve.

B: Every day is Captain Picard day.

(laughter)

E: It sort of is. School children though, you know, specifically.

== News Items ==
=== LiDAR (2:52)===
[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/08/lasers-help-discover-lost-city-gold-sought-by-conquistadors-in-1500s/?intcmp=obnetwork Fox news: Have lasers located lost city of gold sought by conquistadors in 1500s?]

S: Well Jay, tell us about LiDAR and the city of gold.

J: Have you guys ever heard of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_Cortez Hernando Cortez]?

E: Uh, Cortez, Cortez.

S: Um, not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Valdez Juan Valdez].

J: No.

S: Hernando Cortez.

J: Does it make you think of anything, I mean does the last name Cortez remind you of gold maybe?

E: Cortez's gold from Pirates of the Caribbean.

B: Yeah.

J: Right, no...

R: Is that where our history of Spanish conquistadors comes from?

(laughter)

J: Yeah, you have to watch Pirates of the Caribbean.

B: Caribbean.

J: No, but this guy back in the 1500s, he was trying to locate this place where there was supposed to be a lot of gold, it was like an ancient ruin that he was looking for. And that ruin actually is in the Mosquitia region of Honduras, it's called the lost city of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ciudad_Blanca Ciudad Blanca]. Wow.

S: The white city.

B: The white city.

J: The white city, right.

E: The white city, blanca.

J: Anybody that can speak Spanish will know that I pronounced that horribly wrong. So what happened was, I guess he was looking in the right continent, but he didn't know exactly where it was and the way that they were exploring back then, with the machete going through the woods, walking through the woods, well that's basically the same way that a lot of archaeologists would hunt around in areas like that today and of course that costs a ton of money, there's dangers involved, there's health dangers, there's physical dangers involved in doing that kind of leg work. So what happened was a company came out with a very interesting and a very effective way of being able to look at the terrain that is underneath all of the green growth that most of these regions are completely covered in. So the technique they used is called LiDAR and that means Light Detection and Ranging. The technology is being used to do things like, well they're saying that they would be able to use this technology to map disaster areas or track erosion that's under rivers and shallow parts of the ocean and of course the potential for military spying is there as well. For now though, the archaeologists have their hands on it and other than them, like I said, exploring with machetes and whatnot, this just is very fast and it's very safe to use of course they're flying over in an aeroplane and what they do is they shoot billions of lasers over whatever, like of course depending on the size of the acres they're covering they would be using a lot more but they shoot like I think about 100,000 laser beams a second at the ground.

E: Wow.

S: And you know Jay, they could use that technique to map underwater ruins and they could mount the lasers on the top of shark's heads.

E: (indrawn breath)

J: That's right, and these would actually be frikkin' laser beams.

S: They would be frikkin' laser beams.

J: On their heads, which would be awesome.

E: Be a dream come true.

J: So they shoot the laser beams at the ground and some of them, light bounces back and they can tell how, the distance by how long it takes, and you understand how that works. They can get it down to like about 4 inches or 10 centimetres which is really accurate for this type of technology, it's probably a lot more accurate than they need it to even be to get a good reading out of it. Now this isn't the first time that it's been used successfully, they also used it in 2009 when a team was working on Mayan ruins and they actually successfully used it in a proof of concept it worked very well, and now they're using it on this location, they actually think they've found the ruins and I guess now they send in a crew to get in there and do it on foot, but now they know exactly where they're going. So no gold has been found yet or anything, but proof of concept, it's a fantastic technology, it's very fast, I mean they took, I think they flew over the location for two days and very soon after that when they uploaded the data into the machine it was like yep and here's the ruins and here's the topography, very accurate, and incredibly cost effective, so they're going to be using this a lot more and they're actually, the company that's behind the whole thing is dumping a lot of time and energy into doing research in other areas like I mentioned before about other applications.

R: Interesting. You know, LiDAR is also the name for the animal that's a combination of a Lion and Tidar?

S: Lion and Tidar?

B: Oh boy.

E: Tidar?

R: That was a funnier joke in my head.

B: Yes.

(laughter)

B: One would hope.

R: I've been sitting on that joke for the last five minutes, giggling to myself, but it didn't live up to the hype once I said it out loud, sorry.

S: But you do always need to, when you use any kind of aerial mapping to identify potential locations, you do need to then confirm it on the ground. There's just no way around that.

E: That's true.

S: You don't have to be hunting through the jungle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones Indiana Jones]-style with a whip and a couple of six-shooters.

R: That is the most stylish way to do it but...

S: Yeah.

R: ...lots of people die.

E: It is, yep and a full orchestra accompaniment.

S: Have you guys seen [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/ Prometheus] yet, the [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/ Aliens] prequel?

B: No.

E: No, I have not.

B: Did you?

J: Not yet, I want to see it.

R: No spoilers.

S: I did.

B: You did, how was it?

J: Tell us if it was good, come on.

E: I'm hearing mixed reviews.

S: It was all right. It was not epic.

E: Argh.

R: Well that's a huge disappointment.

S: The coolest thing about the movie was that it featured LiDAR, they had these little devices that would zip around shooting lasers all over the place and 3D mapping the place that they were exploring, it was LiDAR 100 years from now basically. That was the coolest thing in the whole movie.

B: Really?

R: That's sad that that is the coolest thing in the movie?

B: Isn't it that ship?

E: It is kind of sad, yeah well...

=== Extremophiles (8:30)===
[http://colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/06/08/cu-boulder-led-team-finds-microbes-extreme-environment-south-american University of Colorado Bolder news: CU-Boulder-led team finds microbes in extreme environment on South American volcanoes]

S: All right, well Bob, tell us about even more information now about even more extremophile bacteria.

B: (laughs)

R: Extremophile!

B: Extremophiles!

E: Sounds extreme.

R: We should have like a theme song for the extremophiles that's just electric guitars, ten electric guitars.

J: Ten?

R: Ten, at least.

E: At least?

R: One of our listeners will surely work on that.

B: It's got to be extreme.

R: Yeah.

E: Well, that is, yeah.

S: That would be a neat hard rock band. The Extremophiles.

R: Extremophiles? Yeah!

B: Ooh, ooh.

R: Hell yeah.

B: I like it.

J: I don't like it.

S: (laughs)

R: What are you talking about?

E: Well they can only play specific venues, they can't go everywhere.

R: Yeah, they only play on the rim of a volcano.

B: Does that remind anybody of the band from Douglas Adams' Hitchikers Guide? The ones, was it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_characters#Hotblack_Desiato Blackheart Desiato]? What was his name? He actually used nuclear reactors for his speaker system or something.

(laughter)

B: I mean if you weren't miles away when they were doing their sound-check, you would, literally your head would explode or something like that.

R: Anyway, what were we talking about?

B: OK well, yet again, lowly microbes show that they are in some ways cooler life forms than mere human beings. Scientists studying soil microbes in a desiccated inhospitable environment on the slopes on volcanoes have found a branch of life that inexplicably is able to survive. This of course begs the question, can they survive on Mars, a lot of people are talking about it or have similar organisms existed there in the past or even now? So what happened was, a team of scientists from the University of Colorado, Boulder, analysed the DNA found in soil samples on rocky volcanic slopes in South America and found microbes surviving where literally none other could. These aren't ordinary microbes or bacteria of course, these are extremophiles and they're representatives of one of the three top domains of life called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea archaea]. So what the hell is that, you guys have played 20 questions, right? What's the first question, the inevitable?

S: Animal, vegetable or archaea?

B: (laughs) Right, animal, vegetable or mineral? So why do you ask that first? Well it's because those three things are the three top categories that kind of encompass everything or almost everything that you encounter or know about. From a purely biological point of view, if you asked that question a few decades ago, what you'd say is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monera Monera], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protista Protista], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungi Fungi], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantae Plantae] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animalia Animalia]. I mean it's taking the animal and vegetable and kind of like, that's how biologists would look at it, those are the major categories. So they were the categories or kingdoms that covered every living thing, but that's considered wrong today. Monera, which was the first one I mentioned, that included single celled organisms with no cell nucleus, these are prokaryotes, you may have heard that term thrown around. So this includes regular bacteria and these bizarre guys called archaea. But once they really could start looking at the genes and really take a close look at these guys, they realised that diversity within this monera kingdom was just way too huge for just one group to encompass it. So microbiologist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Woese Carl Woese], I think that's how you pronounce his name, he took a step back and said wait, we've got to rearrange this stuff. He said that these archaea are fundamentally a different sort of life, so he created, instead of kingdoms, he took one step up and created these domains, so all life are encompassed by these three categories. You've got [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria bacteria], which we know about, you've got the archaea and you've got the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote eukaryotes] which is pretty much multicellular life, animals, everything else. So what makes these guys special, one of the things because there's lots of things that are very different about them, but they use a far greater range of sources of energy than any other organism. Most organisms use things like common sugar, but they, archaea can use things like ammonia, metal ions, or even hydrogen gas. They're even, and I didn't know this, archaea are found in plankton, they are considered by some to be the most abundant groups of organisms on the planet because of that. So when you take a close look at this environment that they found them it, it's pretty nasty, it's at a pretty high altitude, almost 20,000 feet. Because of that the UV levels are twice what you'd find in a typical dessert. It's been ice-free for 48,000 years, no ice at all. When it does snow, the snow sublimates right back into the atmosphere really fast, pretty much soon after it hits the ground, bam it's back, it's evaporated. And the soil nutrients are so depleted that when they tried to detect the nitrogen levels, they couldn't detect anything, it was below the level of detection, so no nitrogen in the soil, pretty incredible. And then the temperatures, while the scientists were there, the scientists took temperature readings and the temperature ranged from 14 degrees Fahrenheit one night and spiked to 133 degrees Fahrenheit the next day, so it's an amazing, amazing temperature range. And even, you know how there's organisms that can pretty much rain down in the atmosphere, even they think, don't they think that bacteria now can be nucleation sites for the formation of raindrops in clouds and things. You can have these organisms kind of raining down into your environment, and they don't even survive, if they rain down in this environment they like pretty much die immediately. So yeah, a pretty forbidding environment needless to say. So they looked at these guys and they said well how did they survive. They checked to see if they use photosynthesis, probably one of the first things you'd look at, and they don't have, they don't have what it takes to accomplish that. So we don't know yet actually how these guys, how they create energy, but the prevailing theory is that they must use some kind of, like a chemical reaction that pulls energy from this carbon monoxide and dimethylsulfide that the wind kind of blows in but they're still not sure exactly how they're doing it, and that theory might be totally wrong. But the one thing that all these news sites are talking about with this news item is the Mars tie-in, everyone's talking about it. These scientists are actually working with astrobiologists to compare the current and past climates on Mars to these volcanic environments. Professor Steve Schmidt said, if we know on Earth what the outer limits of life were, and they know what the palaeoclimates on Mars were like, we may have a better idea of what could have lived there. So by learning more about these organisms we could, it could actually give some insight into what could have or what may exist on Mars. So in the future with this discovery, the scientists, obviously they want to set up an incubator that duplicates the extreme environment that they evolved in, and who knows what they may learn in terms of an undiscovered method of energy conversion that we could potentially even tap into for our own nefarious purposes, but it's pretty cool, so check it out online if you want to get more details, it was very interesting stuff.

S: Is there any place on Earth that is as foreboding as Mars is right now, where if we found extremophiles living there we could say these critters could live on Mars?

B: You know, I didn't find any definitive statements, but this environment that I just talked about, if you think about it, it's got a thin atmosphere, it's got lots of UV, but it's got a lot of what Mars has, I mean I think this is actually the closest environment to Mars that exists on Earth, any natural environment, so I would guess that these organisms could stick it out on Mars if they can make it here, but yeah I don't think you'll find a closer analogue.

S: Yeah, that's cool.

=== Moral Behavior (16:04)===
[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/anonymous-cooperative-behavior/ Wired: Dictators Turn Strangely Benevolent in Online Game]

S: All right well we are going to move from these unicellular creatures to people so that Rebecca can tell us well, are we moral when our behaviour is anonymous.

R: Ah yes, there is a new study out I guess you'll be happy to know that researchers have in fact discovered and inarguable new truths about morality and the human condition. No, just kidding. There is though, a weird new study that a lot of people will probably interpret in whatever way they want as is common with these sorts of psych studies but this one is about the dictator game which is a well-loved study that we've probably talked about before on this show and that many of our listeners have probably read about in pop psychology books like Freakonomics. And in the dictator game there are two players, one gets an amount of money, say 50 cents and that person has the opportunity to give any amount of their money to the second player, and that's pretty much it, that's the basic idea of the dictator game.

J: Is it real money?

R: Yes, they always work with real money because they're looking to see how moral people are or how benevolent people are.

E: Right.

R: And a lot of these studies revolve around how benevolent people are whether they're being watched, whether they're in public, whether there's some sort of social expectation for them to be benevolent. So there are a lot of variations on that basic dictator game. For instance there's one popular one in which the second player has the opportunity to refuse the money which would mean both parties lose all their money, there's more complicated things like that, but the study we're talking about today is more like the original dictator game in which the second player has no say. And this study done by researchers at the University College, London and Switzerland's Université de Neuchâtel, I probably butchered that, sorry. This study was meant to replicate the findings of previous studies that showed that the first player is more likely to give a larger portion of money if they're being watched, and in fact they're more likely to give a larger portion of money even if they're only seeing a picture of eyes. So for instance, one past study...

E: Creepy.

R: Yeah, it's weird. One past study had people paying any price they wanted for a cup of coffee and there's no one else around and they found that people pay more money when there's just a picture of eyes posted on the coffee machine, as opposed to a picture of anything else. So this study was hoping to replicate, looking to replicate those findings but they were doing it online, they were using a service called Amazon's Mechanical Turk, which is an online market where people can do simple tasks for small payments. So they had people on this service represent the players in the dictator game and so the first player would get 50 cents and then they had the choice of sharing as much or as little of their 50 cents with a second player as they wanted and both players in this situation were completely anonymous, and what they found is people tended to be more generous online in general than they did in the previous studies that had been done in person. They also found that showing someone a pair of eyes in this test, so let me just sort of describe for you what it looked like. The first player gets to do, they see a little picture and beneath the picture it says I will keep the following amount, I will allocate the following amount to receiver, and they can fill in those blanks, and in some of the tests the picture was a pair of eyes and in other tests they were flowers and in other tests they were just like a solid colour or something like that. And so what they found was that the eyes in this case had no difference, people gave the same amount whether it was eyes or whether it was just a solid colour, though they did find that flowers had a positive impact on the amount of money that the first player gave. That's basically what the study found and from there, people are now taking that and extrapolating it in any way they please, and I really enjoyed, I read about this on Wired's site which is usually, Wired is usually quite good I find but...

B: Oh yeah.

R: This made me laugh, here we go. "In another interesting observation, Raihani and Bshary’s dictators gave away $0.19 when shown flowers on the decision screen, hinting at the possible generosity-nourishing effects of nature." Really? (laughs)

B: Oh wow.

E: Flowers in bowls yeah.

R: Hinted at the possible generosity-nourishing effect of nature. So at least it then ends with one of the researchers saying that we just don't know enough yet to say about anything.

E: Yeah, but Wired does.

R: Yeah (laughs)

E: Wired said it anyway.

S: I mean I think, looking at this whole area of research, we come away with a couple of conclusions. One is that it's really hard to interpret this research, there's just so many variables, I know we've talked about this before, that unless you're really triangulating among many many studies and you're really isolating a specific variable, it's hard to say, like yeah really? The nurturing effect of nature? You're going to make that massive leap from this one tiny bit of information?

R: Yeah.

S: But I do think though that one signal that is that is here in this type of research is that people have this sub-conscious moral calculus that we, apparently evolved to make that is really easily manipulated, you know like just having a picture of eyes there alters that calculus for us in a sub-conscious way. But what's interesting is that most people will cheat a little bit. Most people are in fact cheaters, but only a little bit. And it's as if the moral calculus is, I'm going to get away with a little bit so that I have an edge, but not so much that I'm going to sacrifice my standing in the community as an honest person.

E: Or get caught, yeah.

R: I want to mention that the idea that people give more when they see pictures of eyes wasn't really rebutted by this study, but because this study showed that there was no difference when people looked at a pair of eyes, but it might point towards the sort of dehumanising sort of anonymity of the internet having an effect on how much people give.

S: Right.

R: So again, they saw an effect but there's really, there's just not enough data to really draw a conclusion about what that means, but that's one possible interpretation. And also I wanted to say that I was looking at various dictator game studies and my favourite one that I found is titled The Dictator Game, Fairness and Ethnicity in Postwar Bosnia and researchers actually, it was very interesting, they used the dictator game as a way to determine whether or not people in a post-war region were able to overcome that sort of violence and separation in order to get back to a base level of benevolence between one another. And what this study showed was that they could, and they did study 681 Muslims, Croats and Serbs in Bosnia Herzegovina, and they found that they tended to be just as benevolent as people in other areas, so I found it interesting how far and wide this kind of study can be applied.

=== Neck Manipulation (24:28)===
[http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1734-bmj-articles-oppose-spinal-manipulation.html JREF: BMJ Articles Oppose Spinal Manipulation]

S: All right well let's move on. There was a recent article published in the BMJ, the British Medical Journal, that warns people against spinal manipulation.

J: Awesome.

S: Yeah, I mean it's good to see some main stream article taking a look at a controversial "alternative" modality and concluding that it is not advisable. So for background, neck manipulation is done mostly by chiropractors, not entirely, some physical therapists or sports medicine practitioners or osteopaths will do some neck manipulation, and when we use the term manipulation, we're referring to some high-velocity manoeuvres of the neck, so not just any movement of the neck because there's also another term called neck mobilisation which is must gentler and is just an attempt to free maybe some locked or frozen joints in the neck, if the neck joints are in a bad position and it's stuck and it needs to mobilised, that's a different thing than a chiropractic neck manipulation which is a little more violent, and chiropractors do this for all sorts of incitations including neck pain and migraines and headache. The controversy that's been surrounding cervical manipulation or neck manipulation is that it appears to be a risk factor for arterial dissection or small tears in one of the arteries going to the brain, the vertebral or the carotid arteries, and when that occurs, blood clots can form on the tear, on the inside of the artery and then that blood clot can break off, go downstream, lodge and cause a stroke. There's no question in the literature in the studies that have been done, that there is a correlation between chiropractic neck manipulation, or just neck manipulation in general and the occurrence of strokes. The chiropractors however claim that well, yeah there's a correlation, but that doesn't prove causation and in fact what is happening is that people who are having neck pain because they already had a dissection are seeking out a chiropractor for treatment of that neck pain. The thing that's ironic about that is that, first of all they don't know that that's true, and that's hardly a defence because you shouldn't manipulate a neck that has a dissection, that's a counter-indication, so they're basically saying that we're misdiagnosing carotid dissection or arterial dissection and inappropriately treating it, hardly a defence. But in any case, it's also, what's not controversial is that the actual incidence of strokes is very low, no one is saying that this happens all the time, the estimated vertebral dissection resulting from neck manipulation is somewhere between 1 in 400,000 manipulations to 1 in 5.8 million manipulations, although that higher figure is certainly an underestimate because that's based on litigation records, so not clinical cases, not any kind of systematic survey, probably the 1 in 400,000 figure is a little bit closer to the truth and it may even be lower than that, again this is generally under-reported and under-appreciated, and because of the numbers involved. I mean you could never do an experimental study, you couldn't randomise people to getting neck manipulation or not getting manipulation and see how many get dissection. That's unethical and impractical so we have to go on epidemiological data which will tend to underestimate these numbers, but let's go with the 1 in 400,000 number. Also that's manipulations not patients, so if the average patient gets manipulated 10 times, that's 1 in 40,000 patients who get manipulated, just using the 1 in 10 as a representative figure. But the real question is, and I think the BMJ article did a good job of bringing this to the forefront, is how we think about things in medicine is risk versus benefit, I know I've said that before on the show. You can't just consider risk, you have to consider the risk versus the benefit. There are certainly lots of medical procedures that we recommend that have complication rates on the same order of magnitude or greater, but when the benefit is far greater still, then it justifies that risk, I often use chemotherapy as the example, chemotherapy is horribly toxic and causes damage but the benefits of chemotherapy in terms of improved survival outweigh the risks of the toxicity of the chemotherapy itself. So what the BMJ article did is that they reviewed the literature on the risk, it's low but it seems to be there, and there's evidence to show the causal effect, you know people who were fine and then very soon after getting their neck manipulated having a stroke from a dissection, so there's a pretty clear temporal sequence there. And also this can happen in otherwise young and healthy individuals, it's not like an 80 year-old who is at high risk for a stroke anyway, we're talking about a 30 year-old suddenly having a dissection and a stroke which could not only be neurologically devastating but could lead to death. So even though it's not uncommon, you have to consider that the outcome, stroke and death, is extremely bad and so we're much less tolerant of major or serious adverse events. So what's on the other side of the equation, what's the benefit of spinal manipulation for neck pain and headaches? Well, it turns out that it's not there at all, that there's really no evidence to support that cervical manipulation is superior to more benign or less invasive interventions like mobilisation that I mentioned or just massage, something really benign like a basic neck massage, not deep massage or anything that would be a risk also to damage to the delicate tissues of the neck but just a superficial massage. So it's not superior to, and it's much more risky than, these more benign procedures. That's pretty much it. That's the death-knell for any medical intervention. It's more dangerous and not better than some other alternative. Then what's the reason for using it instead of the other alternative? There isn't any. It becomes completely unethical. I don't even buy that there's really significant benefit from any of these things, I mean I think that most of the data is comparing them but not really comparing them to placebo, so they don't really establish that any of them are more effective than placebo, but they say that OK yeah, manipulation and mobilisation and massage are all about the same in terms of their effect. One study that I looked at recently compared it to kineseotaping which is essentially just applying this specific kind of tape to the affected muscles, that was as effective as neck manipulation, but again, neither compared to placebo so we don't know that either was effective at all, probably some mild temporary benefit, but there doesn't appear to be any increased benefit to doing this high-velocity more dangerous neck manipulation. So the BMJ article concluded and I completely agree with the conclusion that it's therefore inadvisable, I would go as far as to say that it's actually unethical, it doesn't make medical sense. Of course the chiropractors are responding defensively. Remember the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Association British Chiropractic Association]?

B: Oh yeah.

E: Oh sure.

S: The same association that went after Simon Singh for daring to say that their treatments don't have any evidentiary basis. So their comment was

<blockquote>The cherry-picking of poor quality research needlessly raises alarm in patients and does little to help the people suffering from neck pain and headaches to choose the most appropriate treatment.</blockquote>

S: So I just want to pick out a logical fallacy or two in there.

J: Yeah it's the logical fallacy of bullshit.

S: Well it's definitely bullshit. So there's a [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx#25 begging the question] in there, because it says, it mentions "it does little to help people suffering from neck pain", that's sort of begging the question that they help people with neck pain or that this option that they're talking about of manipulation is of any benefit to neck pain, that has not been established. What's interesting as well is that they talk about cherry-picking when in fact the BMJ article reviewed systematic reviews, systematic reviews are the exact opposite of cherry-picking, right? They're systematic.

J&E: (laugh)

S: So it's fine, I mean it's fine that, what I notice a lot, just as a little aside, as a little skeptical aside, writing about these topics a lot, that the other side is starting to borrow and steal a lot of skeptical lingo.

E: Yeah.

S: You know, and then throwing it back at us. It's like they feel like if they just steal our language that they're putting themselves on equal footing.

R: That's par for the course.

E: Yeah, I don't remember them using the term cherry-picking much in the past.

S: Yeah, but I'm getting that thrown, oh you're cherry picking data, it's like hello, this is a systematic review. And I've had people accuse me of cherry-picking when I was citing, referencing systematic reviews.

J: Yeah, but they don't even know what that is, Steve, they're just using the words because they think it empowers them.

S: I think that they're parroting skeptical language because it's been out there so much on the internet, in a way it's a bit of a complement.

B: Oh yeah.

S: I honestly think that. But they don't understand how to actually use the critical thinking that's behind the terminology, they're just using it because it has the form of skeptical argument.

R: It's exactly like creationists using the term theory as if they know what it means.

S: Yeah, it is.

E: Right.

S: Interesting, so this is the same, the British Chiropractic Association is doing the same thing, but they're wrong. There have been several systematic reviews that show there's lack of superiority and there's growing evidence for risk, so some risk, no benefit. Not a good calculation. And the response of the chiropractic community, in my opinion, is a good example of why they are not a science based profession. Not that there's never any defensiveness or wrongness in how mainstream medicine responds to new information, there often is, but they're intransigent, I mean this has been going on for years, and they keep accusing anyone, rather than saying this is a very important issue, we need to study this carefully to make sure that we're not causing strokes in young people, rather than saying that, it's all defensiveness and this is an attack on chiropractic and this is bad for chiropractic, and they've been that way for years. So they're not really giving any ground, and that's because they're stuck in neutral, they're not science or evidence based. Science is a way to justify their profession, not to ask or answer the hard questions. But anyway, so good BMJ article, I was very happy to see that.

=== Ghost Train (35:39)===
[http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/05/Two-teens-killed-in-ghost-legend-game/UPI-55491338925923/ UPI.com: Two teens killed in ghost legend game]

S: Evan, on a lighter note, we're going to end the news segment on a lighter note, you're going to tell us about...

E: Oh.

S: It's not really a lighter note (laughs)

E: (laughs) not it's not.

S: It does involve some rather tragic deaths, but why don't you tell us about that?

E: Yeah.

B: Happy deaths.

E: Yep, science kills, paranormal can... well... I don't know.

J: Hey come on, you know?

E: Let's see. We talk quite a bit on the show about the very dangerous nature of pseudo-science and belief in the paranormal and in a lot of these cases we talk about how people become ill or die as a result of either being deceived by others or deceived by their own lack of critical thinking. And this week's particular case involves the death of two girls who died as a result of believing in ghosts based on a local urban legend. So last week, a group of high school kids from Poplar Bluff, Missouri packed into a Jeep Grand Cherokee one night and they drove off to a place called Wilcox Road in town where, and it's specifically where Wilcox Road intersects with the train tracks that run through town. And they were out playing a game called ghost train.

B: Oh boy.

E: The idea of this game is that you drive up and pull onto the train tracks and then you turn off the engine and you sit there and you let the windows fog up and it becomes very scary at night, the windows are fogged up, you can't quite see what's going on, you try your best to just scare the crap out of yourself in that situation because, well according to a website called strangeusa.com, this particular ghost story in this town describes the tale of a train derailment that occurred right at that intersection, roughly 100 years ago which killed everyone on board<ref>[http://www.strangeusa.com/Viewlocation.aspx?id=5996&desc=%20Wilcox%20Rd.%20Railroad%20Tracks%20%20Poplar%20Bluff%20%20Mo Wilcox Rd. Railroad Tracks] on StrangeUSA.com</ref>.

B: Whoa.

E: And it was said that a man was decapitated, he became an acranate, Bob.

B: Hah.

E: But authorities never found his head. And another tale has it that a pregnant woman's body was recovered but the baby was missing from the womb.

J: What?

S: Sounds apocryphal.

E: Yeah, other people talk, people who have played this game report that they can hear a train whistle in the background and it gets louder and louder and then all of a sudden stops or they'll see a light when they're looking down the train tracks and suddenly it disappears.

R: It's funny that we had the exact same ghost story about the train tracks in my small town growing up.

S: Yeah.

E: Yeah.

S: It's a local urban...

E: Local urban legend, you have them all over towns. The danger, the obvious danger of this one is that you're putting yourself in the line of potentially a train coming along and unfortunately that's exactly what happened this night, and when the five kids inside finally realised that oh my gosh, there's a real train coming they panicked, they couldn't get the car started.

J: Yeah, we hear the ghost train! We hear the ghost train! It's coming! It's a real train you guys, get out!

E: You can see the light, here it comes! Uh, it's a real... So they couldn't get the car started, had electrical problems, whatever, so three of the kids managed to get out, but two of the girls, they panicked, they were still locked in their seatbelts, they were so upset that they couldn't get out in time and sure enough, they were in it, the train hit and they are dead.

B: Wow.

E: One of the other kids who did get out, they claimed to the authorities that they weren't there playing the game, that wasn't the reason, they said that the car just happened to stall out at that point and so forth, but other people who live in the area report that this happens a lot. The urban legend has caught on and other kids on a regular basis are seen out there doing this exact thing.

J: If anything, them getting killed would probably generate a lot of ghost stories.

E: Yes, a lot of ghost stories. And other people, it might lure, they're afraid it might lure other people out there to actually see if now, if they can contact maybe the spirits of these two dead girls now who have died there and so it's going to, it perpetuates the myth in a certain sense and the ironic thing guys, is that according to local authorities, that train derailment never happened 100 years ago, that itself is an entire myth.

B: Oh my god I'm not surprised.

E: Yeah, clearly about the guy and the decapitated head, and the woman's body and the pregnant and all of that, but there never was a train derailment there to begin with, so it's just totally, totally made up, just kids doing what kids do, telling ghost stories at night trying to scare themselves, but man!

S: I don't think Evan, that they're necessarily believed, the ghost story. We can't really conclude that, I mean this is the kind of games that teenagers do just as, on a dare, just something fun to do, to spook each other, even if they don't believe it, it's like playing with a Ouija board, you don't necessarily have to believe that the demons are moving the thing around, it's just sort of a fun game and you suspend disbelief. The tragedy of it is that it's just stupid to park on the train tracks and let the windows fog up, I mean just don't do that as part of your game, that was the tragic thing.

J: Somebody came up with the idea, yeah we're going to park our car on the train tracks and we're going to let the windows fog up and we're going to wait, I mean.

S: Yeah.

J: Really guys, that's your idea?

R: Our town had that one and also another one where there was an intersection in the middle of some woods and the woods are supposed to be haunted and you're supposed to go in your car as fast as you can at midnight and turn off your headlights and fly through the stop light, or the stop sign and if you do it you'll see a ghost and kids do it.

E: Yeah, you'll become one.

R: It's so ridiculous but I guess that's...

S: You always have to wonder, the origin of the story is it let's see if we could get some people to do things really stupid and dangerous.

R: Yeah, let's see if we can kill some teenagers, yeah.

== Who's That Noisy? (41:37)==

S: So Evan, it's time for Who's That Noisy!

E: Love this part of the show, Who's That Noisy. We get to play a little noise for you and you have to guess exactly who or what or whom made that noise.

S: Who, who made that noise.

E: Yes well, for those of us who are grammatically challenged, whom made that noise. (laughs) Which is me and two other people. So last week's Who's That Noisy is again as follows.

<blockquote>And what it is is as your, probably your readers know, is that the sun is made of plasma, it's a fourth state of matter so...</blockquote>

E: So is plasma really the fourth state of matter?

B: Yes. Yes.

E: There's a little argument on the message boards. About that.

B: Really!?

E: Well they're saying that, you know...

B: Ionised gas?

E: Yeah, ionised gas and therefore can you really call it a fourth state of matter.

S: Yes.

B: Yeah, I mean that's pretty, I mean I've encountered that phrase over and over and over for years and years so lots of people, lots of people that I think are, you know, know what they're talking about, consider it the fourth state of matter. And the fact that it's the fourth I guess is meaningless because you could name them any way you want but it's a distinct form of matter from what I could tell, I mean I don't know what arguments they were making but I'm kind of surprised that would be, there would be some controversy over that.

J: Even questioned, yeah.

E: Controversy then, OK, all right, just want to make sure I didn't miss something because that's what I understood it to be, the classic fourth state of matter, well since we've learned what plasma finally was, but who said that, I mean who's voice is that. Anyone know [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Linnell John Linnell]?

J: Of course.

R: They Might Be Giants.

E: They Might Be Giants, one half of the ultimate alternative rock duo.

R: But he taught me that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

E: He did tell you that, and actually they borrowed that from a song prior to that, so they kind of remade that, yeah. Let's see how it went. The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a giant nuclear furnace where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions...

R: At a temperature of millions of degrees.

E: There you go, that's right.

R: The sun is hot, the sun is not a place where we can live. I'll stop.

E: And it goes on. But you know, they realised that, well they had an album back in 2009 called ''Here Comes Science'' and they wrote a bunch of songs and they, with the help of some scientists, they ran their lyrics past them to make sure that they were being correct and technical with the science as any good responsible patrons of science would be, and they decided that they have to make and amendment or they had to redo the song to correctly state that it's not gas, that it's plasma. So they came up with the revision of that song called ''Why Does the Sun Really Shine?'' The sun is a miasma of incandescent plasma, the sun's not simply made out of gas, no no no. The sun is a quagmire, it's not made of fire, forget what you've been told in the past. Very cool, as always you know.

R: Thank you, guys.

E: As always, it's one of the most clever bands in history, and they are wonderful, they are excellent stewards of science, popularising science to the masses and to children as well, through their music so I've been a fan, well for ever.

J: What was their song, Mr Worm, remember that one?

R: Uh, Dr. Worm. Sounds right.

E: Awesome. Now, we had a couple of people guess correctly, the first one to guess correctly, specifically with that name, was alh from the message boards who said that that was John Linnell from They Might Be Giants, and he even pulled out the exact interview that I pulled that clip from, it was in an interview with Astronomy Magazine as they were promoting their album.

S: Good work, good sleuthing.

E: Well done.

S: So what have you got for this week, Evan?

E: Without further delay, here we go with a brand new, fresh off the presses, Who's That Noisy?

<blockquote>(squeaking noises)</blockquote>

J: That's the noise people make when they get a puppy.

(laughter)

B: That's a little creepy actually.

J: All right, I'm going to make a guess that that is some type of non-humanoid animal making really funny cute noises, potentially maybe a bird.

E: Well you might be on to something, but you might not be or you may have you know, one or two little bits in there that are incorrect but we'll leave it to our listeners to come up...

J: One or two bits, I only had two bits!

E: (laughs) other than that, it was perfect. info@theskepticsguide.org is our email address so go ahead and send us your answers there or you can post them right on our forums, on our message boards, sguforums.com, under podcast episodes, podcast episode 361 specifically, and good luck everyone.

== Questions and Emails ==
=== Homeopathic Pharmacists(46:30)===

S: Got an email here from Toni Michel from Stuttgart in Germany, sorry if I did not pronounce that correctly.

E: Stuttgart, awesome.

S: Stuttgart!

E: Is that where they make Porsches?

S: Is that right?

E: I think the Porsche factory is there if I'm not mistaken. Yeah! Oh I'd love to go there.

J: Oh yeah!

E: Baby.

S: He writes:

<blockquote>I want to address a topic of utmost importance: the medical credibility lend to non-physicians. Pretty much all German pharmacies sell homeopathic remedies. After gathering a relatively big amount of information about current studies and so on, I wanted to confront some local pharmacists, how to justify selling, what obviously doesn't work? The responses were unexpected, to say the least. I went to 4 pharmacies, stating that I'm "interested to learn about homeopathy", setting up a little trap, hoping to get the every-day response to a question like that. All 4 pharmacists I talked to, assured me (enthusiastically), that homeopathy certainly works and that it's a great way to go. They were clear that there is not the least(!) doubt about the effectiveness. (I was even told that homeopathy was, in fact, real medicine and shall not be confused with nutritional supplements. When confronted with the studies, they avoided to address any argument I made. Instead their responses became, ironically enough, some kind of liquid. I heard some arguments from ignorance, some false dichotomies and constantly moving the goalpost. I don't know about pharmacists in the US, but in Germany they have almost the same credibility as physicians. They sell a big variety of (non-homeopathic, actually real) medicine on own judgement and even tell people what dosage to take. Physicians usually only get consulted by Germans, if the state of health appears to be somewhat critical. Most medicine is sold purely on the pharmacists judgement. Today I discovered how full of crap they really are. I would love to hear your opinions on the topic. Especially regarding the potential risk of people selling medicine while basically believing in magic.</blockquote>

S: So, thank you Toni, that's very interesting. I wasn't aware that pharmacists had independent prescribing power.

B: Wow.

S: That's interesting.

J: That sounds dangerous, I mean think about it.

E: That's too powerful, yeah.

J: I don't know what their, the regulations are in Germany but pharmacists do of course get an education, but I don't know, they're not doctors and a very good argument could be made about how they're not really educated enough to make those types of called.

S: Well I'll tell you my personal opinion, this is pharmacists in the US. They're obviously very educated and knowledgeable about pharmacology, I mean I think your average pharmacologist may know more about pharmacology than your average doctor, and they're extremely useful, but knowing about the drugs is not the same as being able to practice clinical medicine, so there's an entire skill set that pharmacists are not taught, so that's why independently prescribing medication, you know it depends where you're drawing the line, if you think about it, we have over-the-counter medication, people could actually prescribe themselves medication as long as it's over-the-counter so could there be another layer of medications that can be purchased with a pharmacist's consultation, that doesn't require a medical consultation? That's not entirely unreasonable.

R: Well we kind of almost have that in the US because of plan B. Plan B is a medication that is technically sold over-the-counter but it's kept behind the pharmacist's desk and you have to ask them for it and a pharmacist in many states can refuse to give it to you based on religion.

S: Yeah but that's all based on the whole abortion controversy.

R: Yeah I mean, it's not, that's what I'm saying, we have it, but that's exactly what that is though.

S: But it creates the same situation, yeah.

R: Because of that, yeah, it's become, yeah, that's...

S: Yeah, it's behind-the-counter over-the-counter medications, you know. Where you need a consultation with the pharmacist and they'll tell you about dosage and how to use it and that's fine but you know, I think you have to stop short of actually practising medicine because again, that requires a knowledge and skill set that pharmacists don't have.

E: Right.

S: But the other question here is what about pharmacists in Germany prescribing homeopathic potions and saying that they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, I mean that is the disturbing bit here.

E: You're on the home turf of homeopathy.

S: The thing is this is cultural, it's interesting, you know homeopathy is very popular in Europe because it was invented there by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hahnemann Samuel Hahnemann] but what's disappointing is that Germany has a long and proud tradition of science, especially in the area of chemistry and things like that, I mean they are a very rational people and yet just because of, again the cultural history, there's also a huge amount of popularity abject nonsense and magical potions. The compartmentalisation is just incredible, that these two things are existing side-by-side in the same culture.

R: Yeah, but what we see is that every culture has their particular brand of pseudo-science and unfortunately that's Germany's.

S: Yep, unfortunately. For those two listeners who don't know what homeopathy is, the quicky is, it's not, as Toni says, it's not herbal remedies or nutritional supplements, it's magic water. You take water, you take some fanciful ingredient that has nothing to do with anything, and you dilute it into non-existence so you end up with just the water you started with, and that's it. That's what homeopathy is, it's a completely...

E: The water has memory, Steve.

S: Yeah, it's a totally fake, magical potion and it's amazing that it exists in our modern world, it really is an embarrassment to our species that it's still around, but this is just a particularly egregious example of it and at least the United States isn't the worst at every pseudo-science, at least there are other parts of the country where that it can have...

E: World.

S: At least there are other parts of the world that have their own pseudo-science, but that's a small consolation. There is a PS to this email, Toni writes:

<blockquote>The reason I learned about this podcast is my older brother, Andreas Michel. He is a really great guy and a big fan of your show for quite some years now. It would be totally incredible, if you could greet him on the air. I probably wouldn't have to buy him birthday presents for the upcoming years.</blockquote>

S: Well, thank you Andreas for getting your little brother involved in skepticism and the SGU, we always appreciate that sort of thing.

E: Sehr gut.

R: You can forward those birthday presents that would have been purchased straight to us.

S: That's true, yes.

E: Yes.

J: (laughs)

== Name That Logical Fallacy ==
=== Congruence Bias (53:19) ===

S: All right, hey do you guys know, we're going to do a name that local fallacy. Do you guys know what the Congruence Bias is?

R: Hmm.

J: No I don't.

R: No.

E: Why haven't I heard of it?

S: Yes. So this is a good one, this is one that even otherwise well informed skeptics may not be completely familiar with.

E: Clearly.

S: The congruence bias is the mistake of testing only your own theory for something. It can be very subtle and again, it can take even otherwise critical thinking by surprise. So in other words, you come up with some hypothesis, and we do this every day, and then you seek confirming evidence or that hypothesis, and when you find it you go aha, I was right. But what you don't do is test specifically to see if your hypothesis is wrong and specifically you don't test other possible hypotheses. So let me give you an example from my own practice, from medicine, because this, doctors can fall for this all the time. So let's say that I notice, hey you know, a lot of my patients who have migraines drink a lot of caffeine. So then I will ask the next you know, 20 patients that I see with migraines what their caffeine intake, and lo and behold, most of them of all of them drink a lot of caffeine. So then I say, aha, caffeine worsens migraine headaches. That would be congruence bias. What I really need to do is ask people who don't have migraines if they drink caffeine, and maybe they drink caffeine at the same rate as the patients with migraines or I need to ask migraine patients if they have other lifestyle factors and maybe there's something else, maybe they have poor sleep or they eat watermelons, I don't know, there's something else that they could be consuming also, at the same rate, maybe it's just that these are two things that are common in culture, you know, consuming caffeine and having migraines and that have no specific correlation between them. Although, for the record, I do think that caffeine worsens migraines, but just using this as an example. SO our natural tendency is to just test our own hypothesis, not competing hypotheses. So this leads to confirmation bias, right? So it's a form of confirmation bias in fact. But it's a very subtle one because you think that you're testing a hypothesis, the problem is that you're just not testing all of the plausible competing hypotheses. This is also related to something that Sherlock Holmes said, which is a really good quote I like. He said, this is actually a quote that they pulled into the recent, one of the recent Sherlock Holmes movies. He said:

<blockquote>It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts</blockquote>

J: How did Arthur Conan Doyle get it right in so many ways? I mean...

S: And yet...

R: And still get it wrong on fairies.

S: And yet he believed in fairies.

E: (laughs) And ghosts.

J: It just seemed that he was so credulous, that he didn't...

S: He understood critical thinking and reason, and yet didn't employ it himself, that's the...

E: Refused to employ it.

S: So Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of Sherlock Holmes was taken in by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_fairies Cottingley Fairies], these two young girls who took pictures of cardboard cut-outs of fairies and you know what's really interesting? I was watching the Antique Roadshow the other day, this is the Antique Roadshow from I think Ireland, and the last bit they had on the show was two women, one fairly old and one middle-aged and they had pictures of the two girls with the Cottingley Fairies. And they were the original photographs because the older woman was her daughter, was the daughter of one of those girls and they had all these original Cottingley Fairy photographs, it was unbelievable.

R: That's really cool.

J: What were they worth?

E: Oh gosh, we've got to get our hands on...

S: Well you couldn't price it, how could you put a price on those, they're priceless.

R: That's the point of the show, Steve.

B: 500 bucks!

S: I know, but sometimes they do say listen, they're worth whatever somebody thinks they're worth, there's no comparison, they're unique historical items, you know? Sometimes they do say that, they might have thrown out a figure of 10 or 20 thousand pounds, I don't know, but it was unbelievable, but what's really funny is, now of course all of these photographs, they also had a camera that Arthur Conan Doyle gave to one of the girls to help them take more pictures of fairies.

E: Cool.

S: And of course, these photos were exposed as frauds but the woman, the older woman showed one photo and said, this photo is real. (laughs)

E: Oh no! Oh no!

J: (laughs)

S: Real fairies.

J: That's awesome.

S: They went back (laughs) and they really thought that they were real.

E: 100 years later, oh my god.

R: I wonder how that woman feels about raising such a credulous daughter.

S: (laughs)

R: Like how she would feel if she was still alive, like oh god really? You believed me when I told you that?

B: Imagine having such an iconic hoax in your family history, wouldn't that be really cool and kind of embarrassing at the same time.

R: It'd be awesome.

S: Well I guess that's how they rationalised it to themselves, that at the end they got a real picture of fairies, and she had some reason like, see how it looks a little different, that's because it's really, you know? Confirmation bias. A little congruence bias, she found a reason to find that the picture was real without testing other hypotheses. So yeah, it was fascinating, fascinating to watch that.
{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}{{anchor|theme}}

== Science or Fiction (59:26) ==
S: All right, well let's move on to Science or Fiction.

Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.

S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. I know you're going to love this, we have a theme this week with four items. (laughs) Three of which of course are true, one is fake. The theme is Dutch astronomer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens Christiaan Huygens] (pronounced strangely). (laughs)

J: What!?

R: (laughs) Wait a minute, there has to be a rule, if you can't say his name...

E: Hoigins?

S: It's Christiaan Huygens but actually his name, I listened to the pronunciation of his name online and if the internets is correct is Hur-hens.

R: All right...

B: What the hell.

E: Now I've heard it, no no no I've never heard it pronounced that way.

J: Remember on the Carol Burnett Show Steve, Lieutenant Huigens?

S: Lieutenant Huigens? Or Professor Huigens? Whatever, so yeah Christiaan Huygens, we'll Americanise it for the show, so yeah, from April 1629 to July 1695, the famous Dutch astronomer who discovered the, or investigated the rings of Saturn and discovered Saturn's largest moon Titan, but here are some other interesting facts about Christiaan Huygens, are you ready?

J: Yeah.

R: Yep.

S: OK. Item number one. He was the first to postulate, in 1678, the particle theory of light. Item number two. In 1695 he wrote a book expounding on his belief in extraterrestrial life. Item number three. He invented and patented the pendulum clock in 1657. And item number four. He designed a basic internal combustion engine fuelled by gunpowder. Rebecca, go first.

R: Might as well, because I don't have a damn clue.

(laughter)

R: Uuuuh, particle theory of light, 1678. Seems a little early, but OK. 1695, extraterrestrial life. I don't know, why not? Sure. I know there were a lot of theories of moon people and whatnot back then, why not write a whole book on it? Invented and patented the pendulum clock in 1657. That seems really late to me, to be inventing a pendulum clock. But what do I know about pendulum clocks? Answer: nothing.

(laughter)

R: Basic internal combustion engine fuelled by gunpowder? OK, why not? Sure, that's uuum, I mean that's well outside of what I would have thought his area or expertise is, but I don't know, I'm going with the clock thing, I don't know. You win, Steve, you win.

(laughter)

S: All right, Evan, go next. 1678, particle theory of light, well this guy, this guy, this Dutchman, well the Dutch in the 1600s were just the bomb as far as Western Civilisation goes, they were inventing all sorts of things during this time, they were, you know, the first republic I think since what, the fall of the Roman Empire, before Rome became an empire and fell I think, if memory serves, so they were at the head of the Enlightenment in lots of ways, they did navigation, they did seamanship, clocks were part of what they did...

R: Showing off.

E: Telescopes, tons and tons of stuff, but there were a lot of Dutch inventors, not just Huygens, there were several.

B: Huygens.

E: Huygens. H-man. And was the particle theory of light one of them? Perhaps, perhaps so. But in 1695 he wrote a book expounding on his belief in extraterrestrial life. I think that one could be true. You know, he might have been just questioning what if the surface of the moon had people like us on it or something to that effect, it's one thing to just question these things, so I don't think that's a problem. The pendulum clock in 16... I don't know if he invented it, ugh, himself, maybe perfected it, you might be onto something Rebecca. The internal combustion engine fuelled by gunpowder. Nice idea but kind of dangerous if you ask me, but I'm tending, I tend to think that he might have designed it, I don't know if it ever got anywhere, actually got a working model, you know you can make a design of just about anything, so I think that one's right, I think the extraterrestrial one is science, I think it comes down to the particle theory of light versus the clock. Yeah, I don't think he invented the clock. I think he did something to perfect it or make it more efficient or something to that effect so I'll agree with Rebecca, that one's fiction.

R: Woop.

S: OK, Bob.

B: Particle theory of light, it seems like so many people kind of had that idea, it wouldn't surprise me if he did. It does seem a little early but um, yeah it doesn't surprise me, nothing's jumping out at me on that one. The extraterrestrial life, I don't know, that sure, yeah I could totally buy that, kind of ringing a bell, but can't really trust that feeling but I don't have too much of a problem with that. And even the internal combustion engine fuelled by gunpowder, you know that seems a little bit early as well, to come up with that idea, but it is just a design, it's nothing beyond that so it could just be a very very basic, you even have the word basic in number four there, so that one doesn't strike me a crazy either, the one that's rubbing me the wrong way for some reason is the pendulum clock just like Rebecca and Evan, did he invent it? And I'm so pissed at myself because I actually looked this up like three months ago when I was doing a news item on clockwork, so I'm kind of pissed that I don't remember. So it's just rubbing me the wrong way that he invented it and patented it. I mean what kind of patent system did they even have back them. I'm not sure but that doesn't strike me as, I could be wrong but I'm not feeling right abut that either, so I'm just going to say that the pendulum is fiction as well.

R: Woop.

S: Jay.

J: Um.

B: (laughs)

E: (laughs) no pressure, Jay.

J: The first two are the two that bothered me. The particle of light and the extraterrestrial life are the two that I'm going to talk about. The fist one, he was the first to postulate, 1678, particle theory of light, that's damn, I don't know, I'm not exactly sure, did he make up, was he the first to really come up with that? I don't know. And then the second one about him saying that in 95 that he believed in extraterrestrial life, that seems really early for someone to be talking about that. I was going to pick the first one, so I'm going to go with the second one and say that he didn't think of aliens that early.

S: OK. You all agree that he designed a basic internal combustion engine fuelled by gunpowder, and that one is... science.

E: (sighs) (laughs)

J: Yeah. Knew somebody did.

S: He did in fact design a basic internal combustion engine.

B: Wow.

S: But he never managed to build it. So I did have to say design it, and it was basic, it wasn't obviously a sophisticated or later one. And it did help later, people who later did design and build the internal combustion engine.

B: They refer to it?

S: Yeah, there was apparently some continuity there.

B: Cool.

S: It wasn't like daVinci where he was sort of toiling by himself, Huygens was actually engaging with the scientific community, publishing, writing books, and people knew about his ideas. And he was incredibly influential, the guy was, well you'll see, we'll go through all the items. And really I did know about the guy, I didn't realise how many things he had is fingers in, it's unbelievable.

B: Yeah! If three quarters of these are true, it's interesting.

S: (laughs)

B: Oh, by definition they are!

E: (laughs)

S: Right. Imagine if he actually managed to build the combustion engine, maybe just...

B: Oh boy.

S: ...you know, with help from an engineer or something. So let's go on to number one. You also all agree with this one, that he was the first to postulate in 1678 the particle theory of light, you all think this one is science and this one is the... fiction!

J: Aaah!

R: Aaah!

E: What!?

J: Damn! Damn! Damn!

S: This one is the fiction.

B: I knew it!

J: Daaah! Aaaah!

E: I knew it, I was going to say it.

B: Crap.

S: Because he was the first one to devise the wave theory of light.

R: Aaah, sneaky.

S: In 1678. Yeah, so he's the first one to come up with the idea that light travels in waves, the prevailing idea was, well I don't know that there really was a prevailing idea...

J: Now I hate that guy.

E: Yeah, he was a jerk.

S: He was contradicted later by Isaac Newton who really pushed the particle theory of light, who tried to explain, like when Newton was studying optics and refraction and all of that stuff, he was using, thinking of light in terms of particles whereas Huygens made observations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence birefringence].

B: Wha?

S: Birefringence doing experiments, experimenting with double refraction in Icelandic crystals, or calcite, and in order to explain his results, he came up with the notion that light was travelling in waves, and he was exactly right, you know, light does travel as waves and that's why you do get those...

B: So was Newton!

S: ...those kind of things. And of course, you know Newton later came up with the notion that light travels as particles and then there was research showing that photons of light do behave like particles, like when they strike something else, when they impact with another particle, but eventually of course, this led to quantum theory and the notion that, the duality, the wave-particle of duality of light, it travels like a wave but then interacts like a particle, so they were both right, both Huygens and Isaac Newton were correct.

B: Ah, crap.

S: So that means that in 1695 he wrote a book expounding on his belief in extraterrestrial life is science, I did not know this, very interesting, right before his death, this was the last thing, I think the last book that he wrote, and he had some very interesting ideas, first of all, I think this was, I think maybe he published this at the end of his life because it was extremely heretical to say that there was life outside of the earth.

J: I hope I have something that kick-ass to say, like I'm dying and I'm like... ugh, aliens, oh, exist, oh. Right?

S: Right... his book was ''Cosmotheoros'', discussed the notion of extraterrestrial life, now he had an interesting idea, he thought that water was essential for life and therefore if there was life on other planets there must be water on these planets as well, so he thought that the property of water varied from planet to planet, so in other words if there's life on Venus, there must be water on Venus, but Venus is closer to the sun so the water would just evaporate away, so the water must behave differently on Venus than it does on Earth, and if there's life on Jupiter, then that water on Jupiter must again, so that it's not frozen solid, it must behave differently on Jupiter, so kind of a, from a modern perspective...

J: Boy, he was stupid!

(laughter)

S: ...from a modern perspective it's kind of a fanciful notion, but this is just how, just thinking about how could life exist on these other bodies, and using his telescope he made observations of Mars and Jupiter and thought he saw light and dark spots which he interpreted as possibly being due to water, I think this was partly what led, it wasn't exactly the canals on Mars, but he did interestingly make low-res observations of Mars and included water and therefore life, an interesting similarity to later thought processes. Percival Lowell, a later astronomer just thought of the canals on Mars. So I thought that was kind of interesting, and he said that he knew that this was heretical and was going against what it said in the Bible, though he did argue that while the Bible doesn't mention life on other planets, neither does it specifically say there isn't life on other planets, so that was his justification for that. Yeah, interesting, extraterrestrials in 1695. How about that? Which means he invented and patented the pendulum clock in 1657.

E: He did.

S: He needed a more accurate time keeper for his astronomical observations so he invented one, and the pendulum clock was the most accurate form of time-keeping for centuries, until I think the early 20th century. So Jay, do you know what a Horologist is?

J: (laughs)

R: Oh, don't... don't.

J: Come on Steve, who are talking to about that?

R: Don't.

S: It's somebody who studies time-keeping devices.

E: Oh Horoscope, of course.

S: Yeah, like a horoscope. A mathematician, astronomer, physicist and horologist. He actually contributed to the modern form, nomenclature of calculus, he was the first to describe the centripetal force, obviously his observations of Saturn I think are what he's most famous for, and invented devices like the pendulum clock. He also described the idea pendulum, mathematically described the ideal pendulum with a massless cord. You know, that it's swinging from. It goes along with developing a timepiece based upon it. And he did do that, he did like to try to invent things based upon underlying scientific discoveries that he made. For example, he invented, he also by the way patented a pocket watch and he invented a 31 tone to the octave keyboard instrument that made use of his discovery of the 31 equal temperament, which is this part of his sound investigations.

J: Very cool.

E: He was no dummy.

S: No, this guy's a polymath, he was a Renaissance man.

J: Brilliant. He was one of several of that time too, I mean he wasn't the only one inventing and creating. The Dutch were incredible, it was an incredible century with the Dutch.

S: I had fun with that one (laughs).

R: Yeah I could tell.

E: I did too. Do you think we'll ever pronounce his name correctly though?

S: Christiaan Huygens.

(laughter)

S: Nah, it's, wrong country.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:14:50) ==

S: All right, well Jay, do you have a quote for us this week?

J: I have a quote from another renaissance man, named Bertrand Russell.

E: Perhaps the most quotable man on this show.

(inaudible)

S: Bertie? Sure.

E: Every fifth you would quote him apparently.

J: I can't, I can't help it, I keep stumbling across these phenomenal quotes from the man.

S: And forgetting that you've used them before.

J: It's very likely that I've said this one before but it's so good that I'm going to say it again. This was sent in by a listener named Steven Rogers, this was a quote of Bertrand's from the book he wrote called ''The ABC of Relativity'' and this quote is:
<blockquote>Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas; its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved.
</blockquote>

J: Thank you Bertrand for putting that so eloquently and so precisely.

S: Yeah, that's awesome.

R: Word.

S: Good job.

J: Mr. Russell.

E: His rap name would be B. Rus.

J: (laughs) B...

E: Big B. Rus.

R: B. Rus.

J: Bertrand Russell!

== Announcements (1:16:00) ==

J: So guys, we have TAM coming up, that's July 12th, and at TAM this year we're doing a poker tournament on Saturday night and you can pre-register for that by going to skepticspoker@gmail.com. Send me your name and make sure I have your current email address and we'll be in touch with you about the details.

S: Now I understand Jay, this isn't actually the first TAM poker event.

J: Yeah I there there has been six other Thursday night poker events that people were having before TAM and the organisers of that are not going to be there this year, from what I've come to find out today.

S: Yeah this is the first one that the SGU is going to make awesome.

J: Yeah, you know, we're bringing in other skeptics that are going to come in and sit at the tables and we're going to have prizes and we're doing our own version of this. Please do email us, let us know that you're coming. Saturday night at 11 o'clock.

S: All right, thanks Jay. And thank you all for joining me again this week.

J: Thanks, Steve.

R: Thank you Steve.

B: Surely.

E: Thanks, Doctor.

S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro301}}
== References ==
<references />
{{Navigation}} 
{{Page categories
|Alternative Medicine = y 
|Ghosts & Demons = y 
|History = y 
|Homeopathy = y 
|Nature & Evolution = y 
|Neuroscience & Psychology = y 
|Technology = y 
}}

Template:EpisodeList2026

2026-04-16T23:49:05Z

Xanderox: tiny fix

Template:EpisodeList2024

2026-03-09T06:05:36Z

Xanderox: 1000 needs proofing

Template:SGU episode list

2026-03-09T06:02:24Z

Xanderox: this template was missing 2025 and 2026

<noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] structure.

* Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, {{i}}, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon, {{Open}}.

* Once all the transcription is finished, the page should be marked with <code><nowiki>{{mag}}</nowiki></code> to add the magnifying glass icon, signifying that it needs to be proof-read, {{mag}}.

* Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon, {{tick}}.

* Where an initial transcription is done using a machine transcription, the page should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{a}}</nowiki></code> to add the AI speech-to-text icon, {{a}}.

* Transcriptions using automated bots, such as "[[Template:Transcription-bot|'''transcription-bot''']]", should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{bot}}</nowiki></code> to add the robot icon, {{bot}}.

We are slowly working on updating the tables for the entries for older episodes, like the one for [[Template:EpisodeList2022|episodes in 2022]]. Templates for these years' tables of episodes are where users can update the episodes' transcription progress and add useful information to the tables.

For the "Non-News Segment" column, we suggest prioritizing the segments in the order below, since the column can be sorted alphabetically by the first letter of the top-listed segment:
* ''What's the Word?''
* ''Forgotten Superheroes of Science''
* ''Name That Logical Fallacy''
* ''Dumbest Thing of the Week''
* ''Potent Quotables''
* and finally ''Quickie with _ROGUE_''
* followed by any other special segments that aren't regular episode features.

 '''''What follows is the episode list as displayed on the home page and the episode list page.''''' 
-----------------------------------
</noinclude>
Below are collapsible tables with links to all the SGU episodes, sortable by date, transcription status, and various notable episode features. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] outline.
{{anchor|jump}} 
''Jump to: [[#2035|2035]], [[#2024|2024]], [[#2023|2023]], [[#2022|2022]], [[#2021|2021]], [[#2020|2020]],
[[#2019|2019]], [[#2018|2018]], [[#2017|2017]], [[#2016|2016]], [[#2015|2015]], [[#2014|2014]], [[#2013|2013]],
[[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]],
[[#2005|2005]]''

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|     {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|-
|    {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|     {{a}}
| –  initial transcription by Google Speech API
|-
|    {{tick}}
|  –  episode proof-read
|     {{bot}}
| –  initial transcription by high quality "[[Template:Bot|'''transcription-bot''']]"
|}
 
{{EpisodeList2026}}
{{EpisodeList2025}}
{{EpisodeList2024}}
{{EpisodeList2023}}
{{EpisodeList2022}}
{{EpisodeList2021}}
{{EpisodeList2020}}
{{EpisodeList2019}}
{{EpisodeList2018}}
{{EpisodeList2017}}
{{EpisodeList2016}}
{{EpisodeList2015}}
{{EpisodeList2014}}
{{EpisodeList2013}}
{{EpisodeList2012}}
{{EpisodeList2011}}
{{EpisodeList2010}}
{{EpisodeList2009}}
{{EpisodeList2008}}
{{EpisodeList2007}}
{{EpisodeList2006}}
{{EpisodeList2005}}

Template:EpisodeList2026

2026-03-09T05:59:06Z

Xanderox: FTFY :-)

SGU Episodes

2026-03-09T05:54:22Z

Xanderox: not sure why the episode column for 2026 is so wide... anyway, thanks HearMe and Mheguy for keeping the lights on and keeping things going!!!

[[File:LogoSGU.png|right|150px]]


Below are collapsible tables with links to all the SGU episodes, sortable by date, transcription status, and various notable episode features. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] outline.
{{anchor|jump}} 
''Jump to: [[SGU Episode 762|2035]], [[#2026|2026]], [[#2025|2025]], [[#2024|2024]], [[#2023|2023]], [[#2022|2022]], [[#2021|2021]], [[#2020|2020]], [[#2019|2019]], [[#2018|2018]], [[#2017|2017]], [[#2016|2016]], [[#2015|2015]], [[#2014|2014]], [[#2013|2013]],
[[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]],
[[#2005|2005]]''

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|     {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|-
|    {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|     {{a}}
| –  initial transcription by Google Speech API
|-
|    {{tick}}
|  –  episode proof-read
|     {{bot}}
| –  initial transcription by high quality "[[Template:Bot|'''transcription-bot''']]"
|}
 
{{EpisodeList2026}}
{{EpisodeList2025}}
{{EpisodeList2024}}
{{EpisodeList2023}}
{{EpisodeList2022}}
{{EpisodeList2021}}
{{EpisodeList2020}}
{{EpisodeList2019}}
{{EpisodeList2018}}
{{EpisodeList2017}}
{{EpisodeList2016}}
{{EpisodeList2015}}
{{EpisodeList2014}}
{{EpisodeList2013}}
{{EpisodeList2012}}
{{EpisodeList2011}}
{{EpisodeList2010}}
{{EpisodeList2009}}
{{EpisodeList2008}}
{{EpisodeList2007}}
{{EpisodeList2006}}
{{EpisodeList2005}}

[[Category:Navigation pages]]

SGU Episode 903

2025-11-17T05:10:59Z

Xanderox: /* Science or Fiction (1:40:05) */ redirect created

{{Editing required
|transcription =
|proof-reading = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 903
|episodeDate = {{900s|903|boxdate}} 
|verified = 
|episodeIcon = File:903 new aging technique.jpg
|caption = A slice of Martian meteorite {{w|Northwest Africa 7034|"Black Beauty."}} The color is added to indicate different elements. Using a new instrument, scientists estimated this meteorite to be 2.2 billion years old.

|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|evan =y
|guest1 =RS: {{w|Richard Saunders (skeptic)|Richard Saunders}}, Australian skeptic
|qowText = Collectively we make this future that we surprise ourselves with.
|qowAuthor = {{w|Adam Buxton}}, English actor

|downloadLink = {{900s|903|download}} 

|forumLink = https://sguforums.org/index.php?topic=53935.0
|}}


== Introduction, Florida, crocs, and iguanas ==
''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the {{SGU|link=y}}. Today is Thursday, October 27th 2022, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella

'''B:''' Hey, everybody!

'''S:''' Cara Santa Maria

'''C:''' Howdy.

'''S:''' Jay Novella

'''J:''' Hey guys.

'''S:''' Evan Bernstein.

'''E:''' Good evening, everyone.

'''S:''' So I wonder how many of our listeners have noticed that we're recording on Thursday now instead of Wednesday.

'''C:''' Oh, right. Because you do say the date of the recording, not the date that we air.

'''S:''' Yeah, because I want people to know when we have the conversation, not that people still don't email us saying, why didn't you talk about this thing that happened on Friday like after we recorded the show before it went on. ''(laughter)''

'''J:''' Because Friday doesn't exist yet.

'''S:''' Right.

'''C:''' Exactly.

'''S:''' We're in podcast time. So we had to change our night because of Cara because she moved to Florida to do her new job. How's it going?

'''C:''' Damn it.

'''S:''' How's the whole Florida new training thing going, Cara?

'''C:''' Oh, well, okay. This has nothing to do with the question you just asked, but kind of, because you said, how's it going? The first thing I thought was, I was walking to work the other day. So you guys, I walk to and from work every day, which everybody here thinks is bananas because hot and humid, but I love it. It's just like a mile each way, so 20 minutes, whatever. The other day I had my first iguana fell out of a tree right in front of me situation.

'''J:''' Did it scream as it went by or what happened?

'''E:''' You're a real Floridian now.

'''C:''' I'm a real Floridian. I walked to school in Crocs. I'm like, I'm just full on Florida girl now.

'''S:''' Not until you have an alligator stalking you.

'''E:''' Yeah, you do need to have a gator encounter.

'''S:''' Close encounter with a gator.

'''C:''' But really-

'''J:''' Can somebody explain Crocs to me? And I'm dead serious.

'''E:''' Shoes?

'''C:''' Yes, I will explain them to you. So they are foam, waterproof shoes that have a sport gear is what they call it down here when you flip the strap behind your heel. Usually you keep it flipped to the front because they're easy to slip on and off, but when you need them to be in sport gear, you put it behind your heel so you can go and they don't fall off.

''(Evan laughs)''

'''C:''' Okay, you didn't think that was as funny as I did. Literally people say that. They're like, oh, your Crocs are in sport gear.

'''S:''' You have a desert style.

'''C:''' Yeah. So when I first came here, the first day I went to HR and was signing paperwork and I was talking to the woman and I was like, oh yeah, I'm going to be walking to work. And she was like, are you out of your mind? And I was like, what do you mean? She's like, people don't walk here, which is true. I almost get hit by cars constantly. They're not used to pedestrians. It's hot, it's humid, whatever. It's a car culture. But she was like, go ahead, go online, buy yourself a pair of Crocs. Thank me later. And I was like, okay. And I did. And the best decision I ever made because it always rains here. And so you never know when you're going to be walking through puddles. You never know when you're going to step in mud. And Crocs are waterproof completely. They're just these molded foam shoes with holes in them.

'''J:''' Now what about the whole, like they look terrible angle?

'''C:''' They do look terrible, but they're just, it's because it's one solid piece, right? Usually shoes are like things glued and sewn together, but this is like one piece, like a molded shoe. And so yeah, they're hideous.

'''E:''' So you could 3D print your own Crocs.

'''C:''' You could, but that would not be comfortable because you want them to be properly.

'''S:''' Isn't function over fashion, like all of Florida, isn't like in their constitution or something?

'''C:''' Yes. Function over fashion is yes, the state motto. ''(Cara & Evan laugh)''

'''C:''' But they're super smart. And so I keep them, I keep my regular shoes in my backpack and when I get to school, I swap them out for my regular shoes. So anyway, I was walking to school and there's a thing here where apparently when it gets cold and we're not there yet, it's still warm out. So I feel like this iguana just slipped, but apparently when it gets cold, iguanas freeze and fall out of trees. And then they like are stunned when they hit the ground and scurry off. Or if they're still asleep, people collect them and then they either wait until they wake up or they call them because they're invasive. But this iguana fell, I swear, two feet from me.

'''S:''' Can you eat them?

'''C:''' I don't know. I wouldn't want to.

'''S:''' Can you make something out of their leather if you skin them?

'''C:''' Oh, probably. You could probably do some cool taxidermy with them because they're beautiful. They're like little dinosaurs. I've talked to multiple people who said an iguana has fallen on their head, which blows my mind because they're big and they break car windshields all the time. It's a thing here. Iguana strike.

'''S:''' That's right. The last time I was in Florida, there weren't a lot of iguanas. I guess recently their populations have been taken off?

'''C:''' I think they've been here a while, but it depends on where you were. So I'm in South Florida and just the area where I live near Fort Lauderdale and Davie is very iguana heavy and they like bodies of water. So if you're walking by a lot of little ponds and rivers and lakes and streams and things like that, they're just all over the banks and climbing the trees and everything.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Yeah. They're cool though, but yeah, they don't like them here. But I kind of like them.

=== Katy Perry's Eye 'Glitch' (4:53) ===

'''J:''' Cara, can I ask you something else that's related to women and possibly makeup?

'''C:''' Florida?

'''J:''' No.

'''C:''' Oh, yes.

'''J:''' So what's up with the Katy Perry eye situation? What do you think that was caused by?

'''C:''' So who shared this with us first? Is that you, Evan?

'''E:''' Oh, I did. Yes, yes I did. ''(Cara & Evan laugh)''

'''C:''' Okay. People who are listening, you have to see this video. I think it's been all over the internet, so hopefully you've seen it, but if not, make sure you watch it. So she looked like a droid, right?

'''S:''' Mhm.

'''C:''' Did you guys get that same vibe? Like she looked animatronic in the video?

'''S:''' Right.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' And that was one of the running sort of jokes online. But then I also found some posts they have the clip posted to YouTube a thousand times and a bunch of people saying, oh, here's the result of the vaccination, of the COVID vaccine.

'''S:''' Oh, my God.

'''E:''' That she's suffering perhaps paralysis of some sort due to the fact that she's an advocate for COVID vaccinations.

'''S:''' Evan, do you know why people say that?

'''E:''' Because they're dumb?

'''S:''' Because they're stupid.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''Yeah. So good. I was right.

'''S:''' You are correct, sir. ''(Evan laughs)''

'''S:''' That is not neurological. That is not paralysis or weakness or any medical neurological phenomenon at all.

'''C:''' So it wasn't droopy. It wasn't her face, there wasn't anything else in her face. Yes, it was unilateral. But if you watch the video, she closes both eyes like to blink and then one of them doesn't open. The other one opens and then she's like trying to open it and it can't open. And then she uses her finger and she opens it. And I'm looking at this video and thinking she's on stage. She's wearing a ton of stage makeup. Her eyelashes are amazing, but they're also out of control big.

'''E:''' Right.

'''C:''' Honestly, her eyes probably got stuck together from the eyelash glue.

'''S:''' I agree.

'''C:''' That's what it looks like to me.

'''S:''' Got stuck. Totally.

'''C:''' She's sweaty.

'''B:''' And it wasn't a bit?

'''C:''' Like melting. No, I don't think it was a bit. Like she looked kind of stressed about it.

'''E:''' Well, she actually posted today, today as we speak about it because the first comments she's publicly made about it. Let's see. On an [https://www.instagram.com/reel/CkOmjDWsada/ Instagram post], she says, welcoming all my flat earthers, spaces fakers, birds aren't realers, sky isn't bluers to come see my broken doll eye party trick in Las Vegas next year. So poking fun at the whole thing.

'''C:''' And it does have like doll eye vibe to it. It's very uncanny valley when she does that.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Yeah. Because it's not biological. That's why.

'''C:''' Right. Yeah. Because if it were biological, it wouldn't, it might look kind of different to us, but it would, it wouldn't look not real.

'''S:''' Yeah, exactly.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' People should just just stop diagnosing people on online on videos and stuff. ''(Evan laughs)'' I remember when, Oh look, Hillary coughed up a piece of her lung. No she didn't, stop it.

'''E:''' Oh my God ''(laughs)''

'''C:''' I mean, what was that? Actually, I'm trying to remember.

'''S:''' Probably a lozenge or something, you know.

'''S:''' Hey, you know who we haven't heard from in a long time?

'''C:''' Who?

'''E:''' Who's that Steve?

'''S:''' Uh, Richard Saunders. Remember that guy from Australia? We used to know.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Yes? Richard Saunders. The Skeptic zone.

'''J:''' I want to have his baby. That's where I'm at with him. ''(Evan laughs)''

'''C:''' In a while. Wow.

'''S:''' Wonder what he's up to. You ever seen him since 'Nam? I mean, peak pandemic.

'''E:''' Same, same thing.

'''C:''' 2019?

'''J:''' You want me to bring them in Steve?

'''S:''' Sure.

'''E:''' Can you? Jay? Can you?

'''J:''' Hold on. Give me a second. All right.

'''B:''' Snap your fingers. You got the gauntlet on Jay? Snap them.

=== Guest Rogue Richard Saunders (8:12) ===

'''J:''' Richard, are you there?

'''RS:''' What the hell?

'''S:''' Richard!

'''E:''' Oh my gosh.

'''RS:''' Sorry. I was just on the movie set and now I'm in this room. What the hell's going on here?

'''E:''' The magic of Hollywood.

'''RS:''' Oh, it's SGU. My goodness me. All right. All right. I'll tell the director I'll be back later.

'''S:''' Yeah. We're going to need you for a couple of hours, Richard.

'''RS:''' All right. Hi guys. Rogues. Hello.

'''B:''' What's up?

'''RS:''' It's been long.

'''J:''' Richard, how you doing man?

'''RS:''' I'm doing really well.

'''B:''' It's been too long my friend.

'''RS:''' It's been a long time and it's largely due to this pandemic and the ramifications. As you all know, in the years past we'd always see each other once or twice a year at TAM or Psychon or Dragoncon or wherever the hell it was. I even came to visit you guys once.

'''E:''' NECSS.

'''RS:''' Yeah. The pandemic came along and everything went sort of a haywire.

'''S:''' We haven't been collectively to Dragoncon for example in three years. NECSS has been online for three years.

'''RS:''' That's the last time I was, I think last time I saw you guys in the States would have been Dragoncon.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' It was.

'''RS:''' Then you came out here.

'''C:''' We saw you in 2019. Yeah. Right before the pandemic.

'''S:''' That was right before. That was the last trip we took before. Before ''it'' happened.

'''RS:''' That's right. But I make a joke about being on set. Luckily, now things are starting to get back to normal. I've been picking up a lot more movie and TV work and things like that, which I do as a part-time thing. And I spent a day filming on Thor some time ago because these things take a while then the movie came out. So I grew a beard and grew my hair for four months to look like a classical God. They dressed me up in robes and everything and I spent a whole day filming these amazing scenes with other gods around me, looking at Thor and reacting and going crazy. And if you freeze the movie, if you freeze the movie, you can actually see me for about two seconds.

'''E:''' You're my favorite deity, Richard.

'''RS:''' There you go. There I am. And I can honestly say I have played a classical God in a Marvel movie. So there you go.

'''C:''' Nice.

'''J:''' Do you still have a weekly podcast?

'''RS:''' [https://www.skepticzone.tv/ The Skeptic Zone]'s now in its heavens above 14th or 15th year.

'''E:''' Right?

'''RS:''' I kicked it off. Oh my gosh. I think I kicked it off the year I met all you guys in person. And I met you guys, most of you guys, at The Amazing Meeting in 2008.

'''E:''' 2000, yeah 8.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''RS:''' There's a great picture of us all together. And that's the year I kicked off The Skeptic Zone. And yeah, every week it's still coming out. I've had many reporters over the years and lots of things come and go, but it's been a huge part of my life. You can realize doing a weekly podcast for umpteen years, it's a huge part of your life if you look at your life as a whole and you think this whole section was dedicated or is still dedicated to this one endeavor. And it's a tribute to you guys especially because your show is a year or two older than mine. And all of us old timers, like Brian Dunning or Geo or from around the world, this is dedication. This is real dedication.

'''S:''' This is episode number 903 for us.

'''C:''' No.

'''B:''' Wowee wow.

'''E:''' Oh.

'''RS:''' My next episode will be 734. I'll catch up one day. I'll catch up one day.

'''C:''' That's how time works.

'''E:''' That's right.

'''J:''' Richard, you mentioned like how things have changed since the pandemic and it's so true. I mean, my perception on just how I spend my time with my friends outside of my house, everything is different, but it is the norm now.

'''RS:''' Look you get used to it. I mean, we all had the period where we couldn't do anything. I mean, especially here in Australia, the lockdowns were pretty harsh. You had to have a good reason to leave the house and there were restrictions on how far you could travel. It's all sort of fading a bit back into the memory now, but especially for me not being able to see my regular friends and of course, in the middle of all that, James Randi died, which hit me like a ton of bricks, you know?

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''RS:''' Apart from the influence Randi had on all our lives, as you all know, when you got to see him, he was a friend, as we call in Australia, a good mate, a buddy, a pal, and you hung out together and swapped stories and learned a lot and that all came to an end and that's still a sadness. I'm so glad I got to know him, as we all are, but wow, it's, and that's one of the big parts of our life too.

'''S:''' So Richard, what skeptical projects are you working on?

'''RS:''' Well, at the moment in Australia, we're gearing up for the big convention. Our first face-to-face convention since the beginning of the pandemic. We've had two conventions since the pandemic started online, which were very successful. They were great. People from around the world joined us, but at last we're coming to meet again and if you're in Australia and you want to come and meet all the skeptics face-to-face, we're meeting in Canberra, which is the capital of Australia, and this will be the first week end of December. All the information about the guest speakers is at [https://skepticon.org.au/ skepticon.org.au]. AU for Australia, and we've got, for example, talking about dedicated podcasters, we have the ESP, all the members of the [https://theesp.eu/ European Skeptics Podcast] coming.

'''J:''' Oh, awesome.

'''RS:''' Yeah. And it's the first time for many of the, one of them's been to Australia before, but it's the first time for others. We also have [https://www.clairek.com/about Claire Klingenberg], of course, who is the president of the European Skeptical Organizations and a host of local speakers, local Australian speakers talking about all sorts of wonderful things. We've got some international visits via the internet from somebody called Dr. Steve Novella. I've heard about him. He's going to be appearing, yeah, and our buddy Brian Dunning will be also appearing live via the screens to address everybody. But it'll be great. I mean, it'll be the wonderful things of seeing everybody. We'll have the dinner, we'll have the Bent Spoon Award for the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudoscientific piffle, which we give out every year, and other prizes and things like that. So that's the big thing happening, coming up. But apart from that, we just, for me personally, the biggest thing in the last year was the publication of the [https://www.skeptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/magazine/The%20Skeptic%20Volume%2041%20(2021)%20No%204%20(Cover).pdf Great Australian Psychic Prediction Project], which was a 12-year endeavor on my part, and later on in that 12 years, people from around the world collating 3,811 psychic predictions published in Australia over a 20-year period, and analyzing those and then publishing our results. And that, to me, that's-

'''S:''' Oh, how'd they do?

'''RS:''' Well, they, it was surprising. We discovered that actually about 90% of psychics were spot on and I'm resigning from the skeptics now. We've discovered that. [sarcasm]

'''S:''' Well, the evidence speaks. You've got to listen.

'''RS:''' I have the evidence. That's right. I'm done. I'm done. No, okay. So, I mean, to cut a long story short, we discovered the, I call this the Saunders number of psychic predictions. If you have a lot of predictions and you analyze them, 11 – roughly 11% will be, you can categorize as coming true. That's it, 11%. The majority, in our estimation, our calculations after the research, 53 – roughly 53% of predictions are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Didn't happen. Never happened. It's just a wrong prediction. But the other part of the chart, the pie chart, if we look at it in that respect, is we have a section called too vague, and that's 18%. This is predictions like I predict that this actress, in her heart, she knows her true love will come one day, but she worries about, this is waffly, vague waffle stuff. We also called it waffle. That's 18%, and the other part is there's a 15% which we categorize as expected. And these include, and I kid you not, somebody predicting earthquakes in California.

'''E:''' Wow.

'''RS:''' That's what we said, wow, I can't believe you're going to predict that.

'''J:''' What a stretch?

'''E:''' That's bold, yeah.

'''RS:''' It's bold.

'''E:''' That's something.

'''RS:''' Or if somebody predicted for the last presidential camp race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, they predicted that according to numerology, either Joe Biden or Donald Trump has a chance to be president.

'''E:''' What? No way.

'''C:''' Sounds like one of my predictions.

'''E:''' I didn't know that.

'''RS:''' That was staggering, that was staggering. But if people want to read the results, we published it in our magazine, The Skeptic, at the end of last year, but I also have the results, that report is read to you on an episode of The Skeptic Zone. If you go to [https://www.skepticzone.tv/ skepticzone.tv], right at the top of the page [https://skepticzone.libsyn.com/the-skeptic-zone-689-19december2021 is a link]. You can click the link, sit back, and have the whole paper we published simply read to you and our conclusions and our methodology and the things we had to go through. I have an archive of every prediction. In other words, the database, as I said, has approaching 4,000 predictions in the database, but what I have on the hard drive is every prediction. In other words, if the prediction came from a magazine, I have got a copy, a digital copy. If the prediction was made on a radio show, I've got the audio. A TV show, I've got the video. That's why the project took 12 years to complete. So I sort of figure every 10 years, I seem to do something slightly monumentous. So I'm wondering what the next 10 years will hold, and there's a couple of highlights in my skeptical career. I guess one of them was helping take down {{w|Power Balance}}, the wristbands, and I had the wonderful memory I share with many of you is the day we spoke at Google in California.

'''J:''' Yeah, we were talking about that recently.

'''RS:''' And I did the old whammy on Jay. We did the power balance routine, the applied kinesiology for the people at Google, and that was great. I loved that time with you guys. That was fantastic.

'''J:''' Well, the content doesn't end. That's the thing.

'''S:''' It's endless.

'''J:''' You can apply a skeptical lens at pretty much anything that comes your way, especially from the internet. And strangely, the world needs critical thinking more now than it did 20 years ago when all of us were just beginning doing all this.

'''S:''' Imagine how bad the world would be if we weren't doing this.

'''RS:''' That's a really good question. I wonder, would there be more scam items like the Power Balance just going through our society? I really have to wonder about that. Oh, just before we leave the predictions, I just spotted some here, which as you can imagine, there were many, many wrong predictions. The majority of predictions were simply wrong. But I love a few here made about Donald Trump in 2017, where an astrologist said Donald Trump will make a good president and his cabinet will be the best the US has seen for years. Another one predicted Donald Trump will not be impeached. And some were predicting he would easily win the 2020 election. So I guess this teaches us that when we see a psychic prediction, take it with a grain of salt. If you get some laughs or entertainment out of it, that's one thing. But many of these people actually make their living giving these predictions to magazines and radio shows and things like that.

'''S:''' This is actually their Trojan horse. They start out with the entertaining predictions that get into the periodical or whatever to the newspaper. But really, they're using that to troll for marks. To get people to come in, then they could rip them off for all their worth.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''RS:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Yes.

'''S:''' So it's not benign. It's not benign at all.

'''E:''' They'll find some wealthy older people, unfortunately, who are susceptible to scams. Well, but they will. And I search for news items all the time about people getting scammed by psychic charlatans. You'd be surprised if you just do the Google search or a browser search under news for psychic scam, you'll see a lot of stories come up and hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars get scammed from these victims. They are victims.

'''RS:''' It's huge. It's huge. And another interesting thing to note in my report, the official report I noted that despite all this work and our conclusions, which are thorough, I fully expect that every year, the TV, the radio, the newspapers, whatever, we'll still have, oh, here's so-and-so the psychic come in to give, what do you see in the stars for Hollywood this year or whatever it is? That won't stop. And we know that. That won't stop. But at least this report is out there and any journalist is free to read it and see our results.

== News Items ==

=== Trust in Scientists (21:50) ===
* [https://theconversation.com/most-americans-do-trust-scientists-and-science-based-policy-making-freaking-out-about-the-minority-who-dont-isnt-helpful-193085 Most Americans do trust scientists and science-based policy-making – freaking out about the minority who don’t isn’t helpful]<ref>[https://theconversation.com/most-americans-do-trust-scientists-and-science-based-policy-making-freaking-out-about-the-minority-who-dont-isnt-helpful-193085 The Conversation: Most Americans do trust scientists and science-based policy-making – freaking out about the minority who don’t isn’t helpful]</ref>

'''S:''' Richard, let me ask you a question. How much do you think Australians in general trust scientists?

'''RS:''' That's a good question. I don't know officially, I don't know if I've seen any stats on that. I would hope, of course, I would hope that they would. I think they do. One of our most trusted figures in Australia, one of our most trusted personalities is Dr. {{w|Karl Kruszelnicki}}, who is a science communicator.

'''S:''' Dr. Karl, yeah.

'''RS:''' Dr. Carl. He's like Bill Nye. And he regularly appears in Australia's top trusted people. So I would hope certainly they would rate above used car salesman or something like that.

'''S:''' We have a Pew survey asking that question of Americans, Cara, what did they find?

'''C:''' This is great. I mean, I love that Pew does these surveys periodically and consistently because we're able to kind of track trends over time. And this most recent survey, which was actually just administered to 10,588 adults in the US between September 13th and the 18th, 2022, was interested in understanding, as they put it "how Americans view science and their levels of confidence in groups and institutions in society, including scientists and medical scientists" because they do make some distinctions. And you'll see a lot of write ups of this. But there was a really good write up in The Conversation, which I wanted to specifically cite that was written by John C. Besley, who is the who's a professor of public relations at Michigan State University, because he quite writes about it's easy when you look at these results to get a little bit frustrated. But it's also really important to notice the strengths of these results. So basically, 81% of Americans think that government investments in scientific research are "worthwhile investments for society over time". So that's-

'''S:''' Pretty good.

'''J:''' That's good.

'''C:''' That'a a lot. 81%. That also means 19% don't think that, but 81% think that. And so there are a lot of different questions. These Pew surveys are never just one thing. They're like a lot of questions asked a lot of different ways. So I wanted to go through some of the ones that he highlights. And then I pulled a couple more. You're going to see some trends that are very expected here. But the important thing is that this trend is actually relatively stable. So there are things that are trending that aren't stable, especially with regards to intense political polarization that has gotten worse. But in terms of the kind of number of Americans who have a certain amount of confidence, here we go, that scientists act in the public's best interest, the numbers are pretty good and they've been pretty consistent over time. So we looked at a great deal versus a fair amount. Do you think these groups act in the public's best interest? And when we combine the two highest level confidences, which are a great deal and a fair amount, both kind of on the positive side, 80% of people said that medical scientists act in the public's best interest. And that's in light of COVID and in light of like a massive anti-Fauci campaign. So this is a big deal. That's higher than people's confidence in the military acting in the public's best interest. So 80%.

'''S:''' There was a bump in a positive direction during the pandemic.

'''C:''' During the pandemic. Yeah. Yeah. And it doesn't surprise me, A, because I think people needed to know that and believe that because it gave them stability and it gave them structure and it gave them a reason to act. It's hard to not act. But we have to remember that's sort of the angle that this professor writes. The point that he makes very often is we have to remember that even though the minority is vocal, it's still a minority. It might be loud. It might be something that the media picks up a lot. But it's still a minority. OK, so 80% of Americans think that medical scientists act in the public's best interest. 77% the military, 77% general scientists. So they do see a difference between medical scientists and general scientists, which the author of this speaks on a little bit later. Only 70% in police officers. And then it goes down from there, 53% religious leaders, 44% journalists. That's problematic. 28% elected officials.

'''S:''' That's appropriate. ''(laughter)''

'''C:''' And so here we are starting to see some big political polarization when the question is a%age of Americans who say "when it comes to public policy debates about scientific issues, scientists should and they're given a binary." And I think it's important to remember this. They're given only two options. So you'll see that the numbers total 100% here. Take an active role in policy debates or focus on establishing sound scientific facts. So if we're to talk about those outcomes in a cherry picked way, in a framed, biased way, we could say people who lean Republican in the most recent survey, only 29% of them think scientists should take an active role in policy debates, while a full 66% of Democrats think that scientists should take an active role in policy debates. But remember, the opposite. So it's 29% of scientists or Republicans think scientists should take an active role in policy debates. That means 70% of them think scientists should focus on establishing sound scientific facts. Well, all political persuasions think scientists should focus on establishing sound political facts or sound scientific facts. But within this political climate, we're seeing that people who lean Democratic are choosing that they should take an active role in policy debates more often than they're choosing focus on establishing sound scientific facts. So a lot of this is about framing. And I think that we are going to see big fluctuations in how these polling questions are answered when they're framed a particular way against a particular political background. And of course, right now we're talking COVID, we're talking vaccination, we're talking climate change, we're talking a lot of we've had this conversation a million times on the show, non-political, but very politically fueled issues, if that makes sense.

'''S:''' So I tended to see those stats as the most negative in this survey.

'''C:''' Because the difference was so big between them?

'''S:''' Well, not only was it very big between Democrats and Republicans, though both the numbers for Democrats and Republicans are getting worse in the last few years. Democrats are down from 75 to 66, Republicans from 43 to 29. But also to me, my interpretation of that, and there's multiple ways to interpret things like this, is that that is compartmentalization, that people are basically saying, yes, I like science when those scientists stay in their lane, just stay in your lab doing your nerdy stuff, then just shut up when it comes to public policy, even about scientific topics. So from the safety of GMO foods.

'''C:''' Right, because it specifically says of science issues, scientific issues.

'''S:''' Yes, this is scientific issues, this is not a non-science, they're not telling you, yeah, weigh in on economic policy. They're saying, we know what these issues are, they are vaccines, nuclear power, GMOs, climate change, gun safety they say, yeah-

'''C:''' And medical topics like abortion.

'''S:''' -but don't apply your science to questions that I have an emotional or ideological opinion about, you just stay in the lab and shut up. And that's problematic, in my opinion, that's highly problematic.

'''C:''' I think it's problematic too.

'''S:''' Yeah, I don't think there's a positive way to spin that.

'''C:''' No, I think the only thing to remember, it's not so much a positive, it's more of a caveat, which is that's a false binary.

'''S:''' I hear you.

'''C:''' And so it's up to a lot of interpretation, and the answers just by definition aren't nuanced there.

'''S:''' I hear you, but I think the one thing that tells me that people are interpreting it exactly like we expect them to interpret it is because of the Democratic-Republican split in the predictable direction. So that means it is pretty much telling us what we think it's telling us. The party that has more ideological positions that run afoul of science are the ones who don't want scientists speaking about policy issues that are scientific.

'''C:''' Well, and that speaks to this other question that in the coverage he really, really focused on which was, do you think scientists are good at making policy decisions? So now there's a value judgment there. And they were asking them how they stack up against other people in terms of making good policy decisions, again, specifically about scientific issues. So the answer choices were usually worse, neither better nor worse or usually better. So again, do you think scientists are good at making policy decisions when stacked up against other people when they're making policy decisions about scientific issues? Usually worse, neither better nor worse, or usually better. And we again are seeing that Republicans and people who lean Republican in September of 2022, they still 24% of them said the scientists are usually better, 17% said the scientists are usually worse. This is worrisome. And 58% in the middle said they're neither better nor worse. And this varies dramatically from how Democrats and those who lean Democrat answered. 55% of them said scientists are usually better. Only 5% said scientists are usually worse. And 38% in the middle said they're neither better nor worse. That has remained relatively consistent over time. And when I say over time, it's just the last three polls, so 2022, 2020 and 2019. But you've seen a dramatic shift over here with Republicans recently. The usually worse has gone from 9% to 11% to a full 17%. And the usually better has dropped from 34%, which was consistent in 2019 and 2020 down to 24% in the usually better camp. So we are seeing, and it is worrisome, that basically 2 in 10 Republicans think that scientists are usually worse at making good policy decisions about scientific issues than "other people". Again, not than politicians, not than some other nuclear physicists or whatever, literally just scientists than other people. So that is worrisome. It's absolutely worrisome. And the tack that's taken in this coverage, which I really appreciate, is the tack that I think you often see with people who study the science of science communication. So not just those who are scientists who want to disseminate their science and are like, okay, I'm just going to shout my science to the rooftops. We talk about this a lot, right? We talk about knowledge deficits and using social psychology and different persuasion approaches to help improve the effects of science communication. And what the author of this, who co-wrote a book on science communication strategy with another researcher, basically focused on the social science research that shows that people are considered more trustworthy when they are deemed caring, honest, and competent. Scientists very often are deemed competent. They are quite often deemed honest, they are very rarely deemed caring. And this is something that we need to see change. And it's probably why you see a difference between medical scientists and scientists in terms of people's responses, because they have personal relationships to their doctors and they think of their doctors as caring individuals, but they see scientists as siloed in a lab, in a lab coat, cold, calculating, mad scientists, destructive, whatever the stereotypes are.

'''E:''' That's amazing that stereotype has persisted my entire life, 53 years, that hasn't seemed to have changed.

'''S:''' But ironically, Cara, that's what people want them to be. They say they want them to be just robots in a lab, but they don't like that.

'''C:''' And then they're like, you're not very caring, and so I don't trust you.

'''S:''' But the thing is, scientists are supposed to be dispassionate. And you could be caring and dispassionate at the same time. This is something, this is a fine line that I have to walk as a physician. And we are explicitly taught this as part of our medical professionalism. It's like the difference between sympathy and empathy, you have to be sympathetic to your patients, you have to care about them, but you can't get emotionally attached because then you lose your objectivity, and your job is to be objective. And there's no way around it. Being objective requires a certain amount of cold calculation because that's your freaking job to say, listen.

'''C:''' It's so interesting because we have such a different view in psychological sciences.

'''S:''' These are the odds, this is the choice you have to make. And this is what I recommend based upon the evidence and we could personalize this to you, and I want you to get better, but I don't want to make an emotional recommendation or decision here. My job is to give you the cold, calculating facts.

'''C:''' But do you really think, and like honestly, Steve, because we're really talking about the difference between a practitioner, which as you've said before on the show is maybe not as much art as it is science, but there is a science to it, of course, to medical practice. And I would even throw in psychological practice in there, but there's also a certain amount of humanity to it. There's also a certain amount of clinical instinct. There's a certain amount of understanding that's very different than when we think about laboratory-based science, where we're not having any sort of relationship with a "patient" because they're not a patient, they're a subject, they're a participant, however you want to view it.

'''S:''' Right. And that's, yeah, being a clinician includes skills in addition to being a good scientist, absolutely, being able to look at the data and make that calculating decision. But my problem with these numbers, with the public attitude about like scientists shouldn't get involved with policy debate on scientific topics, is that again, because they want, the bottom line is they want to be able to have their opinion without being contradicted by the facts. And what we're talking about here is not scientists dictating policy or injecting their own opinion or ideology, it's being involved in the debate about a scientific topic as an expert to provide the facts. Because the problem that people have with that is that they're presenting authoritative facts that might not go their way. And so they're trying to cheat, they're trying to avoid the facts by just by keeping them out of the conversation. They want to have a conversation where opinion rules because the people who know the facts aren't allowed in the room. That's really problematic.

'''C:''' It is. And I think it's why you see massive differences between answers to questions about how good scientists are at making political judgments or how good scientists are at weighing in compared to some of these Pew questions that say things like the percentage of U.S. adults who say government investments in scientific research are worthwhile investments over time or not worthwhile over time. Most people think they're worthwhile.

'''S:''' Of course, because people want the benefits of science. They want everything. They want it all. They want the benefits of science, but they don't want the inconvenience of having to listen to it when it might cut against their ideology or their tribe.

'''C:''' So then here comes the question, and I think the important part of the not so much the Pew study, which has a lot more statistics, by the way, because these surveys are always really like rich and dense and you can they're all open access, you can read about them online. But the the part that I find really fascinating about the approach to the right around here in The Conversation is if we know based on social science research that in order to be deemed as trustworthy, you need to be thought of there are three main components to that being caring, being honest and competent. And if scientists are sort of starting to get up against that burnout of frustration and of, oh, why can't these people just get it? I wish these people would just believe us. I wish that they would just listen to us more. And they're too stupid to understand. It's the exact opposite thing that you would say if you want people to find you to be caring, honest and competent. And so in an effort, in the exasperated effort to come to the table in a very firm way, I think what we're actually doing is causing a bigger rift between that 20% and the scientific community. And it's worrisome. It's worrisome. And so the question is, how do we approach this? How do we as scientists do a better job of, I think, respecting the fact that there is a body of literature and an investigative process called the science of science communication that we can learn from.

'''S:''' Sure. That's one part of it. But there's another signal in this data that's pretty strong and cuts across all other demographics. And that is that education positively correlates with correlates with having trust in scientists.

'''C:''' Absolutely.

'''S:''' So really, if we just make people more scientifically literate, that's probably the best single thing we could do to improve these numbers.

=== Reliability of World Energy (40:17 ) ===
* [https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/the-worlds-energy-situation-is-not-as-terrible-as-you-might-expect/ The world's energy situation is not as terrible as you might expect]<ref>[https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/the-worlds-energy-situation-is-not-as-terrible-as-you-might-expect/ Ars Technica: The world's energy situation is not as terrible as you might expect]</ref>

'''S:''' Jay, you're going to talk about the next news item. What is the situation, especially in Europe, in terms of energy security with the whole Ukraine war thing?

'''J:''' Yeah, this is actually I'm going to specifically talk about Europe. So the global energy market, as everyone knows, has had severe ups and downs since the pandemic hit and the start of the pandemic caused energy demand to actually go down in the beginning.

'''S:''' Yeah, because the world economy was in the crapper.

'''J:''' Yeah, because of the lockdowns and people aren't driving to work and industries weren't able to function on the same level as they were. But then in 2021, demand came back. And this was because the world economy started to increase again. And then the Ukraine war massively impacted European countries as they tried to move away from Russian energy. So we're seeing this play out this year, right? We're seeing that European countries were essentially reliant on Russian energy. And then as sanctions came down and Russia started to turn down the volume of natural gas as they started to turn down the amount of gas that they were selling to Europe, they found themselves, Europe found themselves with a deficit and they were having a big problem with that. And a lot of people were thinking I guess this means we're going to switch back to coal which has global warming implications. So in all this energy drama, some experts are seeing, though, however, that indication show that things might actually be not so bad after all. Where are we today versus six months ago when the war was still in the beginning phase? So the renewable energy market has shown very good growth. Over the past decade, global renewable energy consumption has grown exponentially at an average annual rate of 12.6% per year. The EU generated a record 12% of its electricity from solar from May to August 2022 and 13% from wind. These are really good numbers. Renewables are likely to account for almost 95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with solar providing more than half of that figure. Now, anybody who is keeping up with what's going on with renewables is very well accustomed to the fact that the numbers are trending in a very positive and very strong direction. The renewables market has mostly offset its own contributions to emissions. But you've got to keep in mind to the creation of renewables, like the creation of solar panels and creating the giant blades that go on the windmills. Of course, there are-

'''S:''' Wind turbines.

'''J:''' I'm sorry, with the turbines. These are creating greenhouse gas emissions. But then these things are functioning for a long time. And they are there is no more creation of greenhouse gases in their in their ability to collect or create electricity. So Europe has been trying to find alternative sources of energy since the war began. This upcoming winter is particularly under consideration because of the dramatic increase in energy usage needed. Because during the colder seasons, we have to burn more fuel or we need more energy in order to heat our homes and to keep our livable space livable. So most of Europe's energy demand comes from the burning of natural gas. And historically, Russia has been their key supplier. And since the sanctions, like I said, have been lowered, Russia has been slowly turning it down and saying, you're giving less and less and less to them to the point where this has really been a serious problem that all of Europe has had to confront. It's very possible that Russia cuts Europe off completely from its natural gas. Now with the shortage of natural gas, the prices skyrocketed the prices of natural gas went way up. And this puts a financial strain on everyone everybody in Europe. And because of this, an increase in coal use was really all but unavoidable. But some interesting decisions were made. Germany decided to keep its last nuclear power plants operational, the ones that were scheduled to be shut down. And they said that we're going to keep these, we're going to keep these open longer in order to generate, especially during this winter, in order to generate the energy that's needed. This has helped fill the void that natural gas shortage has created. Now also companies that produce natural gas have been shipping their products to Europe and so many that they can't offload the ships fast enough, a couple of things happening here. There was a great response by companies that create liquid natural gas. And these companies don't even have enough ships to bring the natural gas to Europe. That's how that's how much is being shipped to Europe. It's actually great that this is happening. Add to that conservation efforts in Europe's natural gas storage is now approximately what where do you guys think it is? Where do you where do you think Europe's natural gas storage is right now?

'''C:''' 40? I don't know.

'''RS:''' Make it 25. There's a guess.

'''E''' I don't know what normal is, but.

'''C:''' Yeah, exactly.

'''E:''' Less than half of normal.

'''J:''' So I have a great number for you. They're actually at 93.8%.

'''C:''' That's good.

'''J:''' That's because that's because these companies have been shipping a ton of liquid natural gas. And they've been squirreling it away and squirreling it away. And it's funny that I did not hear anything about this in the news. I had to I had to dig in to find this information. So now natural gas prices are significantly dropping from their August high because Europe actually has this this massive store of natural gas. If Europe is careful with its natural gas and no out of out of norm, crazy cold weather happens, Europe should most definitely be fine this winter under this interpretation. Because we'll get into that in a second. How do we interpret this information? Seems like it's very good news. The International Energy Agency, the IEA, says that Europe's energy futures look good. Wind and solar are going to continue to grow. They predict that carbon emissions will not be tied to the growth of the overall European economy. And the obvious goal is to see emissions drop as the economy increases because we have this major shift to renewables, not just having the renewables there, but letting those renewables replace fossil fuel burning. You could have a backup plant that's there in case renewables can't give you the on-demand energy that you need. But if we are really using renewable energy as much as we possibly can, then we're going to see a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions because we're just simply not burning fossil fuels anymore. So the way that I delivered this, this news item, is very much a positive look on what's going on in Europe. I vetted the information very carefully. I made sure that these were factual points. But there are a lot of people out there that are not agreeing that this is positive. And it really is just how do you want to interpret the news and how do you want to interpret the information that comes across your plate? I find it very interesting. This is kind of related to Cara's news item. Because even if you have a source of information that you can trust, you could even still, even still, you can misinterpret that information or choose to interpret it differently depending on your your political point of view.

'''S:''' I just want to clarify a couple of things. When you say renewable energy, I just want people to understand that includes wind, solar, but also hydroelectric and geothermal. So it's not just wind and solar.

'''J:''' I mentioned those because they were the highest.

'''S:''' Yeah, I understand. But they're very those are very different types of energy. And sometimes you could you can artificially inflate the number sometimes in some countries like it's mostly hydroelectric and if you say renewable people think wind and solar. But wind and solar is increasing dramatically as well. And also I have to point out, I know I've pointed this out before, that Germany is such a cautionary towel here. Because 10, 15 years ago when they were saying we're going to shut down our nuclear power plants and we're going to switch over to all renewable energy a lot of people were saying, a lot of the experts like, if you try to do that, you're basically going to be building coal fired plants because the choice right now is between nuclear and fossil fuel. That's your choice. There's no way around that. And Germny were like, yeah, we know what we're doing. So they did it anyway. And that made them utterly dependent on Russian oil and natural gas. I mean, that became basically the plan. They basically were saying, we're just going to switch over from nuclear to natural gas, which is terrible. Their carbon emissions went up. It went up. They thought they were going to be able to wind and solar their way out of it. But you can't do that for multiple reasons. One is this is an entire separate issue. But it's critical here if we're talking about how are we going to build out our energy infrastructure going forward? Because wind and solar are intermittent, the intermittent sources of power, the grids could basically take 30% before you start to get you start to get into serious problems of not being able to manage the supply and demand on the grid. You end up having to build a lot of redundancy, a lot of backup, a lot of overcapacity.

'''J:''' Steve, you're talking about even on a day to day level, when the Sun goes down, solar is not being collected.

'''S:''' Yeah, right.

'''J:''' Grid won't have that energy.

'''S:''' So what's the effect of that? How useful is it to have a lot of solar on your grid when it goes down for, it's only up about 22% of the time. That's the capacity factor of solar. Wind is on average 35% right now. But the new the new wind turbines and better locations, we can get up to 50%, maybe even higher, which is great. That's that's in the realm of fossil fuel plants. Nuclear is the best at around 92%, meaning once it's up and running, producing energy, 92% maximum capacity. So we need to build the whole system. If you just try to maximize wind and solar, the grid can't take it. You end up producing more energy than you can use at times, and then you don't have enough at other times and you have no way to buffer it. You need big grids. So we need to be investing massively in upgrading our grids to make them more robust and get to get smart grids. And we need to be researching, we need to research grid storage because that makes everything better. Grid storage is both dispatchable and could take the excess. I don't think, it's going to be probably a long time before we get to even that 30% figure. So I'm not worried about that as long as we're not concentrating it in one small area. That's what we shouldn't be doing. We need to be spreading it out around the world to get to that 30% on every grid to have 20 to 30%. We don't want to have one, we don't want one grid or one part of a grid to be at 80% or whatever because we can't handle it. We don't have we don't have the grid for it. We don't have the technology for it right now and it doesn't work. And you can't shut down your nuclear plant and build wind and solar. That doesn't work. So because nuclear is on demand. So is coal and natural gas, but we don't want to rely on them. We don't want to burn coal. We don't want to burn natural gas. Hydroelectric is fantastic, but it's limited by location. Geothermal is fantastic, but it's limited by location. There are there actually there's research in the works that could allow the number of potential locations for geothermal to dramatically expand.

'''B:''' We talked about that.

'''E:''' That would be great.

'''S:''' Yeah, yeah. So that would be great. But we don't have it yet. But that would be great if it if it really comes to fruition. That's worth investing in. So we just have to be smart about this. This is an opportunity, the whole the even though it's it's dramatically spiking gas prices and everything is very, very problematic, but it does accomplish a couple of things. Everyone realizes now, I think, two big things that they got slapped in the face with. First of all, we need nuclear. At least for the next 20 years or so, like we got to have nuclear if we're going to make the whole thing work. The second thing is there is no energy security while you're dependent on oil. That's it. You don't have energy independence when you're dependent on the world market of oil and gas. Think about this, this is a very United States focus thing. But Putin and the Saudis recently got together and decided to reduce the production of oil. And the consensus of expert opinion is the only only plausible reason they did that was to influence America's next election, our midterm elections. They're using their oil production to screw with our internal politics. Think about that.

'''C:''' Of course. Yeah.

'''S:''' And the only way out of that is to not be dependent on burning fossil fuels. You want to be energy independent. You need renewable energy sources. That is it. So and I think there's a I agree with you, Richard, that that I think a lot of the environmentalists are coming around to the fact that, yeah, we're just not going to succeed with this fantasy of 100% wind and solar.

'''RS:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' It's not going to happen. We need things that can produce energy on demand to make it work at least for the next 20, 30 years.

'''B:''' Fusion, fusion.

'''E:''' Until next generation of technology comes along.

'''S:''' Until something new comes along, until. We have some really good grid storage solution.

'''E:''' Thorium reactors.

'''S:''' Fusion comes on, thorium is great. Whatever anything where we can produce lots of on demand power. That's what we need.

'''RS:''' Well, it's that old word natural comes up again. And a lot of the people who are into alternative medicine just get carried away on this natural fallacy. It's natuaral it must be good. It's, nature provides all this this energy. We can harvest the winds, which is nature's gift to and it's all very flowery and wonderful and everything. But yeah, when you get down to the brass tacks, people can well, hopefully not. But people may well freeze to death this winter.

'''E:''' Uranium is natural.

'''S:''' Yeah, coal is natural.

'''RS:''' How about that? That's right.

[commercial brake]

=== Video Games and Cognition (56:00) ===
* [https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/video-games-may-improve-cognitive-function/ Video Games May Improve Cognitive Function]<ref>[https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/video-games-may-improve-cognitive-function/ Neurologica: Video Games May Improve Cognitive Function]</ref>

'''S:''' Next news item is interesting, but I'm going to start with a preamble here. So Bob Jay and I were at Comic-Con New York talking about our book, and one of the questions we fielded from the audience at the end started with this premise that what do we think is going to happen with the idiocracy? Where are things headed with the dumbing down of the general populace? Now I had to disagree with the premise of the question because the facts actually do not show that. People are actually, their performance on standardized tests of cognitive function, let me put it that way, are increasing over time, if anything. There's the so-called Flynn effect we talked about on the show before where IQ points have been increasing by about three per decade over the last 50, 60 years. If you remember John Miller's civic scientific literacy test that he's been doing for 20 plus years since 1988, they increased from 9% of the public meeting the low end of the threshold for civic scientific literacy up to 29% by 2008, and it's been pretty much plateaued since then, but still it increased and now is plateaued at a 29% level. I still think that's low, but things are moving in the positive direction. So the question is, is this a general phenomenon and specifically what's the relationship between technology and human cognitive function? Does technology have a positive effect or a negative effect? And the news item we're going to talk about relates specifically to video games. I'll tell you what the study did and then you guys can tell me what you think the results might have been. But essentially it was a cohort study, they just looked at two cohorts of children, one self report, self report, so that's a caveat, but still one group played no video games, zero hours per week of video game play. The other group were those children who self reported 21 hours of video games per week or more. So that averages out to three hours per day, which is quite a bit. And they just tracked them over time and did standardized testing on them, looked at their brain function and just to see what was going on. So what do you guys think this study showed? Those who haven't already read my blog post about it, do you think that the group of children who played no video games had better cognitive processing on standardized testing or the kids who played 21 hours or more of video games per week?

'''RS:''' Well, I'd have to ask, what were the kids who weren't doing video games?

'''S:''' What were they doing?

'''RS:''' What were they doing? Were they sitting up a tree, were they reading books to enlighten themselves, were they engaged in other activities?

'''S:''' No data.

'''RS:''' No data?

'''E:''' No data.

'''S:''' They just weren't playing video games.

'''RS:''' They just weren't.

'''E:''' Right. They were doing the action.

'''C:''' And it didn't matter what video, like any video game.

'''S:''' Yeah, any video game.

'''RS:''' I spend a lot of time in VR these days. It's really, that's quite something I can tell you.

'''E:''' That's where you've been these last few years.

'''RS:''' That's where I've been. That's where I've been.

'''C:''' I feel like either no difference or a positive correlation with the video gamers, not the other way around.

'''E:''' If anything, the video goes up.

'''RS:''' I would say there wouldn't be much in it.

'''B:''' They became super geniuses.

'''S:''' There was a strong positive effect of playing video games.

'''E:''' Interesting. What do they attribute that to?

'''S:''' This study did not answer the question or address the question of what causes it. This is just purely correlational, right? Purely correlational.

'''B:''' I gotta play more video games man.

'''E:''' Okay.

'''S:''' So it's quite possible, quite possible that children who had better performance on these tests were drawn to video games rather than video games, making them.

'''E:''' Oh, interesting.

'''B:''' It's true.

'''S:''' So specifically, it wasn't in everything. Specifically they were better in the area of response inhibition and working memory. And also when they looked at functional imaging of their brain, the parts of their brains that basically correlate with those functions were more active. So it seems like the wiring of their brain actually was different in a way that correlates with improved memory and response inhibition.

'''C:''' How significant was the response inhibition? I'm just loving this and I'm like so curious to see this data with groups of kids with ADHD.

'''S:''' Yeah, well, because it's very common for kids with ADHD to do really well on video games because the ADHD does not inhibit their ability to play video games because it's engaging.

'''C:''' But the interesting thing is that kids with ADHD often suck at response inhibition and the fact that they're able to inhibit their response, like that gaming, again, we only know that this is correlative, but like that gaming seems like it probably has some positive effect on a kid being able to inhibit reactions is like huge for ADHD kids.

'''S:''' There is a very, very plausible cause and effect here because basically you get good at whatever you do. That's the basic thing that we've in neuroscience have discovered over the last hundred years that you get good at what you do and it doesn't really translate beyond that too much, but at least at a basic level. And a lot of video gaming is response inhibition. That's sort of built into the skill of playing many games. You have to like, even like the Beat Saber, cut the vegetables, but not the bombs. You know what I mean? You have to be able to inhibit, I mean, shoot the bad guys, but not the good guys. There's a lot of response inhibition built into the skill set of playing games and working memory is like the you're managing multiple things at the same time. There's a lot of moving parts to, to a lot of, you know.

'''E:''' Oh my gosh. I watch Rachel play these games sometimes and she, I can't follow her. She's going so fast at what she's doing on the screen. Things are popping up, going away, disappearing. She's over here. She's over. It's amazing.

'''S:''' It is amazing. This is not a one-off. There is a lot of data saying that, yeah, that video games actually do correlate if anything with, with improved skills, depending on the type of gaming that you're playing. So games that require a lot of visual processing correlate with better visual processing skills including surgeons. Surgeons do better with the endoscopic surgery if they play video games than if they don't. So that is very, very plausible. Again, this study doesn't prove that that's the cause and effect, but the research into in total leans in that direction and there's, I think a pretty consistent effect here. And I do think this is in line with technology in general. Think about how much access we have to information, to other opinions just dealing with the technology itself. We do need to be smarter to live in a modern technological society than in the past. So that's not surprising to me. The skill sets may be different. We may lament the loss of handwriting skills or whatever, but I think it takes way more intellectual, just raw processing power to be able to keep up with society and interface with all the technology that we have in front of us.

'''C:''' But it can also exacerbate certain neuro atypical styles so like if you already having a hard time with focus and attention and you're constantly able to bounce from one thing to another thing, or you're already not comfortable sitting alone with your own thoughts, you don't have to do that in, in our kind of technological landscape.

'''S:''' Yeah. Yeah. And this study also did look at things like video game addiction or lack of physical activity. So there are other issues as well, and I'm certainly not recommending that you play 21 hours a week of video games.

'''B:''' 20 is goo though. 20 is good.

'''S:''' I think they were just looking for a strong signal, which is why they wanted the effect size to be big, but everything in moderation. You get up, get your physical exercise, engage with the physical world, but video games are not, they're not rotting your brain like parents.

'''C:''' Exactly.

'''S:''' It's a different kind of cognitive engagement. It comes with its own skill sets and especially kids have been like my daughters, I put them in front of video games when, since they were three, I mean they were educational ones, like color matching and math and letters and things like that, but it's still, it got them, it gave them computer skills and again, like my daughter kicks my ass on video games when we play together.

'''C:''' It's also Steve, it's fun, it's joyful. And I think one of the things that we don't talk about enough, and I know that this is like might sound a little bit wooey, but whatever. I was just talking with a client today about this idea of like different pillars of mental health and the things that we really need to rest on in order to feel kind of like fulfilled and have a balanced life. And we talked a lot about this one theoretical conceptualization, like think of a three legged stool. It has three legs. If you kick one of them out, you're going to be like wobbly and fall over. We talked about this idea of like work or education, whatever, love, whether it's familial or romantic or friendship, whatever, and then play. And that very often the, as we get older and older and move more into adulthood, we sort of forget how to play. We don't do it enough in our lives. We don't often do things that are joyful for the sake of joy.

'''E:''' I try.

'''C:''' Animals play. If you look at adult animals, you do, you have a gaming podcast, but if you look at animals, any animal that's a non-domesticate, but even domesticates as well, all the way until-

'''S:''' They play a lot.

'''C:''' -they play.

'''S:''' That's how they learn.

'''C:''' Even when they're elderly.

'''S:''' I think that might be, I don't know if I'm just speculating here, but maybe that's part of the rise of the popularity of nerd culture. Is that in nerd culture, it's okay to play-

'''C:''' And celebrates play.

'''S:''' -as an adult.

'''C:''' Cosplay and video games.

'''E:''' Role playing.

'''B:''' Do any of that.

'''E:''' I always said Dungeons and Dragons was an intellectual pursuit for me as much as it was a fun.

'''S:''' Absolutely.

'''J:''' Absolutely Evan. You're totally right, man.

'''S:''' I would also say one last thing before we move on is that I do think that video games are under leveraged in terms of just standard education.

'''C:''' Agre a 100%.

'''S:''' We should video game cause video games are optimized for learning. They're optimized. They're individualized. They, they move at the pace of, they are constantly keeping that carrot right in front of you. They are optimized for learning. And if you, and again, they're engaging and they're fun, they're everything learning is supposed to be right there. All we have to do is leverage it. Now I know that they're out there. I know that they're out there. I've looked into it even just again when I was writing about this recently, but they're not-

'''C:''' But they're not core curriculum.

'''S:''' -but they're not core curriculum, they are not. They're an afterthought. They are not incorporated into the core of our educational system. That in my opinion is a missed opportunity.

'''C:''' It is. And I'd say the same thing for, for intervention and treatment, both psychological and medical. So when you see like neuro rehab, when you see a psychological intervention for certain diagnoses, if we could gamify these things and we can, that's the thing, they do exist.

'''S:''' We've talked about it. Gamyfing it.

'''C:''' It's huge. It works. But it can't be like cheesy. It has to, it has to be authentic.

'''S:''' I think we need to get the stink off of video games. I think there's still there's a stigma and there is a sort of rotting your brain kind of thing that people react to, but no, this is just, it's another thing that we do. It's perfectly fine. It's perfectly healthy. It's actually cognitively healthy, may even be beneficial. And it just needs to be one more thing that we do in modern society.

'''B:''' This isn't news. This isn't news. We've been reading about these studies for years now of how awesome they are.

'''S:''' Yeah. Oh, I know.

'''J:''' And I want to ask you guys, who really legitimately is out there putting down video games today? We have, I think what we-

'''S:''' A lot of people.

'''J:''' I think we have a memory of a lot of people talking bad about video games, but I will remind you guys that video games are, it's a multi multi-billion dollar industry. A ton of people are buying video games.

'''S:''' It's greater than movies.

'''E:''' Oh yeah. It's bigger than the motion picture entertainment industry.

'''J:''' So you know, the reality is, is that an incredible amount of people are playing video games, fully engaging, using them for social platforms. It's one of the first things that kids bond with each other in school over is video games. So I think that the stigma that we're talking about is, first off, it's probably largely coming from people who have absolutely no clue about video games. They really don't engage with them. That's number one. And number two we have a memory of people not liking video games now that we might still think is current. I don't think that's current. I think most people completely accept them and this is a completely awesome, normal thing that everybody does.

'''C:''' It's generational.

'''S:''' But even if they're a minority, the voice, it's still a vocal minority because every time there's a school shooting or something happens, people violate video games, even though there's no evidence for that.

'''E:''' First-person shooters.

'''S:''' No evidence.

'''C:''' You have to pull all the literature back out.

'''S:''' All right. Let's move on.

=== New Aging Technique (1:09:22) ===
* [https://phys.org/news/2022-10-technique-age-era-planetary-science.html New technique to determine age will open new era of planetary science, researchers say]<ref>[[https://phys.org/news/2022-10-technique-age-era-planetary-science.html University of Chicago: New technique to determine age will open new era of planetary science, researchers say]</ref>

'''S:''' Bob, you're going to tell us about a new technique for aging stuff, this is aging geological layers mainly?

'''B:''' Yeah. Well, basically rocks, if you just say rocks, that's a good general category of things that this could be used for, but there's other things as well. Determining the ages of rocks in meteorites and even cultural artifacts took a double incremental leap recently with a new technique that can quickly and non-destructively date billion year old rocks that kind of almost reminds me of Star Trek tricorder in some ways. See if you agree a little click baity, but, maybe you'll see it. So this innovation was made by Thermo Fisher scientific. This news comes from a group, with the university of Chicago and the Field Museum of natural history. And if you want to read about it in all its glorious jargon babble, plus acronyms and initialisms, check it out in the Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry. So this uses radiometric dating, as you may have surmised. This is widespread and versatile technique. It takes advantage of harmless radioactive impurities that were incorporated when rock, for example, was formed. The business end of the dating method though comes into play when you compare the amount of that radioactive isotope or a {{w|nuclide}}, which is probably more accurate, to the amount of its decay products or daughter particles, if you will. So since these decay products form at a very specific and constant rate based on what? Based on its half life, right? Determining the samples age based on that amount is then a fairly straightforward calculation. We've been doing it since I think 1905, 1907?

'''S:''' That's old.

'''B:''' Right around there. Well over a century. Now this specific type of radiometric dating as specifically {{w|rubidium-strontium dating|rubidium strontium}}. 87Rubidium is unstable and will decay into a new element, 87strontium with a half life of almost 50 billion years. 50 billion. Amazing.

'''E:''' I can wait.

'''B:''' Which of course makes it excellent for very old things. That means of course that half of 87rubidium will become the more stable 87strontium in about 50 billion years. Calculating that ratio has been done, like I said, since 1905, but it has a downside. It can be very destructive process coming up with that number. So if you're dating, for example, a large meteorite, say you'd have to knock a chunk of rock off of it, a chunk of it off, crush it with a hammer or something, and then dissolve the minerals using chemicals and then process all that in one of those ultra clean laboratories, clean rooms, like far cleaner than what Heisenberg used to make his blue stuff. Then you need a mass spectrometer to do the actual measuring of the isotopes or nuclides to get the ratios. So all that can take weeks to come up with the age of your sample. Weeks. This is not quick. Now the new technique takes a sample using a laser that will create a hole in your rock or whatever, or whatever your, the sample is, then that hole will be comparable in size to a human hair. A human hair, no pulverizing rock, no chunks breaking off, no ultra clean room, none of that needed. It then analyzes the rubidium-strontium atom ratios with a cutting edge mass spectrometer that can spit out an answer, not in weeks, but just hours. Hours. Imagine doing this over and over and instead of waiting three, four weeks in between breakfast and lunch, you've got your answer. That must be incredible. Nicholas Dalfas, who's the Lewis Block professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and the first author of the study said: "This is a huge advance. There are many precious meteorites and artifacts that you don't want to destroy. This allows you to tremendously minimize the impact you have during your analysis." Now to be fair, and I was a little bummed about this next fact, the age estimate that comes out is not quite as accurate as the gold standard, which is using thermal ionization mass spectrometry. So and that's not part of this process, this quick process with the laser. So that's the one that takes a while and apparently it's a little bit, it's more accurate. I'm not sure by how much it's more accurate than this new method, but the primary advantages of this new technique are important and they're threefold. I mentioned that it's very fast and it's non-destructive, two huge pluses. It can also handle samples with very small grain sizes, which can be problematic for the thermal ionization mass spectrometry. So it could broaden your potential number of samples that can be done. So now to put this device through its paces, the researchers tested a famous Martian meteorite, you may have heard of it, nicknamed {{w|Northwest Africa 7034|Black Beauty}}, because it's such a beautiful dark color. But if you look closely, you see spots of lighter hues though, which are older rocks embedded within the newer rock. So these types of rocks can be tricky to fully date. So it's kind of like a meatball, right Jay? The garlic and breadcrumbs in the meatball were created elsewhere and at different times, but they later joined together for the creation of the meatball itself. ''(laughter)''

'''J:''' So good analogy Bob, thank you.

'''B:''' Yes.

'''RS:''' Now Jay understands exactly what you mean.

'''B:''' Better than my average meatball analogies.

'''C:''' I think so. Yeah. Yeah. It worked well.

'''B:''' So in this scenario though, you'd ideally, you'd want to know not only the age of the gestalt rock, if you will, but the tiny older specks of rock inside as well. Once you have that information, you can put together a much more cohesive, full history that would then give you insight into, for example, what the environment on Mars was like volcanically and atmospherically at various ancient periods of its history, because you know when the older rocks were formed and then you would know when and what the environment was like when the bigger rock was formed around those older little tiny pebbles inside. And of course using this, it'd be invaluable for creating essentially a timeline of Mars's history. Now the age of black beauty was assessed before. This has been done before using older techniques, but different studies didn't agree on the age. There was some nobody was which one's right or whatever. The latest test that was just done using this new technique calculated that the meteorite was created 2.2 billion years ago, which of course the team believes is when it formed. In the paper though, I want to mention this, in the paper they said that 2.2 billion years represents the age of lithification and I immediately fell in love with that form of the word. I never heard that word, lithification. I'm going to try to use that in everyday talk, well maybe once a week at least. And lithification just means when fresh grains of sediment are turned into rock. So Nicholas Dalfas said also this was a particularly good tool to solve this controversy and I guess they do consider it solved. That's interesting. When you chip out a piece of rock to test the old way, it's possible you are getting other fragments mixed in, which may affect your results. We do not have that problem with the new machine. So that's probably, that's why they're extra confident because you can be so precise with that laser. You're not going to get any other fragments mixed in messing with your results. Okay. So that does make sense. Okay. So for the future, scientists are excited about this advance obviously and they think it will ultimately be useful in a variety of fields. Dalfas and his team are especially interested in using this technique to understand more fully the history of Mars. For example, like the history of water on Mars' surface and how the solar system itself formed. In the next decade, scientists are going to have an embarrassment of riches of planetary samples. This surprised me. Over the next 10 years, we're going to have samples, more samples of the Moon. New Moon mission samples. U.S. and China are definitely taking a major interest in the Moon, obviously. Also samples from an asteroid called Bennu, we'll have samples from there. Mars moon Phobos in 2027 and the Perseverance rover on Mars is collecting that and we will have samples from that. So using this technique will be an invaluable tool. Nicholas Dalfas said, I'll end with his quote: "We are very excited by this demonstration study as we think that we will be able to employ the same approach to date rocks that will be returned by multiple space missions in the future. The next decade is going to be mind blowing in terms of planetary exploration." So cool new device for aging, for dating rocks and interesting technique. Radiometric dating is fascinating and if you drill down, just the whole process of atoms decaying isotopes and nuclides and everything is just obviously very interesting to me. So dig deeper.

'''S:''' Yeah, it's an amazing tool.

=== NASA UAP Study (1:18:19) ===
* [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-announces-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-study-team-members/ NASA Announces Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Study Team Members]<ref>[https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-announces-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-study-team-members/ NASA: NASA Announces Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Study Team Members]</ref>

'''S:''' All right, Evan, finish up the news items telling us about NASA's new committee on unidentified aerial phenomena.

'''E:''' Yeah, that's right. This is an interesting one. Back in June of this year, NASA had announced the formation of a study team to examine unidentified aerial phenomena, UAPs, if we've talked about many times on the show, specifically from a scientific perspective. That's right in their mission statement effectively from the first sentence. But the news this week since then is that NASA has finally selected the individuals who are going to participate in this study team and their work began this week, this past Monday. They've rolled up their sleeves and gotten to work. According to the statement, the study is going to focus on identifying available data, how best to collect future data and how NASA can use that data to move the scientific understanding of UAPs forward. Thomas Zurbuchen, who's the associate administrator for science at NASA, says that NASA believes that the tools of scientific discovery are powerful and apply here, meaning UAP investigations, and we have access to a broad range of observations of Earth from space. That is the lifeblood of scientific inquiry. We have the tools and the team who can help us improve our understanding of the unknown. That's the very definition of what science is and that's what we do. Okay. Does this remind anyone of {{w|Project Blue Book}}?

'''RS:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Oh, yeah.

'''E:''' Did that come to mind when you guys heard about this? And of course, I know we've talked about Project Blue Book before, maybe it's been years, but for those of you who don't know, this was a systematic study of unidentified flying objects, as they used to be called, UFOs, and it was conducted by the United States Air Force starting in 1952, was terminated in 1969. So they spent a better part of two decades researching UFOs and the summary of their investigations they decided to close it down in 1969, but here was the basic summary of those investigations. Number one, no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated was ever an indication of a threat to national security, okay. Number two, there was no evidence submitted or discovered that the sightings categorized as unidentified representative technological development or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge. And number three, there was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as unidentified were extraterrestrial in nature. So long time spent, nothing to see here. I have a feeling we're going to wind up having some similar results with the UAP investigation.

'''RS:''' Well, of course the US Air Force would say that. Come on, Evan.

'''E:''' Again, this is the in the pre-NASA days, really, but I suppose it sort of makes sense that NASA now is going to take the helm in the new version of Project Blue Book in their own way. This part of the study, though, and the people that were selected for this has to do with laying the groundwork for future study of UAPs for NASA. So they're basically going to, I think, set the table as far as, okay, what can we see, what do we have, what's reliable, and what's the best way to go about doing this? And that's what they're going to be doing over the course of the next nine months. So middle of next year, they're going to release their report and their findings, and we're going to learn some more about what their expert opinions are as far as how UAPs should be studied overall. And there's, it's an impressive, look, it's an impressive list of people with some very good credentials. I didn't see anyone who had any questionable or cranky kind of credentials or certifications or anything like that. These are all very, seem like reputable people with a lot of citations, publications. You've got professors, you've got the deputy project scientist for the Verisie Rubin Observatory as part of this team. You've got an oceanographer as part of this team. You've got the undersecretary for science and technology at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security here. You've got a freelance science journalist with certain science credentials. You've got the person who's responsible for something called the Artemis Records, which establishes the norms of behavior in space. Former NASA astronaut and test pilot is part of this group. Someone from the Da Vinci mission to Venus. So you're pulling from some people who have some real, real good scientific bona fides here. However, however, with that said, I have a couple of observations or questions. And the first thing that came to mind is, well, I didn't see anyone specific to a skeptics organization or skeptics community among the group. Not that I could tell and not from what I could research on some of these folks online if they had any really affiliations. Now there are a couple of people who are involved with SETI. So perhaps that's something. I think there are two of the 16 are affiliated with the SETI Institute. So perhaps that's something. I'm also wondering as part of this, who will these 16 individuals be referencing or relying on or making phone calls and having conversations with sort of to have an almost who will indirectly be involved with this project as well? In other words, will they will someone reach out to maybe Mick West to get his opinion sort of. He's done on a lot of analysis on the UAP phenomenon that has gained steam over the past 10 years. Will they be talking to anyone in the medical sciences, neurologists, psychologists, the people who can know about how the human brain works and leads people astray? Will they be will they be speaking to some of the lead engineers that have designed the types of equipment that are capturing the things that they are trying to analyze? So there's nothing specific about that that may flesh out once we have the report. Number two and another thing I have here is that I think it would be good, in my opinion, if they were to come up with perhaps a statement or something right off the bat, something like and I just I came up with this in my own head. So today, if they were to come up with sort of a part of their mission statement or something today, they could say all the evidence cited as proof of alien life or alien technology amounts to zero, right? Kind of deflate the whole UFO extraterrestrial proponent crowds out there.

'''S:''' My big thought is that they should be doing it, but only if they're going to do it right. And that means understanding that this is 99% a public outreach mission. What they're doing by doing this, this is all about educating the public about the nature of evidence as it relates to aerial phenomenon. Which means that their investigative group, team members needs to have people who know how to communicate to the public about these and engage with the believers, et cetera. And so they need science communicators. And because because of the nature of this study, they need skeptics, basically. And the fact that they don't have people on there who are explicitly have that skill set, is concerning to me.

'''E:''' Richard, what do you think?

'''RS:''' You know, what occurred to me is something I've mentioned on my own podcast because I've been interested in UFOs now, UAPs since whenever I can remember, is that you remember {{w|Chariots of the Gods?}}

'''B:''' Oh, yeah.

'''E:''' Sure. Yeah. Eric Von Deineken.

'''B:''' My god.

'''RS:''' What amuses me to this day is that when you see the video, the documentary made in the early 70s there, they're drawing an analogy between the then state of the art spacecraft, which was the Apollo space things, to alien craft. And I'm thinking, after all these decades, the alien craft really haven't advanced very much, have they? ''(laughter)'' In all the decades we've been stuck, they're mostly doing the same stuff. I'm thinking, why are these aliens, were they stuck at a certain level of their technology? Haven't they advanced decades and decades and decades like we have? And in 30, 40, 50, 60 years, what's going to be zipping around our atmosphere by us will put any of the past UFOs to shame, surely, by two cents.

'''S:''' Yeah, a lot of the paranormal phenomena or these kinds of conspiracy phenomena, they always seem to track with our existing technology.

'''RS:''' Yes.

'''S:''' Ghost photos are always something that emerges from current photographic technology. Whatever. You know what I mean? It always seems to track along with that because it's artifact our own technology.

'''RS:''' Yeah we're just projecting what we have. That's right.

'''S:''' Yeah. All right. Thanks, Evan.

{{anchor|wtw}} 

== What's the Word? (1:27:36) ==
{{Page categories
|What's the Word? = 
}}
* {{w|Regression}}<ref group="v">[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regression Wiktionary: regression]</ref>
'''S:''' Cara, you're going to do a What's the Word?

'''C:''' Yes, we are. And this week's word comes from listener Viggo Telifsen Vifstad, maybe, from Norway. And he says: "I was wondering if you would be interested in doing a deep dive into the meaning of the word regression. This is a word I've come across in many different settings, but it seems to have a somewhat different meaning based on the context."

'''E:''' What do you mean by regression?

'''C:''' What do you mean? That's sort of funny.

'''E:''' Oh, no, it is.

'''C:''' We'll get back to regression to the mean in a second. I like that he actually does a little bit of the deep diving. He did a little bit of the heavy lifting for us, so I'm going to actually just read some of the things that he wrote because they're quite helpful. Here are some examples. Number one, in my field, so he works in applied machine learning, a regression model is a type of machine learning model that outputs continuous data, meaning a decimal or real number as opposed to a discrete value like an integer or a category. In economy, regression is used to indicate the return or undesirable state. In medicine, regression can be used to describe when diseases decrease in severity or size or when a patient's experiencing loss of memories, loss of acquired skills, they're regressing. In stats, we have regression towards the mean, which is a concept that tells us that observations following a randomly sampled extreme outlier are likely to be closer to the mean. Interestingly, Vigo does not talk about the actual, like what I think of when I think of regression, which is a regression analysis and statistics, not regression to the mean, the actual statistical function of regression. So we'll get back to that. And then he also says in astronomy, regression can apparently mean, and this one was interesting to me too, I had to dive into this, retrograde motion. So they do use the term nodal regression to refer to a satellite shift of the orbits line of nodes over time as the Earth revolves around the Sun. But I found that that's actually called nodal precession. And we talk about precession on the show a lot, right? Yeah, we've talked about this idea, the rotating body is not actually a perfect sphere. So there's a non-uniform gravitational field. This thing, as it goes through the orbital plane, the satellite kind of moves around. There is a precession, but apparently that's also called nodal regression. So we hear this word, it seems to mean a lot of different things. There are some core features that bind them all together. And that's really that when we look at the etymology of the word, it takes us back to regresse, which is a return, a passage back, an act of going back. And that's from the Latin regressus, so a retreating, a going back, which we think ultimately goes back to a PIA root, which I can't even pronounce, G-H-R-E-D-H. Remember PIA is Proto-Indo-European. So this is what is theorized or hypothesized to be pre kind of Greek and Latin. And we see this in a ton of different words. Aggressive, digression, egress, progress, transgression, retrogress, tardigrade, gradual, graduate, degrade, degree, these all seem to come from that same root. But as we build on it and we look first to the Latin and then to later usages, this kind of regressus looks like going back, going back to a former kind of form, walking back, going back, returning, passaging back. In medicine, it looks like it was first used a lot earlier, in the 1600s, this idea of going back to a certain condition or relapsing. This person seems to be regressing. We saw that first used in like the 1600s. Prior to that, it was used more kind of generally philosophically, scientifically, this idea of returning to a point of departure. So either your actions could be or even measurements. Now we started to see things get really interesting in the 1800s with Galton. You guys remember {{w|Francis Galton}}? Have you heard of {{w|Karl Pearson|Pearson}}? Well, oftentimes he's lumped in with Spearman and Pearson and Galton. So he was like a pretty, he was a statistician and eugenicist, like most of them were at the time. And so it's really interesting because Galton seems to have coined the term regression to the mean. He was actually talking about regression toward mediocrity. That is the phrase that he used. And basically the idea was that offspring, because he was a geneticist, eugenicist, it was the same thing at the time, not completely, but many of them were, offspring deviated less from the mean value of the population than their parents did when you started to look at the statistics as a population whole phenomenon. So he was saying that this is why we saw change via inheritance. And then he started to come up with this idea of regression towards mediocrity. And eventually that led to the idea of regression to the mean, which you already kind of mentioned Evan, and we've talked about it a lot on the show. But the idea here is that if you take a random sample of a normal distribution and it's an extreme sample, the next sample is likely to be closer to the mean, median, or mode. So that's because the normal distribution has more things in the middle than in the extremes. And so the more you sample, the more likely are you to regress to the mean. You're more likely to get results that are less extreme. I looked at a few different internet forums, and I'm hoping that this is helpful to you, Vigo, when we look at your actual field, which is applied machine learning. Because as you described it, and you described it better than a lot of the descriptions I found online, a regression model is a type of machine learning model that outputs continuous data. So we're talking like real numbers 1.76531, as opposed to discrete data, so integers or categories, things that you can't subdivide, right? What does that have to do with this foundational, etymological root or definition of regression? So I've looked at a couple different forums, and I've seemed to come up with a couple different explanations. One of them comes from a guy, and I don't know if he's trying to square peg a round hole here, but I think it's interesting what he said. Regression comes from regress, from the Latin regresses. So in that sense, regression is the technique that allows, in machine learning, those to "go back" from messy, hard-to-interpret data to a clearer and more meaningful model. And that may be where the term came from in machine learning. And then you have other people explaining on these same kind of internet forums that machine learning, I guess, engineers, scientists, computer scientists, love to take terms from other branches of science and use them the way they want to use them, and apparently it has no basis in the actual definition of the term regression. So I'm not sure which is correct. I can't seem to find the answer online. But it's either that it's kind of a misnomer in machine learning or, and this might just be a backward justification, or it has to do with what I said earlier, this idea that using these regression models in machine learning, because I don't fully understand them, allow the algorithm to basically go back to a cleaner, more meaningful model. So go back away from harder-to-interpret data back to data that's cleaner and more meaningful. So in that way, it would be regressing. I'd be curious, Viggo, if you get this, if you want to reply again on the contact forum and let us know what you thought about the descriptions that I found online about machine learning. But it does seem like most of the other uses sort of come back to this foundational definition.

'''S:''' All right. Thanks, Cara.

'''C:''' Yep.

{{anchor|futureWTN}} 

== Who's That Noisy? (1:35:39) ==
{{wtnHiddenAnswer
|episodeNum = 902
|answer = Steamroller rolling over gravel: metal bar scraper over top of roller drum
|}}

'''S:''' Jay, it's Who's That Noisy Time?

'''J:''' All right, guys, last week I played this Noisy:

[fast metallic repetitive sound that suddenly stops]

'''C:''' I love that Noisy. It's so silly.

'''RS:''' That's a good Noisy. I like that.

'''C:''' Right?

'''J:''' All right. So I had many people write in on this one. One listener named William Steele said: "Hi, Jay, this week's Noisy sounds a bit like the Star Wars blaster sound from wrapping on a long cable. I will invoke a bit of that and say that this is a flywheel or some sort of long drive shaft in a tube, maybe some naval application." That is incorrect. But I mean, I totally see where you were going with that description. I have another listener here named Patrick McComb, who said: "It's a symbol rotating to a stop on a hard surface like a Euler's disk." Again, I could kind of hear that. I mean, I think a symbol would have been a little bit of a higher pitch or tinier sounding to be on the nose with that. Another listener named Matthew Killick wrote in and said: "Hey, Jay, newish listener, first time guessing. I think the Noisy this week is a super taut wire connected at both ends that's being spun really fast." Now, I've heard something like this, and I think you are correct when it comes to this guess as far as it I've heard that and I've heard a similar type of noise with the wire spinning on onto itself. But that is not correct. I have another guess from Michael Dello, and he says: "Hey, folks, this week's Noisy had a very motor engine feel to it. I think I could hear the engine dying out at the end. It also had a separate noise that sounded like someone running a stick along a metal fence. So he's guessing an old motor car engine with a defect or brake causing part of it to rattle along another part as the motor runs. So none of these are correct, and nobody actually guessed the Noisy this week. I knew this one was going to be difficult, but nobody even came close. So I'm just going to tell you what this is. This is a steamroller that is rolling over gravel, and there is a metal bar on a steamroller that clears the roller before it touches the ground again, kind of like would scrape things off of the roller.

'''E:''' Crushes away particles.

'''J:''' The way that I'm seeing it in the video, it looks almost like a knife-

'''E:''' [in Australian accent] That's not a knife.

'''J:''' -that runs along the drum to get stuff off of it, and it's scraping off these rocks that have stuck to the roller itself. I know it's weird, but it was such a cool Noisy. I had to use it. Very hard to guess. Of course, if anybody said steamroller, that would have been it.

'''E:''' Rocking roller.

'''J:''' Let me play the sound for you again. [plays Noisy] So the vibration, echoey vibration that you're hearing, I think is resonating off of the steel drum, which is essentially the front roller. Very cool Noisy. I really wanted to play that one for you guys. Damn near impossible to guess. But I got to throw some hard ones at you guys every once in a while.

'''E:''' And clearly we have no steamroll operators listening to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe.

'''J:''' Clearly.

'''C:''' Clearly. Thanks guys.

'''J:''' We have no steamroller people representation in this crowd. Something's off.

'''E:''' We got to expand our reach, yeah.

{{anchor|previousWTN}} 
=== New Noisy (1:39:02) ===

'''J:''' This next one was sent in by a listener named Peter Canold, and this is a really, really, really fun, cool Noisy. Check this one out.

[click-clacking melody]

All right, I think I played enough of that one for you to be able to figure something out about that, but there is something very specific happening in this Noisy. I would dare say it's unique because I've never seen anything like this before. Wow, is this a cool Noisy. Wait until I tell you what it is next week. If you think you know {{wtnAnswer|904|the answer}}, if you're from Australia, or if you heard a cool Noisy this week, you can email me at WTN@skepticsguide.org.

'''S:''' All right, thanks, Jay.

{{anchor|sof}}{{anchor|theme}}

== Science or Fiction (1:40:05) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = USA-Australia relationship

|item1 = Australia and the USA have had a long and close relationship with economic and military ties. An attack on the USA is considered to be an attack on Australia and vice-versa. We have adopted many parts of American culture, including over the last couple of decades a very American version of Halloween. With such a strong relationship going back to soon after the Declaration of Independence, it is interesting to note that the first time a sitting US President visited Australia wasn't until 1948, when Harry S. Truman visited the northern city of Brisbane and then the capital Canberra to thank Australian troops for their service, support and comradeship with US servicemen in the Pacific theatre fighting the Japanese during WWII. 

|item2 = Although you can get just about any kind of food in Australia, especially in the major cities, we are also known for some more usual tastes. While many Autrailians love {{w|Vegemite}} on their toast or {{w|Musk Stick|Musk Sticks}} as a candy, the one dish mentioned under "Traditional Cuisine" on the CIA World Factbook website's page on Australia is a Meat Pie: a fist-sized baked pie filled with ground meat, gravy, and cheese, and topped with ketchup; the gravy often contains onions and/or mushrooms. 

|item3 = The Melbourne Dogs was the name given to a short-lived gang of criminal immigrants from Australia in Los Angeles, during the mid-19th century. Originally part of the {{w|California Gold Rush}}, they moved to L.A. after not striking it rich in the gold fields. Because many of these criminals came from the well-known British penal colonies in Australia and were known to commit arson, they were blamed for an 1853 fire as well as the rampant crime in the city at the time. 

|}}
{{FOSResults
|fiction1 = USA president's visit
|fiction2 = Melbourne Dogs

|science1 = Meat pie in CIA Factbook

|rogue1 = jay
|answer1 = Meat pie in CIA Factbook

|rogue2 =bob
|answer2 =Melbourne Dogs

|rogue3 =Evan
|answer3 =USA president's visit

|rogue4 = Steve
|answer4 =USA president's visit

|rogue5 =cara
|answer5 = Meat pie in CIA Factbook

|host = Richard

|sweep = 
|clever = y
|win = 
|swept = 
}}

''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''

'''S:''' So we have a treat tonight, guys. Richard Saunders has prepared a science or fiction for us. Let's do it.

'''RS:''' All right, all right, Rogues. This week, I have three facts concerning the USA-Australia relationship. One is genuine, and two are fictitious. I challenge the panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the genuine one. So are you ready? Here they come. Item #1: Australia and the US have had a long and close relationship with economic and military ties. An attack on the USA is considered to be an attack on Australia and vice versa under our military pact. We have adopted many parts of American culture, including over the past couple of decades and a very American version of Halloween. With such a strong relationship going back decades, it's interesting to note that the first time a sitting US president visited Australia wasn't until 1948 when Harry S. Truman visited the northern city of Brisbane, then the capital, Canberra, to thank Australian troops for their service, support, and comradeship with US servicemen in the Pacific Theater during World War II. That's item #1.

Item #2: Although you can get just about any kind of food in Australia, especially in the major cities, we are also known for some unusual tastes. While many Australians love Vegemite on their toast or Mustics, I know there are some people in the Jade household who like Mustics, as a candy, the one dish, the one dish mentioned under traditional cuisine on the CIA World Factbook webpage on Australia is, drum roll, a meat pie. A fist-sized baked pie filled with ground meat, gravy, and cheese and topped with ketchup. The gravy often contains onions or mushrooms. That's item #2.

Item #3: The Melbourne Dogs was the name given to a short-lived gang of criminal immigrants from Australia to Los Angeles during the mid-19th century. Originally part of the 1849 Gold Rush, they moved to LA after not striking it rich in the gold fields, because many of these criminals came from the well-known British penal colonies in Australia. They were known to commit arson. They were blamed for a 1853 fire, as well as the rampant crime in the city at that time. There are your three items. And let's start with that well-known lover of Vegemite Northings Australian Jay.

=== Jay's Response ===

'''J:''' Okay. All right. So starting with the first one, Australia and the US have a long, close relationship economically, and they have military ties. This is a very long, descriptive thing about that relationship. And I'm going to say, I'm going to be very honest, I don't know to what degree the United States and Australia have a military relationship, but I do believe that they have a very strong one.

'''RS:''' That's not under contention. Really, the guts of this one is the presidential visit.

'''J:''' I'm going to absolutely think this one is science. I could see that happening, although you'd think that a president would have visited much earlier than that, but that seems true to me. The second one is, although you can get any kind of food in Australia, their traditional cuisine is a meat pie. This one intrigued me. And I would really think that this would be part of some type of traditional meal. In most countries, to be honest with you, some type of meat pie. So I think that one is science. This third one about the Melbourne dogs roaming around, of these three items, the two that I think are fiction are the first one, which is about a seated president not visiting Australia until 1948. And the second one is that I don't think that there was a band of criminals in California causing trouble. I do not think that that happened. Those are the two.

'''RS:''' So you're saying that the true one is the number two, the meat pie.

'''J:''' Meat pie is, go with the meat. You know what I'm saying, Richard?

'''RS:''' Absolutely. Bob, let's hear from you.

=== Bob's Response ===

'''B:''' Oh boy. One is true. Two are fictitious. One is true. So the fictitious is, I'm going to say Truman visiting in 46 is fictitious. It definitely seems late, but you know, it's Truman. Meat pie, I'm going to say that's fictitious too because I'm a big fan of meat pies. I don't remember. I remember Vegemite and I remember Mustics. I don't remember meat pie, the times that I've been there. And I think I would remember that. The one that I think is true is, I love the idea of this Melbourne dogs, these criminal immigrants in LA roving around. I like that idea too much to say that it's fictitious, so I'm going to say that is not fiction. True.

'''RS:''' That's the true one. Okay. Evan.

=== Evan's Response ===

'''E:''' All right. Well, I'm going a different direction here. I have a feeling the one that's true is the Truman one. I think you're playing a pun there. But also more importantly, because I went through in my head the list of presidents, mainly starting with say the year 1900 and then going forward, you've got what? Would McKinley have gone? No. Would Roosevelt have gone? Maybe. Maybe. That one I don't quite know about. But after him came, there was Taft in there. I don't think so. Wilson, World War I. We were also obviously part of that allied group, even though the U.S. came in later during the course of World War I. But I don't think Wilson would have gone. And you had who came after Wilson? Was it Coolidge and then the other guy-

'''B:''' Nobody knows.

'''E:''' -the guy before FDR. But in any case, I'm going through the list, I'm trying to think, well, who the heck would have gone? Which president would have made that visit? For what reason? I can't come up with a reason or a note. FDR, I don't believe, traveled internationally to Australia during his years and went to Europe during World War II and stuff. So I have a feeling that that one's going to turn out to be correct, therefore, by default, the other two are fiction.

'''RS:''' All right. Very good. Steve?

=== Steve's Response ===

'''S:''' Yeah, actually, I agree with Evan. For the second one, meat pies, I always thought of them as being more British, but that could obviously be have translated over to Australia. But I can kind of go either way with that one. And then I may be wrong about this, but wouldn't they be called the Melbourne dingoes? ''(laughter)''

'''C:''' Right, because there are no dogs in Australia.

'''S:''' And I was thinking along similar lines of Evan, also the fact that prior to air travel, I mean, all you do is spend six weeks on a boat going to Australia, it's a far away.

'''E:''' As a president?

'''S:''' That's the thing. You spend that much time as a president just traveling. They were busy running the country. So the thing that my caution is FDR was kind of was in office for a long time. And you think he would have eventually visited all of our major allies, especially since plane travel was coming into common use at that time. So that's my one caution there. It might have been FDR, but it's plausible that it just never got around to it. And Truman was the first one to specifically visit Australia. So I'm going to say that number one is science.

'''RS:''' The visit by the president is, as far as Steve is concerned, that's the science or the true one. Cara.

=== Cara's Response ===

'''C:''' So OK, so we've got Evan and Steve saying the visit by the president is science.

'''RS:''' Jay likes his meat pie and Bob likes the dogs.

'''C:''' Jay with some meat. Bob with the dogs. I'm going to go with Jay. I'm into the meat. I'm going to say that one's the science. I'm not going to give an explanation. We've heard enough explanations. I just feel like going with Jay on this one. This is dark board territory.

'''RS:''' So this is great. Excellent. We've got a bit of a mixed palette in front of us. And I know this is backwards to the way you normally do it. But as I say, I'm from Australia and we're just sort of like that.

'''S:''' It's upside down.

'''RS:''' It's upside down.

=== Richard Explains Item #1 ===

'''RS:''' But let me say the first one. The first item about the U.S-Australia relationship is all very true. We do have a strong close military bond and all the rest of it. However, it was Lyndon Baines Johnston who in 1966 had a three day visit to Australia.

'''C:''' That's the first time?

'''RS:''' Yeah. It's the very first presidential visit as a show of gratitude to the Australian nation for its support for the Vietnam War.

'''C:''' That feels very late.

'''RS:''' He was the first sitting U.S. president to visit Australia and visited again in the following year to attend the funeral of the prime minister, Harold Holt, who died in office after going swimming or diving in rough seas. His body was never found, leading to conspiracy theories that he was a Chinese spy and was taken by a submarine. The presidents who have visited Australia have been LBJ, Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, Bush Junior and Barack Obama. So that one was the fiction. So this will tell you, I'll just do them in order so we know.

=== Richard Explains Item #2 ===

'''RS:''' Item #2: You can get any kind of food in Australia, but the CIA reckon that the traditional cuisine of Australia is the meat pie. That is true. That is the fact.

'''E:''' Meat pie.

'''S:''' Meat pie.

'''C:''' Yeah, Jay.

'''J:''' Of course it's the meat pie. Come on.

'''RS:''' I couldn't believe this one when I saw it. As far as the CIA World Factbook are concerned, of all the things you can get in Australia, the meat pie is our traditional cuisine.

'''B:''' What the hell, man?

'''RS:''' They could have said the damper, which is a bread made from a wheat-based dough, flour, salt, and water, which is popular in the outback, booked over a campfire in the coals of the fire. Or they could have said the chicken parmigiana, which is a very popular dish, especially in clubs and pubs throughout Australia. But no, the meat pie wins out. And so Cara and Jay got that one wrong. And out of interest-

'''C:''' You mean we got it right?

'''S:''' Got it right.

'''RS:''' You got it right. See. I'm from Australia.

'''C:''' Dang it.

'''S:''' Australia, right is wrong, Cara.

'''E:''' That's right. Yeah.

'''RS:''' That's right.

'''S:''' Wrong is good.

'''RS:''' Wrong is right.

=== Richard Explains Item #3 ===

'''RS:''' Now, which means that the Melbourne dogs are a fiction, however, the Sydney Ducks was a name given to a gang of criminal immigrants from Australia in San Francisco during the 19th-

'''B:''' No. You sly bastard.

'''S:''' Sure.

'''RS:''' -mid-19th century. Because many of these criminals came from the well-known British penal colonies in Australia. They were known to commit arson. They were blamed for a 1849 fire that devastated the heart of San Francisco, as well as rampant crime in the city at the time. So the Sydney Ducks were a very real gang, come up from Sydney, come up from Australia to go in the gold rush, and ended up creating havoc in San Francisco. So that was the fictitious one, because it was the dogs. The dogs was fictitious.

'''S:''' Yeah, because they weren't dingoes.

'''RS:''' They weren't dingoes.

'''E:''' That's right.

'''RS:''' But we get back to the winners this week are Jay and Cara because they love their meat pies.

'''C:''' What?

'''J:''' I can't tell you how excited and happy I am to win this award. ''(laughter)'' Cara and I worked for three years on this one, and I'm just so proud of the work that we did, Cara.

'''C:''' Yep, me too. Me too. Me too. Well done.

'''S:''' Well done, gents. All right, thanks for that, Richard. That was a lot of fun.

'''J:''' That was awesome.

'''B:''' Cool.
{{anchor|qow}} 

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:53:03) ==


<blockquote>Collectively we make this future that we surprise ourselves with . – {{w|Adam Buxton}}, English actor </blockquote>

'''S:''' Evan, give us a quote.

'''E:''' All right. This week's quote comes from a listener named Jason. And Jason gives us his phone number, which I will not share on this podcast. ''(laughter)''

'''J:''' What the hell?

'''E:''' No, it's true. He did.

'''C:''' That's amazing.

'''E:''' Jason writes: "Great podcast. I love it. I was listening to Adam Buxton's podcast, where he interviews British novelist Ian McEwen, and they were talking about the difficulty of predicting trends in the future. Ian referenced the surprising rise of social media that even just 20 years ago, no one really saw coming." Here's the quote. "Collectively, we make this future that we surprise ourselves with." Ian McEwen. And Jason says he thought it was a rather poignant observation that the uses of new technology such as the internet are largely shaped by us, and yet we struggle to imagine what they will be. So thank you, Jason. I appreciate you sharing that with us.

'''S:''' I also think it relates to the fact that we create the future in the aggregate, but no individual could see that process, because it involves everybody. You know what I mean? It's bottom up rather than top down. It just emerges from our interface with technology and everything and millions of individual decisions. Nobody can necessarily, even though we're collectively doing it, we can't perceive it from our perspective until it's already happened. And we're like, what the hell? How did that happen? You know what I'm saying?

'''E:''' Yes.

'''J:''' I'm with you.

'''C:''' Yep.

'''S:''' I'm slightly related to that thing where you and somebody else are walking somewhere, or even a small group of people, and both people think that the other person is leading.

'''E:''' Oh my gosh.

'''B:''' No. Never.

'''S:''' So you're following them, and they're following you.

'''C:''' Oh, please. That's happened so many times.

'''E:''' That happened in our last trip down in New Zealand.

'''C:''' That happens on every trip. So we end up like blocks away. And then we're like, where are we going? And everybody's like, I'm following you. I'm following you.

'''E:''' Well, we get talking about things as we walk. All kinds of things.

'''S:''' But we collectively are deciding where to go, thinking we're following each other.

'''C:''' We're a murmuration.

'''E:''' Clearly we are not Borg.

'''B:''' A murmuration. Nice.

== Signoff (1:55:18) ==

'''S:''' All right. Well, thanks for joining us, Richard. It's been great catching up with you. We should go another three years before we touch base again.

'''RS:''' I'll make sure that doesn't happen.

'''S:''' Yeah. Yeah. We have to meet in meat space somewhere.

'''B:''' Yes.

'''E:''' Meat space. Meat pies. Meat space. Meet me in Saint Luis.

'''J:''' I'm holding out for an in-person situation.

'''S:''' Yeah. That's what I'm saying.

'''E:''' Let's do it.

'''C:''' Meat space.

'''S:''' We'll call it meat spice.

'''E:''' Meat spice.

'''C:''' Spicy meat spice and spice.

'''S:''' All right. Thanks, everyone, for joining me this week.

'''J:''' You got it, Steve.

'''B:''' Sure man.

'''E:''' Thank you, doctor.

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 
{{Outro664}}{{top}}

== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description

== Notes ==
<references group=note/> 
== References ==
<references/>
=== Vocabulary ===
<references group=v/> 

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
|Forgotten Superheroes of Science =
|This Day in Skepticism =
|Women in History =
}}

USA-Australia relationship (903 SoF)

2025-11-17T05:10:01Z

Xanderox: haven't been on in forever. just dropping in. keep up the good work everyone

#REDIRECT
[[SGU_Episode_903#theme]]
[[Category:SoF with a Theme]]
[[Category:History]]

SGU Episode 981

2025-10-16T05:44:58Z

Xanderox: /* After Death Communications (TW) (55:43) */ adjusting location of TW

{{Editing required
|transcription =
|proofreading = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y 
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 981
|episodeDate = {{900s|981|boxdate}} 

|verified = 

|episodeIcon = File:981 NASA-Advanced-Composite-Solar-Sail-System-Spacecraft.jpg

|caption = This artist's concept shows NASA's Advanced Composite Solar Sail System spacecraft sailing in space using the energy of the Sun. Credit: NASA/Aero Animation/Ben Schweighart

|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|Evan =y

|qowText = Failure is a reality; we all fail at times, and it's painful when we do. But it's better to fail while striving for something wonderful, challenging, adventurous, and uncertain than to say, "I don't want to try because I may not succeed completely."
|qowAuthor = {{w|Jimmy Carter|President Jimmy Carter}}, American politician and humanitarian
|downloadLink = {{900s|981|download}} 

|forumLinktopic = 55469.0 
|}}


== Introduction, John Oliver's UFO episode ==
''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the {{SGU|link=y}}. Today is Wednesday, April 24th, 2024, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella...

'''B:''' Welcome! Welcome! Welcome!

'''S:''' Cara Santa Maria...

'''C:''' Howdy.

'''S:''' Jay Novella...

'''J:''' What the hell was that?

'''S:''' ...and Evan Bernstein.

'''E:''' Hi, everyone.

'''J:''' Bob, did you take happy pills? What's happening?

'''E:''' You threw us all off there, Bob.

'''B:''' I guess you don't watch John Oliver, Jay.

'''S:''' That's John Oliver's typical intro to Last Week Tonight.

'''B:''' Every episode.

'''E:''' And why would you be saying such a thing, Bob?

'''C:''' Yeah, Bob. Why?

'''B:''' Do I need a reason? Oh, yes. I was told I got a text from Christian Hubicki, our roboticist buddy. And I was like, oh, boy. I went down and I immediately - I had no time because I had to leave for work, just fast forwarded to the scene and took a screenshot of our logo.

'''S:''' What we're talking about, the segment was on UFO, which is a little bit unusual for Oliver. And early in the segment, he's talking about the fact that even Jimmy Carter saw an unidentified flying object. Again, not like an alien spacecraft, but just like a UFO, an unidentified object. And we interviewed Jimmy Carter about that. And on our interview with them, he insisted that although he didn't know what he saw was, it was not the planet Venus.

'''E:''' He was insistent.

'''S:''' He was insistent on that. We had thrown that out there. It was like, well, that wasn't the direction and the altitude of Venus. And people could mistake it because atmospheric conditions and et cetera, et cetera. But he was very adamant that it wasn't. So anyway, they were just using that quote. And while they used the quote of him saying it wasn't Venus and what Venus looks like, it showed the SGU logo and episode 107 or whatever it was.

'''B:''' Yeah, from 2007.

'''E:''' 2007.

'''S:''' From 2007. It was pretty cool.

'''B:''' Yeah, that was epic.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Yeah, it was unfortunate that it was in what I thought was like a pretty credulous piece. It felt very out of step for John Oliver, this piece.

'''B:''' Yeah, it was a little disappointing, I would say for sure.

'''S:''' Before we get on to that, I just want to point out that I no longer think Jimmy Carter saw the planet Venus because since then, after we interviewed him, there was another investigation which found that he was also looking in the direction of like a military base that had launched something which he probably is what he saw. So that was technology, not Venus.

'''B:''' Oh, interesting.

'''S:''' Yeah. And I think he accepts that explanation.

'''B:''' Oh, nice update.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' Cool.

'''S:''' But in terms of the piece itself, I wrote about this on Neurologica. I was very disappointed with it ultimately. I mean parts of it were fine. And he did a reasonable summary of like, here's the history of the United States investigating UFOs. But you know, the show has a particular narrative, and I felt he was kind of shoehorning this topic into that narrative, and it didn't quite fit. So that narrative being like, this is a serious topic, we're doing it wrong, and we need to do a better job, right? And so in this case, it's like investigating unidentified flying objects, whatever you think they are, should be serious scientific work. The government is doing it wrong. And then here's all the examples of how they're doing it wrong. But that led him to a place of false equivalency, and also false balance where he was saying, you have hardened skeptics on one side who were like eye-rolling and dismissive, and you have true believers on the other side who will believe anything. And it sort of causes a chilling effect. And what we really need are dispassionate scientists researching this, because isn't this interesting, you know?

'''C:''' But don't you feel like he was conflating the two? Basically, he was saying, we need more serious inquiries, but then he gave a bunch of examples of serious inquiries. And then he's like, the whole thing of like, we're doing it wrong was really what he was saying, and maybe I'm misinterpreting, was we're talking about it wrong. Like he wasn't actually critical of what's been done. He was critical of the fact that like during a press conference, or when something is described by the government, there's a bit of an eye roll, or that the skeptical community is like, yeah, based on this, this is kind of bullshit. And he was saying, that's offensive, that's whatever, that's not giving it the seriousness it deserves. But it's like, I don't know, what is that logical fallacy? Like he wasn't actually that critical of the investigations.

'''S:''' Well he cherry-picked some, like the Condon Report. The Condon Report was a very small preliminary like pilot study. And the question was just, does this deserve further resources to investigate it? And Condon concluded, no. But he did a very limited investigation. And he basically quoted Condon as saying some very dismissive things about UFO believers and saying like, that's a biased investigation. It's like, well, he didn't prove the investigation itself was biased. In fact, it was fine. But it was what it was. He mentions Project Blue Book. But that's like, that was serious investigation. That was thousands of, it was years and thousands of sightings. And it was a lot of resources were put into that. He did not mention the recent Pentagon investigation. He did not mention.

'''B:''' That was huge.

'''C:''' That was weird.

'''B:''' That was a huge omission that was shocking to me.

'''S:''' He didn't mention that NASA is investigating it. So yeah, I thought he kind of like had his narrative and he kind of left out the things that didn't fit the narrative.

'''B:''' One thing that I did not like especially was that he had, did he really need to have a former Navy pilot on screen? Did he need to give this guy airtime saying there's something out there better than our airplanes? Because you know, he can believe whatever he wants. But giving that quote airtime, all I could think of was that the major takeaway for a lot of viewers of that episode is going to be that quote.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' That was like not justified, not justified.

'''S:''' And he let it hang there. He did not counter. He didn't say, but skeptics say that it was probably a bird. That's the other thing. Like he said, there are, there are like good, there is good investigation. Didn't really give Mick West the props that he deserves, but he showed like there was a four hour video just technically analysing the go fast video. And his conclusion was, we now, it was boring, but he said, we now know like, like where it was and how fast it was moving, but we don't know what it was. So we made it seem as if it's still a mystery. And he didn't say, but therefore, because we know how high it was and how big it was and how fast it was with this analysis, it could be a bird. He didn't say that that is now compatible with a bird. It's not a mystery. It's probably was just a seagull or something.

'''C:''' He also literally didn't have any argument against the skeptic perspective, except sometimes it's mean. Like there really wasn't.

'''E:''' Did he really say that?

'''C:''' No, but that was the tone. Like every time he pushed back against the skeptical view, it was very much like, that's not very respectful of people and we should be listening to people when they have these, these observations. And like it was very much like he, he was tone policing and saying, because of the tone of how, how the skeptical, whether they be activists or scientists or whatever, because of the tone of what they're saying, I don't know what his conclusion was, but he wasn't giving it a lot of like credence and that was really frustrating to me.

'''E:''' He puts it into a position in which it's like an extremist position and you should be something aiming for something more towards the middle. That's a better place.

'''C:''' I mean, obviously that's the false equivalency issue because there is no middle on this, but it's more that like, I didn't hear a single critical argument against the skeptical position. Except they're kind of mean about it.

'''S:''' I don't think he was doing that. Yeah, but I don't think he was, I don't think he was even addressing the question of what UFOs are. He was being agnostic towards that. That wasn't the point of the piece. The point was that.

'''C:''' But he did list it.

'''S:''' But yeah, but I think he was, again, he wanted to leave that question unaddressed, which again, I think inadvertently led to this false balance kind of approach because he had to say, well you have the skeptics on one side and the true believers on the other. What we need are serious scientists in the middle, but they're chilled because of the eye rolling or they're put off because of the true believers. And when the government gets involved, they do it wrong and here's all the ways in which they did it wrong. And without the mentioning all the times where they did really good, serious investigation.

'''C:''' But that also shows a difficulty, like a lot of the serious scientists by nature are skeptics. You know what I mean? Like there's so much crossover.

'''S:''' Exactly. And like he even mentioned Carl Sagan, like favourably talking about like, yeah, we should be investigating UFOs and didn't mention that he wrote an entire book about why it's all bullshit.

'''E:''' Right.

'''S:''' You know?

'''C:''' Exactly.

'''S:''' Why the evidence is shite. So, yeah, it just it didn't land where I think you should have landed. He could have fit his narrative talking about this without, I think, taking this false balance approach. So, yeah, it was a rare, I think, flub on his part. And I do think at the end of the day, I think that he thinks there's something to this.

'''C:''' Yeah, I think so, too, because he sounded credulous, like they were just-

'''B:''' Really?

'''C:''' -yeah, yeah, he did. I don't think he's like a true believer.

'''S:''' No, no. Like he said, like he quoted the two pilots saying there was something real there. We don't know what it is. And he's like, yeah, that's that's chilling, he said, to think that there's something going on there. We need to know what this is, whatever it is, rather than he's not fully aware of the fact that, yeah, it's just seagulls and Mylar balloons and distant aircraft and drones.

'''B:''' Exactly.

'''S:''' That's the evidence is all compatible with that. And everything else is noise and bullshit from true believers. And there isn't really a mystery here. That's the thing. He thinks there is a mystery here when there really isn't. And we're not being dismissive when we say that. That's based upon lots and lots of investigation.

'''C:''' Right.

'''E:''' And the media does that at large as well, in a much larger sense.

'''C:''' And that's what's so frustrating, is that he did that. Like every time there was a claim that had been debunked, he pointed to the debunking. And so it's like he wasn't even listening to some of his own writing in the segment. It was very strange. And I couldn't help but think that maybe this is just the halo effect, that maybe one of his writers, that this was like a pet project or like something really interesting. And one of his writers was like, this is going to be the story we do. All right. Like, I'd be really curious to see what his real take is on UFOs.

'''S:''' Right. Right, right, right.

'''B:''' Talk about a deep dive, though. Finding a podcast from 2007.

'''J:''' I know.

'''B:''' A quick little Carter quote.

'''J:''' Well, we are listed in the Wikipedia. You know, it is something that's searchable, Bob.

'''B:''' Yeah, I know.

'''J:''' You can search for that.

'''E:''' Jimmy Carter UFO, we do show up. Yes.

'''S:''' Not on the first page.

'''C:''' I mean, don't think it was actually John Oliver doing that work.

'''E:''' Not on your first page.

'''C:''' Like his whole staff.

'''B:''' He's got his people. They've indicated in the past that they may be familiar at least with Steve's science-based medicine as well.

'''S:''' No, they've definitely made references that, like to me, feel like they came right out of the skeptical literature. That's not a mainstream reference. Like referencing p-hacking, you know.

'''C:''' Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of his writers doesn't consider themselves a skeptic. I mean, the tone of his show is very skeptical.

'''S:''' Oh, yeah. Of course. Yeah.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Absolutely.

'''C:''' That's why this stuck out a bit like a sore thumb, I think.

'''S:''' Still, it's cool to see our logo on a national television.

'''C:''' Hell, yeah.

'''E:''' Nice surprise. Nice surprise.

'''S:''' It's kind of more of like an Easter egg for our listeners to see that.

'''C:''' Yeah. We get a lot of like fun emails from people taking screenshots.

'''S:''' All right. Well, let's get on with the rest of the episode.

== News Items ==

{{anchor|news#}} 

=== Voyager Fixed (12:21) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/after-months-of-sending-gibberish-to-nasa-voyager-1-is-finally-making-sense-again
|article_title = After months of sending gibberish to NASA, Voyager 1 is finally making sense again
|publication =ls
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' Jay, you're going to start off by telling us how Voyager has been fixed.

'''J:''' Yeah. So Bob talked about what happened or basically what the symptoms were, but finally we know more details and actually NASA was able to fix it, which is pretty damn remarkable.

'''B:''' Remarkable.

'''E:''' That's a long screwdriver.

'''J:''' Yeah. So do you guys remember what Voyager 1's mission was?

'''E:''' To photograph-

'''B:''' It's like Jupiter and Saturn, right?

'''E:''' Yeah. The gas giant.

'''S:''' To seek out new worlds and new civilizations.

'''J:''' Yeah. I mean, it was basically to do a close flyby of the outer planets because they happen to be in a rare 176-year alignment.

'''C:''' Oh. And so all that additional stuff was more added because we knew it wasn't going to come back?

'''J:''' Yeah. Yeah. So they-

'''C:''' The golden record was, it just going to keep going, so we might as well.

'''J:''' Yeah, they wanted to take some digital imagery of the outer planets and all that, but then they said that's its primary objective, but then they had a secondary extended objective, which was to study the outer solar system and beyond just to keep going. And they wanted it to transition into what's known as the interstellar mission, right? And it did and it survived and it has survived for a very long time to the point where, it's pretty much outside of the Earth's heliosphere. And it is floating in interstellar space, which is unbelievable. I don't think any of the people who originally designed it even thought it would last this long.

'''B:''' Oh, God, no.

'''J:''' So what happened was NASA discovered that Voyager 1 was unable to send any readable data back to Earth. This goes back to November 14th of 2023. And they were able to deduce that it was due to a chip failure in one of the three onboard computers. And that was a big problem because how were they going to fix it, right?

'''E:''' 1977 computers we're talking about.

'''J:''' Exactly. Exactly. I mean, we're talking about really, really low powered computers that don't have any versatility just chips that do very singular type things. What they discovered was after the engineer team did a deep dive on it, they were able to figure out that the chip that malfunctioned, and there's only three of them on board, by the way, that the chip that malfunctioned was specifically intended to help with the flight data subsystem. And that chip was also responsible for storing data. It was flight data. It was basically the memory of what the spacecraft was experiencing and sending to NASA. So they couldn't fix it manually. They had to figure out a different way. So what they came up with was that they decided that they would redistribute the data that was stored on that chip to the other chips.

'''B:''' Yeah, like the corrupted bit of the memory, right?

'''J:''' Yeah, the corrupted bit of the memory and also code that runs the chip, like the operating system. So they load balanced it across the other processors, which also have memory on board. And they had to reboot it. And it took 22 hours to send the signal to tell it what to do. It did something. And then 22 hours after that, they got a signal back and it was freaking functioning again. They totally pulled it off.

'''E:''' I mean seriously. How impressive is that?

'''B:''' I mean, also, but they are waiting now, though, to actually get for the ultimate conclusion is to get actual new scientific data back. And I think they're still waiting on that.

'''J:''' They are. That'll take a while.

'''B:''' But it seems to be in a much better place now.

'''J:''' So guys, I mean, put this into perspective here. We're talking about, I'm about to throw a number at you that the human brain can't really conceive of because we're not built to understand big numbers like this. It's currently 15 billion miles or 24 billion kilometers away from the Earth. That is so unbelievably far. And to think that in 22 hours, light can get there, right? The radio signal can get there. They told it what to do. It did it relatively quickly. And then 22 hours after that, it sent an info back saying, I'm fixed. Basically, I'm functioning and here's my heartbeat data. That is what they usually check on. They can check on it at any time and it'll say, I'm good or something's wrong.

'''C:''' So Jay, given that number, which is to me completely meaningless, where is it compared to stuff like that?

'''J:''' If you zoom out of our solar system and you zoom out, zoom out, zoom out, and then the planets and the sun shrink down, and then there's a zone which we call the heliosphere, which means that you are still under the effect of our local sun.

'''B:''' So the magnetosphere, the sun, and the solar wind. It's outside of that influence into the interstellar medium.

'''C:''' So it's past all of the outer minor, what are they called? Minor planets?

'''B:''' The dwarf planets?

'''C:''' Yeah, the dwarf planets. And it's past, because those are within that boundary, right?

'''B:''' It's still barely out there. It's not even close to the Oort cloud of comets. It's not even close.

'''C:''' Oh, okay. It's not even close to the Oort cloud.

'''E:''' Oh, so we got a ways to go.

'''C:''' But it is technically, okay.

'''J:''' It is no longer under the influence of our sun.

'''C:''' Okay, gotcha.

'''J:''' And you know, this is a 45-year-old spacecraft. That's the other thing. You know, when you just think about that, like we have spacecraft that just went to the moon and they're done, you know? And this thing has been going for 45 years. Both of them, Voyager 1 and 2. So mad props to the engineers at JPL for being able to figure this one out and work with a computer that was from the 70s.

'''C:''' Yeah, that's incredible.

'''E:''' Just, you know.

'''J:''' Right?

'''E:''' That's hard to comprehend.

'''C:''' I feel like this just reinforces like my mom's husband or like my cranky dad when they're like, cars back in the day, they didn't have all those computers and they had the crank windows and they still work. It's like this computer from the 70s is still going so strong, the Voyager.

'''J:''' I mean, that's an interesting thing to think about, Carol. Is it simplicity, the reason why it lasted so long?

'''C:''' Are there more mechanical things in there that aren't necessarily computer? I don't know. Yeah.

'''J:''' You know, today things are so computer run like when you go back to the Apollo missions and all the wiring and crazy switches and all that shit that was aboard that ship. And then you look at SpaceX's latest spacecraft and it's got none of that wiring, you know? It's just got computer processors.

'''C:''' Just big touch screens for everything.

'''J:''' I would think the touch screen thing would be less trouble prone, but you would have to ask an expert, you know? I don't know. But I love the fact that there are human endeavours like this that are impressive, that are generational. You know, it's possible it could go another 30, 40 years and we might be still getting signals from it. You know, that-

'''B:''' Wait a second. Wait a second. No. There's a hard limit here, Jay, in terms of how much energy that it has.

'''E:''' Well, it has a nuclear powered device on it, right? There's something that will decay out.

'''B:''' I remember reading it may only have, I don't know the number, I think it might be something on the order of 15 years or less when it'll reach a point where it's got no juice left.

'''J:''' They're saying 2036.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' Okay. There you go.

'''E:''' It will run out.

'''C:''' Depending on how much power it has.

'''J:''' You want to look at it negatively like that, Bob, go right ahead.

'''B:''' Power shmower.

'''J:''' I'm trying to tell people how magnificent this is and you just got to like you got to come down hard. That's fine. That's science. I get it. But you got to let me dream, you know?

'''C:''' But you know what's kind of funny is like I just looked up an FAQ from the JPL Voyager page, which clearly was written a long time ago, because it says, how long can Voyager 1 and 2 continue to function? And the first line says, Voyager 1 is expected to keep its current suite of science instruments on through 2021.

'''E:''' Oops. Time for some updates.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''E:''' But if you go to NASA's JPL mission status on Voyager, it will give you a live mission elapsed time, which is ticking away, second at a time. Distance from Earth, it's making that calculation as it goes. Some other data here as well in real time. And this thing is traveling at 38,000 miles per hour, which is, yeah.

'''B:''' And Cara, don't forget, when they said its current suite of capabilities, they may have been accurate because it's definitely not what it used to be.

'''C:''' Yeah. It says it has to like prioritize instruments and kind of shut them down based on how much the radioisotope thermoelectric generator can power. It says it puts out four watts less each year. So it goes down by four watts each year. But this is interesting. OK, even if the science data won't likely be collected after 2025, they think that's sort of when they can, like the last point at which one science instrument would operate. Engineering data could continue and they could remain in the range, both Voyagers, in the deep space network through 2036, depending. So they might, that 2036 number sounds like that's just based on where it'll be. The two Voyager spacecraft could remain in the range of the deep space network through about 2036, depending on how much power they still have to transmit a signal back to Earth.

'''B:''' Right. Yeah.

'''C:''' So it still could be doing stuff. We just won't know about it.

'''B:''' I mean, up until it seems to me that up until 2036, we should, it should be able to communicate and transfer data. But after that, no, because it just won't.

'''C:''' Because we won't be able to reach the data.

'''B:''' Well, four watts. Yeah.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' Four watts though a year is you're going to hit zero at some point.

'''C:''' Gotcha. Yeah. It's interesting how loaded a question, like how long will it work is like, what are we asking specifically?

'''E:''' Depends.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Yes. Yeah. Need more info. Oh, and Voyager 1 took the pale blue dot photo as well, which you can never forget because that is one of the greatest photographs of all time.

'''J:''' Yeah. I totally agree, Ev.

=== NASAs New Solar Sail (22:27) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://scitechdaily.com/liftoff-nasas-next-generation-solar-sail-boom-technology-launched/
|article_title = Liftoff! NASA's Next-Generation Solar Sail Boom Technology Launched
|publication = SciTechDaily
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' Oh, we got some other cool space news this week. NASA has launched its next generation solar sail technology.

'''B:''' Ooh, talk to me.

'''E:''' Ooh.

'''S:''' Yeah. So this is the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System or ACS3. They launched it on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. You guys familiar with this? Let's just talk about that for a second.

'''E:''' No.

'''S:''' So this is the only reusable small sized orbital rocket, right? So this is the smallest rocket that could actually get into orbit. And it, it's used for delivering small satellites and it's re, the first stage is reusable. You know how it's reusable?

'''J:''' No.

'''S:''' So when it, after it comes back down through the atmosphere, it deploys a parachute to slow it down and then a helicopter grabs it in midair.

'''E:''' Oh snags it.

'''B:''' What the hell?

'''E:''' Hooks it right out of the air.

'''B:''' I got to see that video.

'''S:''' Well, I'll show it to you. I got it. So anyway, so it was launched from New Zealand from their one of their launch pads there.

'''B:''' Spice.

'''S:''' And yesterday and successfully apparently. So it's a CubeSat with a solar sail, right? With the next, basically the next generation of a solar sail. And so it's going to about twice the altitude of the ISS, 600 miles above the ground. It needs to be in a relatively high orbit because once the solar sail deploys, it has to be high enough that the pressure from the solar sail is greater than the drag from the atmosphere. So they want to use it to get into a higher orbit. They just want to show that the solar sail works and then it could change the orbit of the CubeSat using the sail. Do you know how much acceleration you get? Like how much pressure is on the solar sail when it's optimally oriented to the sun?

'''B:''' How big is the sail?

'''S:''' It's about the size of an apartment. It measures seven meters, 23 feet long. So that's one of the booms. So basically it's there, there are four booms with the solar sail material in between them. So this is testing both new booms and I think the same sort of solar sail material. So when successfully deployed, it will have the acceleration equal to a paper clip, like resting a paper clip in the palm of your hand. That's how much pressure will be exerted by sunlight on the solar sail. They also say that when it's reflecting light, if it's in the right orientation, it'll be twice as bright as Sirius, as the star Sirius, which is the brightest star in the sky. So I guess we'll be able to see it from the ground. So what's the boom? The booms used to be made of steel. This one is made out of a carbon fibre reinforced polymer. So it's both stronger and lighter. And that lightweight is obviously critical because obviously every ounce matters when you only have a paper clip's worth of acceleration. The solar sail is about the size of a toaster when it's all compact. And each of the booms unroll, they say like tape from a tape measure, you know what I mean? It's like rolled up and then it stretches out. It actually took me a while to figure out what the sail itself is made of. Most of the reporting doesn't say.

'''E:''' Oh, could it be, well, it wouldn't be classified.

'''S:''' No. No one bothered mentioning what it's made of.

'''B:''' I hate when they do that.

'''S:''' I think like NASA's reporting on it didn't say anything. The Planetary Society reporting didn't say anything about it. But eventually I found out. So it's a membrane of polyethylene naphthalate, PEN, with one side covered in an aluminium coating to increase reflectivity and the other side coated in chromium to increase thermal emissivity. So that's it. Yeah. It took me a while to find that little bit of information. Because everyone was talking about, I guess, they're really much more excited about the booms.

'''B:''' The booms. The lightweight booms.

'''S:''' Upgraded booms. And they say, so if this tests out, it's going to be two months before they actually unfurl the sail. Two months. So we have to wait that long to see if that works out properly. And then if everything works, then they'll see if they can use it to maneuver the CubeSat. And the CubeSat is about the size of a microwave oven. You have to have your appliance, I guess, scale. And then if everything works out, they said with this material, they should be able to make bigger and bigger solar sails. The bigger the solar sail relative to the satellite that's attached to it, the more acceleration you're going to get from it.

'''E:''' Yet still being able to use small reusable rockets to launch these.

'''S:''' Yeah. Because it's always going to be small and light. Even the bigger versions of it are still going to be relatively small and light. So the booms, seven meters, 23 feet long, weigh just 900 grams or two pounds. So that's pretty light. 75% lighter than the metallic booms that they were using. And 100 times less susceptible to warping under extreme temperatures. So they're more stable. The next follow-on missions, they say, are going to use sails of 2,000 square meters.

'''E:''' Wow. Nice.

'''S:''' So that's significantly bigger.

'''E:''' And all of this is solar powered?

'''S:''' It's all just... I mean, the CubeSat itself, I don't know. The solar sail, obviously, is just...

'''E:''' I'm talking about the sail, yes.

'''S:''' The solar sail, it's just light from the sun.

'''E:''' So we don't need to pulse lasers or anything?

'''S:''' No. It's not a light sail, right? It's not a light... A light sail is something that operates off a laser. This is a solar sail that operates off the sun. Light sails are a similar idea, but you're shooting lasers at the sail. But the sail itself would have to be of a different material. It'd have to be a lot stronger. And we still don't really know what those are going to be made of. Like what a laser light sail would be made of. There are some ideas, like this sort of ruby encrusted thing, whatever, like some exotic materials that we're thinking of for that. This is just a solar sail, right? So it's just sunlight.

'''B:''' Those light sails, though, they're going to be big in the far future, man.

'''S:''' I agree.

'''B:''' Mark my words.

'''E:''' It's going to be a monster, right?

'''J:''' Far in the future, Bob.

'''B:''' You don't have to carry your fuel. It depends how big you're talking, but we could see small versions of the directed energy light sails in, I don't know, 10 years, 15 years. But for really transporting through the solar system using that, or even farther, it's going to be quite a while.

'''S:''' At this point, it's all material science. But the potential of this technology is immense. And unlike almost all of science fiction, this could be our major mode of long distance space travel. Because as Bob said, the big advantage here is that you don't carry your fuel with you.

'''B:''' It's huge. It's more than big.

'''S:''' It's huge. It frees you of the tyranny of the rocket equation, right? And even though accelerations are very minimal, they can be continuous and they build up over time and you can get to incredible, incredible velocities, 20% of the speed of light or more.

'''B:''' I've heard even far more than 20%, potentially, the laws of physics will allow it. Who knows how far it would be practical.

'''S:''' It also could be, and this was depicted in the show For All Mankind, is a ship that isn't entirely solar sail based could still use it. You could unfurl your sails and get a little bit of an extra boost. Whatever fuel you save, again, it's magnified because of the rocket equation. It's mainly going to be used for small ships, satellites, et cetera, probes, until we can get to the point where we have the material science to have really massive light sails that are strong enough and can reflect lasers being bounced off of them. And then maybe you could attach a large enough ship to have people in it. But that's far future.

'''B:''' Yeah. I want to see some science fiction with that.

'''S:''' Yeah. It has a lot of potential.

'''E:''' Take that, Wernher von Braun.

'''S:''' Rockets have their uses. We will always need them to get off planet.

'''E:''' Oh, yeah.

'''B:''' Most likely, yes.

'''S:''' All right.

=== Bird Flu in Milk (31:25) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/health/bird-flu-milk.html?referringSource=articleShare&smid=nytcore-ios-share&utm_source=pocket_saves
|article_title = Fragments of Bird Flu Virus Discovered in Milk
|publication = nyt
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' Cara, give us an update on the bird flu. I understand it's in our milk now.

'''C:''' Yeah. It's getting-

'''B:''' I thought it tasted funny.

'''C:''' A little worrisome here. So I want to kind of go back a little bit for those of you who maybe don't know. We've talked about the bird flu a few times on the show, but a little bit of sort of background of kind of the modern bird flu that I'm describing here. So way back in 1996, there was this strain of H5N1, bird flu, which was really, really pathogenic and it was infecting waterfowl in China. Within that year, I think maybe one year later, 18 people in Hong Kong got sick and six of them died. And then the virus just sort of went away. In 2003, it resurfaced in Hong Kong. And since then, it's sort of been in the background. We've had lots of outbreaks in poultry. There have been like, I think, 800 reported cases of illness in human beings. But during that whole time, all the way back since 2003, it's been evolving. So the version that we're dealing with right now is a version that erupted in 2020 in Europe. And it spread really quickly, pretty much all over the globe. Lots of birds died. So first to Africa and then Asia, but then we're seeing it now across the globe. So lots of birds died and specifically farmed birds. But the big difference with this evolved version that started in 2020 is that it's also pretty good at infecting wild birds. And then there have been multiple spillover events. Some of those spillover events were sort of like one-offs. So let's say a wild dog eats an infected bird, and then it dies. But some other events are a little bit worrisome because they've shown to, or they've proven to be the beginnings of pretty big outbreaks across species, and not just in birds, but mammals. So in the summer of 2022, a bunch of seals died. A few months later, we saw a mink farm in Spain that was infected. And then eventually we saw birds who were kind of flying across the globe, traveling and spreading this disease. So lots of seabirds. And then we saw sea lions dying in droves, in absolute droves. And there are like whole articles that you can read about the marine issue. So these sea lions and then eventually I think elephant seals were dying in really, really large numbers. We don't really know when those spillover events happened or exactly how they happened, but it could be that these marine mammals were infected with the droppings of birds or were in close contact with infected birds. And then what's interesting is that we started to see mammal-to-mammal transmission, which is pretty worrisome. So it does seem to be the case that infected birds first passed the virus to mammals, but then there's pretty good evidence to show that mammals pass the virus to other mammals. Specifically in this situation, we're talking elephant seals and sea lions passing. They breed in really large colonies. They're on these big beaches. Apparently elephant seals are like really big sneezers. This is where we start to get a little bit worried, right? Because there are a lot of opportunities for mammalian transmission to people, people hanging out on the beach where there are sick beached seals or individuals who are in close contact with scavenging animals, for example. And so we're seeing that there's a legitimate concern about spillover to people. But let's now talk about sort of the next big thing that is hitting the news waves right now, and that's farm animals. And what researchers think, they're still collecting data to try and figure this out, is that there was another spillover event back to birds that then ended up spilling over to cows. And we're starting to see that there are fragments of bird flu virus, of H5N1, in our milk supply here in the United States. Samples of pasteurized milk, this was announced on just yesterday as of this recording from federal regulators, that samples of pasteurized milk in some kind of isolated situations are showing inactive remnants of the bird flu. Now there's been a lot of critique about how the USDA is handling this. You know, kind of a common response is like, don't panic, but let's try and get out in front of this. We don't have any reason to think that the viral fragments can sicken people, because A, they're dead, B, they're just fragments of virus, and C, they're in pasteurized milk. So we have to remember that pasteurization is one of the best tools we have for preventing illness. And there are often bacteria and viruses in milk prior to pasteurization. If you are somebody, I don't think the listeners of this show are going to be included in this, but if you or someone you know drinks unpasteurized milk, I would be much more concerned right now. I would be much more, I mean, I would never drink unpasteurized milk anyway, but-

'''E:''' I drank it once in my life by accident, not knowing that I went to a diner-

'''C:''' Where they had unpasteurized?

'''E:''' And I asked, and I rarely do, I asked for milk, I don't know, pancakes or something, and it was like, what is wrong with this milk? Something's totally wrong here. And then, oh my gosh, it's a Polish diner. And you know, in, again old school kind of tradition, they don't, they wouldn't pasteurize the milk.

'''C:''' Whoa.

'''E:''' So that was it. And it was like, shock to my senses.

'''C:''' Yeah. So, and if you're somebody who regularly drinks or buys unpasteurized milk, I would definitely be a little bit more concerned right now. It looks like the most recent data that I found is that here in the US, H5N1 has been detected in over 30 herds of dairy cows across eight different states. And even one farm worker was known to get infected by the virus, but luckily they weren't that sick. They got pink eye from their exposure. But there is a lot of concern amongst agricultural and infectious disease scientists that the federal response has been really, really slow. And a lot of it has to do with basically just the protocol, the red tape, like in order to test these cows, you have to have permission and you have to be able to send the samples to the FDA or the USDA labs. And then they run these PCR tests. But yeah, up until just this week, the USDA was only reimbursing for animals that were obviously ill. And animals either have outward symptoms or they said the infected cows, this is a lot in obviously like female dairy cows, the infected cows, their milk looks different. It's yellowed and it's viscous. And so when farmers are coming across that, they were able to send those samples to the USDA's lab and get reimbursed. But unfortunately, new evidence shows that there are a ton of these animals who are asymptomatic but positive. They don't have a change to their milk, but they're carrying the virus. And because of that, the recommendations have been changed, but only recently. So previously, farmers couldn't test their healthy looking cows. That's hard because that means there could have been a lot of viral spread that wasn't being observed. Another thing that people are really concerned about, and when I say people, I mean epidemiologists and public health officials, are pigs. We don't have evidence so far that pigs have caught this strain, or at least not in large numbers. But pigs are a scary reservoir. And that's because they call them often, quote, mixing bowls. Pigs can catch bird flu and pigs can give diseases to humans really easily. Like they're a really good kind of transmission site and pigs live near cows and chickens, obviously. But unfortunately, right now, the USDA is not recommending that pigs be tested. So we don't really know if pigs are being infected. We do know that this H5N1 virus is, I think they're using the term epidemic status, but over the past several years. But these new outbreaks here in the US in milk are, again, it's something to be concerned about. It's not something to panic about. I don't think the real issue is that we can be sickened by drinking this milk. I think it's more that the fact that this milk has viral particles is kind of revealing to us that the infection is probably not nearly as contained as we hope it is. And it's probably being passed on amongst these mammals in a way that we're just not able to get out in front. And mass cullings don't always work. They're also hugely detrimental not only to the economics of farming, the actual incomes of these farmers, but also to the food supply. So obviously, we don't want to see every dairy cow in the country being culled. That would be a crisis of like massive proportions. At the same time, we have to get out in front of a flu like the bird flu because it can eventually evolve, sicken people. And this is one of those things in the pandemic playbook that we're preparing for. That is one of those sort of critical events is a bird flu spilling over. So the good news is we have protocols in place. The bad news is we saw what happened during COVID where there were some really amazing steps forward, but there were some pretty big missteps. And so this is just something to definitely keep our eye on. And it's fascinating. And I'm really amazed by how few people even know about it.

'''B:''' So when can I panic?

'''C:''' Probably when people start getting... I wouldn't ever panic. But when I think it would be much more concerning is if we start to see cases of people falling ill.

'''S:''' You know, Cara, the last time we said that we should be concerned but not panic was at the beginning of COVID.

'''C:''' Right.

'''S:''' That's what we were saying then too. Yeah. But we've been talking about possible bird flu epidemic or even pandemic for decades.

'''C:''' Yeah. It's in the playbook. We know that this might be one of those viruses that does the thing that we don't want it to do.

'''S:''' And we've got to keep an eye on it.

'''B:''' Steve, what about mRNA vaccines? Would that be...

'''S:''' Sure.

'''C:''' Yeah. Totally.

'''B:''' Right?

'''C:''' And maybe even for the animals. I mean, that's also something that we could...

'''E:''' Yeah. Right. Pinch it at the source as close as you can get it.

'''S:''' Yeah. Absolutely.

'''B:''' I mean, I'd be testing out that technology now with the animals.

'''E:''' They probably are.

'''C:''' Well, there's another... I didn't want to take up too much time, but there's a great article that y'all can look up on the New York Times called Lasers, Inflatable Dancers, and the Fight to Fend Off Avian Flu. Farmers are getting very technologically savvy and creative and using some pretty high-tech approaches to try to keep this epidemic from spinning out of control. They feature one guy who raises turkeys, and he uses lasers that are installed on his barns, and they fire this light that seems to fend off ducks and owls and other wild carriers of the virus to try and keep his turkeys safe. So a lot of farmers are getting really creative and utilizing whatever they have access to.

'''S:''' All right. Thanks, Cara.

'''C:''' Yep.

=== Dark Energy Getting Weaker (45:17) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.space.com/desi-cosmological-constant-dark-energy-history
|article_title = Dark energy could be getting weaker, suggesting the universe will end in a 'Big Crunch'
|publication = Space.com
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' Bob, is dark energy getting weaker?

'''B:''' Oh, boy. Oh, boy. Yeah, this is fascinating. New research reveals that dark energy, which is expanding the universe at ever faster rates, may perhaps be weakening over time. If true, this really could be the biggest news in cosmology this millennium. It could mean the universe will not eventually end in a heat death or the dreaded Big Rip, but in the old-school Big Crunch way, as gravity eventually brings it all back together.

'''E:''' Oh, thank goodness for that.

'''B:''' Yeah, right? So this all started in the 90s, though, as eventual Nobel-winning research on supernova 1A explosions showed dramatically that the universe's expansion is not slowing down, but shockingly, was speeding up. I mean, I don't know if any of you punks remember that, but that was a huge paradigm shift. Like, what? It's expanding faster and ever faster? What is going on? And this was a quickly deemed dark energy in honour of our complete ignorance about what the hell it ultimately was that was causing the expansion. But it was amazing to find out over a very brief period of time that, oh yeah, 70%, 68-point-something percent of the universe's energy was composed of this dark energy. We didn't know what it was. I was like, wow, talk about a quick change. So the idea here is, I really got to cover this, just that the basic idea here is that there's an unknown force that's inherent in space-time that works against gravity and grows over time, which is the critical piece. It grows because as space expands, the dark energy is not diluted, as you might assume. That's really the critical sentence right there. It's not getting diluted. So dark energy is like one {{meatball}} in a stretchy bag, and I guarantee you that that sentence has never been thought of or spoken before, ever. So dark energy is like one meatball in a stretchy bag. You stretch the bag so it's five times the original volume, and then when you look inside the bag, it now has five meatballs inside. So once space expanded for nine billion years, dark energy reached this critical point where it was strong enough to overcome gravity and make that expansion happen faster and faster. All right? Does that make sense? So now dark energy is also called lambda or a cosmological constant because it was quite similar to what Einstein added to general relativity. It's a great story. General relativity predicted an expanding universe. Of all the accolades that Einstein received, this would have been yet another amazing, amazing prediction. But everyone, including Einstein, assumed the universe was static for some reason. So he threw in a fudge factor into general relativity known as lambda or the cosmological constant, which was a force inherent in space that worked counter to gravity. Sound familiar? Keeping it static instead of expanding. And then, of course, Edwin Hubble just blew him out of the water 12 years later when he famously showed that the universe was in fact expanding, proving that general relativity was initially correct. So then Einstein removed the cosmological constant from general relativity, famously calling it what? The biggest blunder, his biggest blunder ever. So now the cosmological constant idea was in the dustbin for decades until 1998 when the accelerating expansion was discovered and then lambda or cosmological constant was then resurrected and now it's just inextricably linked with dark energy. Okay, so now we're up to current times basically until DESI enters the room. DESI stands for Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument. Look it up online because this is an amazing device. It's literally, it literally has 5,000 pencil-like robotic eyes that can move to collect light from millions of different galaxies and it has a, it's on a five-year mission, five-year mission, sound familiar? To make a 3D map, the most detailed 3D map ever created of the location and the velocity of 40 million galaxies spread out over 11 billion years of cosmic time. So the light from those galaxies are essentially broken down into its spectrum, right, of the different coloured wavelengths which then allows for the calculation of the redshift of the light which is caused by the varying expansion speed of the universe throughout its history. So that's kind of very high-level view of what it's trying to do here. The result from DESI's first year though of surveying was recently released and the cosmologists were kind of shocked, pretty shocked and many of them are very happy but it was very unexpected. The galaxies that are closer to us, that they have less expanding space between us, right, they are somehow closer to us than they should be. So because of that, they're concluding, I mean it's not a firm conclusion at this point but it seems that dark energy is not constant based on this preliminary data but it's changing over time. Luz Angela Garcia-Penaloza, a former DESI team member said, the release of these results was a great day for cosmology pointing to a decreasing effect of the dark energy over time meaning it is evolving and therefore not constant after all. So a little bit down to earth here, it needs to be pointed out that these results, they're not really even calling it evidence yet. It's the first year's data, there's four more years to go. Some refer to the information more as hints but some people are also saying that it's very robust. So if you want a more objective assessment, the new findings so far has about a one in four hundred chance of just being a statistical fluke which in the parlance, that's three sigma which is okay but the gold standard for science is called five sigma. Five sigma is the gold standard. That's one chance in 1.7 million. Once you reach that, then you could start drinking. So of course but don't forget, five sigma is great and maybe they'll get there with this but even five sigma results in the past have fallen when you got new data, new interpretation. So even that's no guarantee of course. So this is such an interesting new installment of this saga, this multi-decade saga of dark energy. For me though, one of the most fascinating aspects of this news is what it means for the fate of the universe. If dark energy is constant, say that DESI is wrong and the cosmological constant is constant, not changing, then this would lead to what I call the island universe future which is kind of sad but not as bad as it could potentially be. So that would mean that the increasing expansion of the universe will ultimately isolate all the tightly gravitationally bound systems. So for example, future denizens of our local group of galaxies, about what, 50 galaxies that are really gravitationally bound tightly together but at some point in the distant future, not too far though, we will have merged into one big mega galaxy but at that point though, the event horizon of the universe will have shrunk so much that we won't be able to see anything past our galaxy, our one big mega galaxy. So it's just a very sad image of the future where civilizations will never probably be able to infer the wonderful history and evolution of our universe. It's really sad to think that they can never even figure that out. They will think what we used to think over 100 years ago that our galaxy was it. There was no other galaxies and now there's, oh yeah, there's like tens of billions of galaxies or more, far more that are out there. So even further in the future with this constant, cosmological constant, there's the idea of the heat death, right? We've talked about this, the heat death of the universe where even the last black holes and perhaps particles of, final particles of matter have evaporated away, life, any type of life is not even conceivable because there's no energy gradients within the entirety of the universe. So pretty bleak, but it could be worse. Imagine if dark energy is not constant but stronger, even faster, even exponentially increasing eventually, basically the opposite of what DESI seems to be saying. This is like a real worst case scenario where dark energy is actually a phantom energy where accelerating the expansion of the universe, it increases so fast that even the very fabric of the universe rips apart and of course this is named the Big Rip. If this were happening and if it did happen, if it did happen, it could be, it could happen in only like 150 billion years or something like that. It's not ridiculously far in the future, it's just mind-bogglingly far in the universe into the future. So now if this were happening, you would be looking into space and you would see, what you would see is increasingly smaller collections of matter breaking up. So you would see galaxy clusters, super clusters breaking up for no apparent reason, then clusters and galaxies would be breaking apart, then planetary systems would be breaking apart and then eventually even bound atoms and that's when we would, adios, game over because when atoms become unbound like that, that's it, I mean no life could exist. Talk about a scary scenario. But I have to say this is considered very unlikely, it's a worst case scenario, but it can't be totally ruled out yet. But I think at some point in the future they'll be able to really just rule that out. Now a weakening dark energy, as DESI seems to be indicating, that would mean that the expansion of the universe could potentially stop. The acceleration will stop, the expansion itself will stop and then start coming back together in something like the classic Big Crunch, right? We all believed in the Big Crunch decades ago. We thought that's how the universe was going to end before we even thought of dark energy. So sure, the Big Crunch, it gets pretty hot at the end, but for me it's the most helpful end game for the universe because who knows what could emerge after that happens, right? If it's all coming back together something interesting could come out of that. So if the Big Crunch does happen, I'll see you at the SGU table at the restaurant at the end of the universe. And if you get that, you're awesome.

'''S:''' You get one SGU nerd point if you get that.

=== After Death Communications '''(TW)''' (55:43) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hospice-patient-after-death-communications_n_66119c1ce4b0c063ffb957ee
|article_title = My Patients Tell Me They've Had A Paranormal Experience. I Believe Them — I Had One Too.
|publication = HuffPost
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' All right, Evan, tell me about after-death communications. That sounds legit.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' Define-

'''C:''' After-death.

'''B:''' -define death.

'''E:''' Correct me if I'm wrong. This is my first time having experience with that term. Have you seen this anywhere before?

'''C:''' I have because I read a lot of hospice literature.

'''E:''' Okay.

'''B:''' And movies.

'''E:''' Yeah. Okay. But from our work as skeptics, I don't know that I've read about this in skeptical articles.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' I may have missed it.

'''C:''' I think a lot of people call it a lot of different things.
{{trigger|suicide, death}}
'''E:''' Gee whiz. Yeah. Well, okay. So I am going to talk about that. But the other thing that's going to be mentioned in this news item is a mention of suicide and a description from a person who is going to give a story about suicide. So that's the warning for anyone who needs to skip this item. I read this today at the Huffington Post. It's in their personal section. So they're not trying to slip this into a science section or somewhere else. So take that for what it is. It's the personal section. But the title to the piece is, My Patients Tell Me They've Had a Paranormal Experience. I Believe Them. I Had One Too. So of course, I'm going to stop and read that article. Written by Scott Janssen, who is a hospice social worker and writer. I'll give you a little background. He has written extensively about providing trauma-informed care for patients who are terminally ill and has spoken nationally about ways to better support veterans who are nearing the end of their lives. His work has appeared in publications including Social Work Today, Psychotherapy Networker, the American Journal of Nursing, Reader's Digest, and the Washington Post, to name a few. In the article, Scott tells the story of one of his patients. That's correct, right?

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Okay. So one of his patients. Scott asked the patient a question. Here was the question. Why do you have feelings of peace in the face of death? The patient's answer was a story about how he nearly took his own life many years prior. Scott's patient, many years ago, was trying to cope with his own son's suicide that did happen. And ultimately, he was taking blame for it because he was a bad father to his son. Now here's what he says. I'm going to read to you the relevant quotes from that story. Again, this is the patient telling this to Scott. One day I decided to do the world a favour, not that anyone would have noticed. I took my .45 calibre and walked to my workshop that day. I remember crying and saying out loud how sorry I was for all the pain I've caused. Then I put the pistol to my head. I was just about to squeeze the trigger when I heard my son's voice clear as you and me are talking. Stop. He just said, stop. I put the gun down and looked around. There was no one there, but I swear I felt some kind of presence over in the corner where I keep my air compressor. That's where the voice came from. Nothing I could see, but whenever I looked in that direction, I felt warm and safe, which is not what I'm usually feeling. I said out loud, son, his name is Tank, Tank, is that you? Then he said, kind of upbeat, it's not your time. Keep going for now. I'll see you again when it's your time, I promise. My boy came back to me to give me some peace. He ain't suffering for what he's done or taking the heat away for the way I screwed things up. Him promising to see me again took away any fear of death. I don't really know how to explain it.

'''C:''' So sorry to clarify, his son is dead?

'''E:''' Yes, his son is, his son was dead from suicide prior. This was his own brush with that, but claims he had this moment. What Scott, the social worker, then says, or at least writes in the article, he says, whatever one calls these experiences, crisis apparitions, bereavement hallucinations, or after-death communications, also known as ADCs, again, the term I'm not familiar with, studies show that they are very common, especially in the year or so after a loved one dies. One meta study analysing the research estimated that over the course of a lifetime, 30 to 35% of people will experience some kind of ADC. And this holds true across culture, race, gender, education, socioeconomic status, and religious traditions or spiritual beliefs. By the way, the technical definition of ADC is defined as spontaneously occurring encounters with the deceased. That is how it shows up. Now, this reference, I looked at the reference where he got that study. It's a dissertation from a candidate for a PhD in philosophy back from 2011. So I guess we got to kind of take that for what it's worth.

'''C:''' Why? Dissertations are sometimes way more rigorous.

'''E:''' It could be, yeah, it could be. I mean, I don't know, but it wasn't from a journal, I guess is what I'm saying.

'''C:''' Gotcha. So it means that they probably didn't publish in a journal or they published a portion of it. But dissertations are, I don't know, Steve, what would you say? But I personally feel like dissertations and theses are peer-reviewed in that you have a committee that is actively working with you the whole time and have to review it. And it's almost like more intensely peer-reviewed. It's just that, sadly, the peers are at your university. So in some ways but you usually do have an external reader as well.

'''E:''' Okay.

'''S:''' Einstein established the photoelectric effect and won a PhD off of his thesis.

'''C:''' Right.

'''S:''' You know.

'''E:''' Okay. All right. Fair enough.

'''S:''' Yeah. It doesn't mean it's not legit science.

'''E:''' Okay. All right.

'''C:''' But interestingly, you did say it was a philosophy paper. That also doesn't mean that it's not good science, but it sounds like you said it was kind of like a meta-analysis.

'''E:''' Yeah, that's how Scott described it in the article that he wrote here. Yeah, that's how he described it. And then he goes on to write, after 30 years of working with people who are grieving and hearing dozens, maybe hundreds of reports like this, I believe him because, he says, when I was much younger, this is Scott, I experienced an ADC myself. Here was his after-death communication experience. He says, I was sound asleep when I was jolted awake. I think this was back in 1986. He said, I was sound asleep. I was jolted awake by the loudest siren I'd ever heard. It was coming from the upper left-hand corner of my bedroom. Then two siren pulses, the kind you hear when an ambulance or police cruiser is rolling into or out of an active scene. I jumped up, adrenaline pulsing, fists clenched, ready for anything, realizing that there was no one breaking into my apartment. I took a deep breath and listened for a television, thinking maybe a neighbour was watching one of those cop shows with the volume all the way up. But it was dead silent. Was I dreaming? I had no memory of being in a dream. Besides, the siren had woken me instantly and was still audible when I was wide awake. As my mind grasped for an explanation, I heard what sounded like an ambulance door opening and a gurney being rolled across asphalt. Then a voice, hurry, get over here. Thinking there was trouble in the parking lot, I pulled back the shade and peered out into the night, expecting to see an ambulance crew working on someone. Nothing. Then I'm going to truncate this. I'm going to make it kind of shorten it down. Minutes later, the phone rang. This was a little, a couple hours later. It was my dad. My uncle, with whom I'd always been close, had been killed by a drunk driver in California. I asked what time. When adjusted for time zones, it was the same time I'd been woken by the siren. Are these experiences supernatural? Are they hallucinations? Frankly, I no longer think much about what causes them. I focus on what they mean to the people who've had them. Yeah.

'''C:''' Right. Yeah.

'''E:''' So, and this is the gist of his piece, okay? I think it brings up a lot of different questions.

'''C:''' I like what that last thing that he said, though. If I want to, like, if I can interject for a second.

'''E:''' Yeah, absolutely.

'''C:''' Granted, it sounds like the author is more credulous. I'm obviously, like, way skeptical. But I think what he said right there at the end is so important for a practitioner who's working with somebody who's dealing with death. Like he said, I'm not really so much thinking about what caused them. I'm just thinking about what they mean to the person. And that's also my approach.

'''S:''' Which is fine. Because, again, in a therapeutic relationship, it's not your job.

'''C:''' No, you didn't actually see your dead son. Like, I would never do that.

'''S:''' You may think that, but it's irrelevant to that interaction. But I do think he's going a step further and saying, not only is he just walling that off therapeutically, he actually, it sounds like he thinks that these reports are credible in some way. Or at least he's not skeptical of them.

'''C:''' Oh, yeah. It definitely sounds like that. Just based on the title.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Right. Because, and again, because he experienced something himself that he can't otherwise explain.

'''S:''' Bit of a false dichotomy there, by the way. It was a hallucination or paranormal or maybe a coincidence.

'''C:''' Or, yeah, the last one was definitely, I mean, that he didn't say that.

'''S:''' You heard a siren, you know. And then your memory of when it happened probably then tweaked to bring it in alignment with the information the timing of the uncle's death.

'''C:''' Yeah, it's actually kind of annoying that he mentioned both of those things as if they're the same phenomenon. Like uncle dying, woken up, heard a siren, ooh, it was at the same time, versus a suicide attempt and hearing the voice of his son. Or very often what he probably describes more in the article, and this is where a lot of the literature is, people who are actively dying, verbalizing that they see dead relatives or that they heard from dead relatives. It's an incredibly common experience.

'''S:''' So this, but the older gentleman who was about to kill himself with a gun, so first of all, he was obviously an emotional extremist at that point. If you read the whole article, the guy was troubled. This was a troubled individual who had a very sad life, it sounds like. And he blamed himself for his son's suicide. And now he's about to kill himself alone not even thinking that anybody in the world would care. I mean, talk about emotionally, emotionally brittle. The idea that he heard something that comforting that essentially absolved him of his guilt.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' I mean, it's all obviously a psychological experience, you know. And also, I'm sure, I don't know about you guys, but I've heard voices before, like, especially when I'm tired. When I'm sleep deprived, you get the little echo in your brain of something.

'''C:''' It's so common for people to hear their name called.

'''E:''' Yes.

'''S:''' Oh, absolutely. I hear that all the time.

'''C:''' And if you remember, back in the day, phantom phone rings and vibrations were really common, but most of us keep them.

'''E:''' I still get those.

'''C:''' See, I was going to say, I haven't had my ringer on in like a decade, which is probably why I don't hear it anymore.

'''E:''' I still get those.

'''J:''' I don't get the phantom phone ringing in my pocket anymore.

'''C:''' Yeah, because you probably don't have your ringer on.

'''J:''' I don't.

'''C:''' Yeah, because you're no longer attuned to hearing your phone ring.

'''J:''' It's very interesting.

'''E:''' Yeah, it is fascinating. And about the name as well. Absolutely, I've heard words spoken in which there was obviously no one there. And guess who it was in my head who was speaking? It was Rachel, my daughter.

'''C:''' Yeah, it's going to be somebody who you have an emotional relationship to, whose voice resonates for you.

'''E:''' And again, if you don't know any better, that's an absolutely practical reaction to have, is that you definitely heard the voice of somebody else. And how do you account for that? It's tricky unless you know. Also, my second question about this is, should a professional be reinforcing in a way sort of – maybe not reinforcing the dying person belief, but should they be offering their own anecdotes as a means of comfort? Like acknowledging that I too have also had something like – an experience like this. Is that crossing a line?

'''C:''' Did he – no. I mean, it depends. But did he say – are you asking can therapists self-disclose?

'''E:''' Yes, to their patients.

'''C:''' Sometimes. Some people don't. Some people do. It kind of depends on your training and what your orientation is. Did – but is he saying that he shared that anecdote with his patient or is he just –

'''E:''' Yes, he did. He did. In the article, he says he did.

'''C:''' So it depends. I think that there are ethical ways to do it. But the general – I mean, obviously, there's no right or wrong answer here. But generally speaking, in my training, because I am very existentially humanistically oriented, sometimes self-disclosure is part of the conversation. Like some of my clients know that I take antidepressants and I – and that conversation normalizes medication usage. But I never self-disclose in service to myself. The ethical thing to do is to think, is this therapeutic? And if it's not therapeutic, if you're doing it for your own discomfort or your own whatever, no, that's totally not ethical. But if you're doing it as a therapeutic intervention, then yeah, it can be ethical.

'''S:''' Let me say one thing too. It seems that there is this assumption that – it's an asymmetry here – that it's okay to tell a patient that you believe that their paranormal beliefs are real. But it's not okay to tell them that you think that they're not real.

'''C:''' I see.

'''S:''' I think a physician, a therapist or a counsellor or whatever should be agnostic towards their patient's belief systems, like neither confirming nor denying it. Because then in a way you are exploiting your relationship, your therapeutic relationship, your authority to endorse a belief that's personal. And even if you believe in it, you have no business imposing that on other people.

'''C:''' I see what you mean.

'''E:''' That's how I felt reading this.

'''C:''' And I was really just answering based on a generic question.

'''S:''' Oh, I know. What you said was fine. My wife says the exact same thing. It's like, yes, sometimes if it's in furtherance of a therapeutic whatever goal, but you have to be very careful about it. It's got to be a very deliberate choice that you make to self-disclose. But I'm not worried about that element of it. I'm worried about – I think if you're going to say we shouldn't be skeptical of our patient's personal religious or paranormal beliefs, we shouldn't endorse them either.

'''C:''' Right.

'''S:''' Right?

'''C:''' I think the important thing – yeah, I would never ever say I believe what you believe, or I would never say that belief is correct.

'''S:''' Yeah, right.

'''E:''' No.

'''C:''' Like it's more that I try to – I work really hard within the opening sessions to understand their frame so that I can be empathetic to their frame, but then I operate within their frame. So if somebody is like, when I pray, blah, blah, blah, I'll bring up prayer with them, not necessarily endorsing beliefs and saying I have absolute knowledge that this is true or not true. It's more operating within their frame with them.

'''E:''' It's a good reminder, especially for skeptics, because we talk about so many pseudoscientific paranormal things as part of the activism that we do. But we also have to understand scenarios, situations, moments in life, especially for these people who are so close to the end and facing death. You have to temper things appropriately based on certain situations.

'''C:''' Totally.

'''E:''' And this is absolutely one of those situations.

'''C:''' Yeah, exercise empathy. It's really a function of empathy. I would never, if a patient is close to death and they're starting to have hallucinations or apparitions, be like, is it your son? I wouldn't plant those things in their head. But definitely if they're like, I see my son, I'm talking to my son, I'm not going to be like, no, you don't. That would be so messed up.

'''S:''' You're clearly deluded because you're a broken human being.

'''C:''' Right. It's like, come on. But also, to be fair, as a psychotherapist who works with people who are quite ill and sometimes dying, not only am I consulting or liaising with their oncologist, their psychiatrist, their palliative care physicians, I'm also very often speaking with their chaplains.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Like chaplaincy is a huge part of this approach. And it's offered within the clinic.

'''S:''' Now, Evan, you mentioned hypnopompic hallucinations. That could be a very different context. I have neurological patients, not psychological or psychiatric patients. I've had patients who have sleep-related hallucinations, either hypnopompic or hypnagogic. And sometimes they're very frightened. They think they're real. They think they're being haunted or whatever. And in that context, I could reassure them, like, nope, that is a neurological symptom of your narcolepsy or whatever it is that they have. And explain to them that this is a brain thing. Right. This is not. And they're very reassured by that. Like, oh, I thought I was going crazy. No, no, no. We see this all the time. This is just what happens when you're, whatever, sleep-deprived or when you have this disease. And it's treatable. I can give you a prescription for a medication and we can make that go away. So context is everything.

'''E:''' Absolutely. Also, there is the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline that you should know about. It provides 24-7 free and confidential support for people in distress, prevention and crisis resources for you or your loved ones. And they offer best practices for professionals as well. This is a service in the United States. So keep that in mind, everybody.

'''C:''' Yeah. It's relatively new, too, and it's great. Thanks for sharing that, Evan.

{{anchor|wtn}}{{anchor|futureWTN}} 

== Who's That Noisy? (1:13:50) ==
{{wtnHiddenAnswer
|episodeNum = 980
|answer = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Fn5KnXQLU Chinese teenager breaks own record in speed jump rope contest]
|}}
'''S:''' All right, Jay, it's Who's That Noisy time.

'''J:''' All right, guys, last week I played this noisy.

[rapid clicking, almost a buzz]

What the hell is that?

'''E:''' A slow game of Pong with a bunch of card shuffling in the middle.

'''J:''' I don't know if I could even venture a guess if I didn't know what it was. Like, it's such an odd thing. So I got a listener named Benjamin Devult, D-A-V-O-U-L-T.

'''E:''' That's okay. Yeah, that's a fair pronunciation.

'''J:''' He said, Ben here, the Frenchie from Japan. I'm writing as fast as possible because I'm pretty sure I have the answer. This is the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle sort of flying machine that uses compressed air bursts to move in 3D in the air. Very noisy, very maniable. Maniable? M-A-N-I-A-B-L-E.

'''E:''' He was typing fast, so it could be a typo.

'''J:''' Good. Okay. He said, very cool. All right, Benjamin, that's not it, but now I have to see this thing, the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle. That sounds very cool.

'''E:''' Yeah. But don't let the name fool you. It's more of a transportation system.

'''J:''' Another listener named Darren Pacusic said, hello, Jay. Darren Pacusic from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. That's in Canada, for those of you who don't know. Saskatchewan, this is me talking. Saskatchewan is an incredibly huge area in Canada, and from what I understand, has a very low population. And didn't Bugs Bunny used to make fun of Saskatchewan?

'''E:''' No, Saskatoon.

'''S:''' No, he said that's that whole open sesame, open sarsaparilla, open Saskatchewan.

'''J:''' Oh, you're right.

'''E:''' Oh, Saskatchewan, yeah.

'''B:''' That wasn't Bugs Bunny.

'''E:''' Wasn't it?

'''B:''' That was Daffy Duck.

'''S:''' Are you sure?

'''B:''' Oh yeah.

'''E:''' Well, they were in both in that one, I think.

'''S:''' My memory is that it was Bugs Bunny doing that bit. He was pretending not to know what the...

'''J:''' Yeah, I remember Bugs Bunny saying it, too. Anyway, he says, even though I have listened to every episode of your podcast...

'''B:''' Challenge accepted.

'''J:''' The first time I felt confident enough to submit an answer wasn't until a couple of weeks ago when I submitted an incorrect guess for the sousaphone noisy. Or is it sousaphone? Now I can't remember.

'''C:''' Sousaphone!

'''J:''' It's sousaphone.

'''E:''' Sousaphone.

'''J:''' I was surprised because I think I may know this one. I believe this is someone trying to set some sort of hand clapping record. Wow. A hand clapping record. All right, we'll see, Darren. Let's see. You're not correct, but you're not super far away from the real answer. Visto Tutti wrote in and he said, I think this week's noisy sounds like launching the ICBM nuclear missiles. And then he quoted, God damn them, they blew it all to hell. Who do you think that... Is that a quote from, guys?

'''E:''' Oh, that's Planet of the Apes.

'''J:''' Thank you, Evan.

'''E:''' I know that movie backwards, forwards, every way.

'''J:''' Visto, you are not correct, but I do like the quote. This is not the launching of an ICBM, but I have heard an ICBM launch from underwater and from a boat. And they do have kind of like a fast compression sound like that. So I see where you're coming from. I have a winner here. The first one that wrote in the correct answer this week's name is John Sanchez. And John says, hello, John from Chicago. The sound is speed jump roping. Speed jump roping. He says, hope I can see you guys at the 1000th show. So let's listen to this again. By the way, a lot of people guessed correctly, but this is the world record. Speed jump roping. Take a listen. [plays Noisy]

'''E:''' Wow.

'''J:''' So this guy's jump roping so fast that you can't believe it. You know, it's one of those like, what? That's actually happening in real time. Like that dude is doing it that fast. He did. Okay. His name is Cen Xiaolin, and he's breaking the record of 228 jumps in 30 seconds at the World Jump Rope Championship in Oslo. What the hell, man, right? I mean, can you imagine? Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I jump rope. I'm doing like about four or five a minute.

'''E:''' One every two seconds.

'''J:''' And then I trip. This dude is like, whoa. I mean, I was like, wow. Okay. So if you see the video, just look it up. You definitely want to check this out. It's just one of those odd things you got to take a look at. So good job, everybody.

{{anchor|previousWTN}} 
=== New Noisy (1:18:12) ===

'''J:''' I have a new noisy for this week. This noisy was sent in by a listener named Kathy Taylor. And let me see here. I will set this one up a little bit. Kathy's son, Finn, recorded this noisy. And at the time that he did it, he was, I believe, four and a half years old. So check this out. And just ignore all the background noise. It's obvious what the noise is. I don't want you to get confused. There is some people talking in the background.

[rapid clicking, almost a buzz]

So it's the clicking noise. If you think you know {{wtnAnswer|982|what this weeks Noisy is}} or you heard something cool, you got to email me at theskepticsguide. It's WTN@theskepticsguide.org.

== Announcements (1:18:53) ==

'''J:''' Steven Novella.

'''S:''' Yes, JPUS.

'''J:''' Are you aware that Chicago is a city in the United States?

'''S:''' I am. I've been there a couple of times.

'''J:''' Cara, have you been to Chicago?

'''C:''' I have been to Chicago.

'''J:''' Did you eat the deep dish pizza?

'''C:''' I actually did eat deep dish pizza in Chicago.

'''J:''' What did you think?

'''C:''' You know, I don't really love pizza.

'''J:''' All right, this discussion is over. Anything that you say from this point forward is just an insult. So just nothing. Nothing. I didn't even ask.

'''S:''' You're dead to me.

'''J:''' The pizza's dead. So we are having a show in Chicago. This show, this very important show. We're doing extravaganza as well. And those are great shows. But the important show is the SGU's 1,000th episode. Now, this 1,000th episode will be recorded live. It'll also be recorded with five hours of content. There will be five hours of content that day. This will be happening in Chicago. We will be talking to people who've been on the show. We will be talking about some of the highlights of our shows over the last 20 years. We're going to have tons of virtual guests lining everything up right now as we speak. So please do try to join us. If you're interested in seeing this in person, you can go to [https://www.theskepticsguide.org/ theskepticsguide.org]. This is going to be on August 18th. That is August. That's happening this summer, August 18th, in Chicago. We'd really love to have you out there. Tickets are selling pretty rapidly. So if you're interested, I recommend that you act now. Go to theskepticsguide.org, and there's a button on there that will tell you everything. We sold out our first extravaganza, and the promoter asked us if we would be willing to do two. So we are doing a second extravaganza. That extravaganza is happening on August 17th. That is Saturday, August 17th. The available show right now starts at 12 noon. It'll be our very first afternoon show.

'''E:''' Doubleheader.

'''J:''' Yep, we're doing a doubleheader that day.

'''S:''' It's our first doubleheader too.

'''J:''' It is.

'''S:''' We'll see how we hold up.

'''J:''' We'll be great. We will be fine.

'''E:''' Oh my gosh. Some of those poses we have to strike.

'''S:''' The things we will do for our listeners.

'''E:''' Oh, the things you'll see.

'''J:''' If you would like information on that show, you can also go to theskepticsguide.org and check out. There are buttons on there that will direct you to get the information that you need. So a couple more things, guys. Every week, we send out an email that is a summary of every single piece of content that was produced by the SGU the previous week. We also have a few other fun things added in there for you. So if you're interested, just go to our homepage. You can join our mailing list. Right now, about 35,000, 40,000 people are getting the email, getting tons of positive feedback. It's just fun. We're just making it easy to see the stuff that we've created. And then every once in a while, we throw in some funny pictures of Bob. But other than that, nothing strange going on here. Guys, if you enjoy this show, this is our 20th year and our 1,000th episode year. If you enjoy the show, if you've gotten anything out of it and you want to help support the work that we do, please go to [https://www.patreon.com/SkepticsGuide patreon.com/SkepticsGuide]. And there you can join us as a patron. And once you do, you'll be able to gain access to the SGU's Discord channel, which is a collection of all of our patrons there. They hang out and chit chat with each other every day about all sorts of different topics. Lots of really fun conversations. And now that over the years, I've gotten to meet quite a few of the patrons that we do have. Right out of the gate, we have a wonderful community. I think the people are fantastic. We did not a con last November. We were with a couple of hundred of our patrons. And it was really, it was epic. I mean, I was blown away by the community that we have. So if you're interested, please go to [https://www.patreon.com/SkepticsGuide patreon.com/SkepticsGuide]. We can always use your support in helping educate the world against TikTok.

'''S:''' By the way, Bob, I think you found the same video I did. We were both wrong. It was neither Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck who sang Open Sarsaparilla.

'''B:''' It's a guard.

'''S:''' We had some Middle Eastern looking guard that they were interacting with in that episode. They were both in the episode. But they were both in the episode there. So both of our memories were flawed.

'''J:''' And mine.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' It's OK. It doesn't bother me.

'''B:''' But if I thought about it for a moment, I would have got there.

'''J:''' OK, Bob.

'''S:''' I'm not confident. I think my memory was more corrupted than Voyager's memory chips there.

'''E:''' Bob's too worried about the big crunch.

'''B:''' No, that's the Alibaba bunny episode. It's a classic episode.

'''S:''' It's a classic episode.

'''B:''' Which I love a lot.

{{anchor|followup}}
{{anchor|correction}}
{{anchor|email}} 
== Questions/Emails/Corrections/Follow-ups (1:23:22) ==
=== Email #1: Havana Syndrome ===
{{shownotes email 
|text = 
|sender =
|location = 
|redirect_title = 
|}}
'''S:''' All right. We're going to do one email. It's actually a bunch of emails. So a number of weeks ago, I talked about Havana syndrome. And this is, again, I think I maintain this is a great skeptical topic because it's right there in the gray zone, which means that it really challenges our skeptical approach to these kinds of questions. So, again, the quick back story is that starting in 2017, some U.S. and Canadian diplomats in working in either embassies or I think military bases were reporting a constellation of symptoms such as headache, nausea, dizziness, tinnitus, ringing in the ear, fatigue, things like that, fogginess, difficulty thinking. First reported in Havana. And so the question has been, is this a real external attack by some foreign power on our personnel? Or is this all just a mass delusion akin to sick building syndrome? You know, when I talked about it, I wasn't really giving an answer. What I was saying was just we can't have a knee jerk reaction to these kind of questions and just endorse the most skeptical narrative and then build a case for that narrative because that's what fits best with our skeptical approach. But rather, we need to like really analyze it, technically break it down, consider all the alternatives, acknowledge what we don't know, et cetera. And I went through very quickly. I think that is it plausible that either a pulsed ultrasound or pulsed microwave or whatever weapon could cause this constellation of symptoms? Again, neurologically, I find that very plausible, maybe not in everyone, but in susceptible individuals. But certainly we know that these kinds of stressors can cause these kinds of symptoms. So that's plausible. Is it plausible that these are all just other medical entities whether it's migraine or whatever, and that they're being misidentified as, quote unquote, Havana syndrome? That's plausible too. Is it plausible if some foreign power would be testing these kind of weapons on American diplomats? Sure. Why not? And then is it plausible that such weapons exist? And I basically said to that, I really don't know. I haven't read any technical analysis that would either rule out these weapons or say that, yeah, they exist right now. The other thing is that it has been investigated by American intelligence agencies, and they've concluded that there is no evidence of that this is a foreign attack. So that was where I left it. And then people have some very strong opinions about that. There were some people writing and thinking that it's real. Some people writing and saying they think the government's lying because they lie, which I think is a logical fallacy. Right? The government also tells the truth. So you can't use that as a... You can't just say that. You can't use that to say that they're lying now, just that it's plausible that they could be lying, but you can't use that. It doesn't really help us either way. And other people saying, no, this has got to be mass delusion. These weapons are science fiction. You know, it's a conspiracy theory to think that this is anything else. I did further research. Again, I think this is a fascinating open question, in my opinion. And so I did some further research. A couple of things came up. So when I addressed, again, the neurological question, I think it's like, yes, it's plausible, but no, there's no smoking gun. The question about, are the weapons themselves plausible? There are experts who say that they are. But I do think at the time, I thought that maybe the sonic weapons were, or the ultrasound eapons were more plausible. But the big limitation there is that they would have a short range and would not work really through buildings very well. But the microwave weapons, I think, are way more plausible after doing further research. We actually had prototypes of these weapons 20 years ago. In the United States. And then we stopped doing research basically because there was no ethical way to study the weapons. But they said that there's absolutely no reason to think that Russia or China stopped developing these weapons. And it's absolutely plausible that they would have a portable, meaning in a car or a van or something, pulsed, microwave directed long range weapon that could operate through walls and could plausibly have this kind of effect on people. So that, I don't think we could say that it's science fiction to say that these, that a microwave weapon could exist, given that we had a prototype 20 years ago of a portable device like that. Again, I'm open to more information, but that's what I'm reading. There was also a journalistic report that came out not too long ago, I think since I did the report, saying that some of these cases have been linked to a Russian intelligence unit, unit 29155 of the Russian GRU. Then they've been, they've been associated with more than one of these episodes. And so some people think that they're the ones who would be doing this. And if they, if there was a unit within Russia that's doing it, it would be them. So it's kind of all fits together. Again, I don't think that this is a home run. And I think that this is, there is reason to be skeptical of this. I think we still don't know, but that's an interesting lead, if it is one. Some people pointed out that the, like in Havana, that the local Cubans who were working at the embassy didn't come down with the symptoms. I couldn't really find anything definitive about that. But let's say it's true. I don't think that's, that is definitive in and of itself, because it's possible they just weren't targeted. But also, are we really sure that it isn't true? Because would we know? Would they have necessarily reported that the way that an American diplomat would report it to the, to higher up the chain? So I don't, and I don't know that that's been studied exhaustively so that we could say that it hasn't happened. So at the end of the day, I think it's still an open question. And the thing I have to emphasize is that I'm not saying, no one is saying, I don't think, that 100% of the reported cases are part of this same Havana syndrome. That, yeah, there's a lot of mass delusion or just sick building syndrome where people start to attach their symptoms or their strange experiences. Like some people were hearing cicadas and they thought that was the sound or other people had migraines or whatever. Yes, there's going to be a lot of noise and a lot of false cases associated with this. But that's not the same as saying that the whole thing is 100% not real, that there aren't legitimate cases. And I admit I am taking a physician's approach to this question, which I think is a completely legitimate and valid one. Physicians always think in terms of differential diagnosis. We don't just say this is the most likely answer. We say these are all the possible answers. These are the ones we could rule out. These are the ones that are more likely. These are the ones that are less likely. But you have to be open to a range of alternative ways of putting the evidence together, right? Because sometimes the 95% answer is wrong. In fact, it should be wrong 5% of the time, which is 1 in 20, which, like I said, I often tell my residents, that means we'd be wrong once a week, right? Or whatever or more. If you assume that 95% equals 100%, you have to always be open to the less likely possibilities. Sometimes that's the correct answer. I'm definitely going to be following this one. And I think it's just important for us, again, not to do that knee-jerk, skeptical narrative, but to really break it down technically and admit that even in a story like this, some aspects of it may be plausible. I still think it's more likely than not that this is, especially given the investigation by American Intelligence Agency, that this probably isn't a real attack. But I would not be stunned if it turned out that that's the case. Some of these cases were, in fact, like a directed microwave weapon that was being used or tested against American diplomats. I don't think that we could remove that from the list of possibilities at this point in time. All right, let's go on with science or fiction.

{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:31:40) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = Medical risk

|item1 = A recent study finds that living in Canada increases one’s risk of developing multiple sclerosis by up to 70%, with risk being proportional to the time lived in Canada.
|link1web = https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000209350
|link1title = Proportion of Life Spent in Canada and the Incidence of Multiple Sclerosis in Permanent Immigrants
|link1pub = Neurology

|item2 = Researchers find that use of anti-acid drugs, including proton pump inhibitors, H2 blockers, and antacids, are associated with an up to 70% higher risk of having Migraine headaches.
|link2web = https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200302
|link2title = Use of Acid-Suppression Therapy and Odds of Migraine and Severe Headache in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
|link2pub = Neurology Clinical Practice

|item3 = A recent review of studies finds that gum disease is associated with up to a 30% increased risk in developing Alzheimer’s disease.
|link3web = https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/medical/risk-factors/weird-risk-factors
|link3title = 10 weird things we've been told cause heart disease
|link3pub = British Heart Foundation

|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = gum disease & Alzheimer's
|science1 = Canada & multiple sclerosis
|science2 = anti-acid drugs & migraines

|rogue1 = jay
|answer1 =Canada & multiple sclerosis

|rogue2 =bob
|answer2 =anti-acid drugs & migraines

|rogue3 =Evan
|answer3 =gum disease & Alzheimer's

|rogue4 = cara
|answer4 = Canada & multiple sclerosis

|host =steve

|sweep = 
|clever =y 
|win = 
|swept = 
}}
''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''

'''S:''' Each week, I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fake. And then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. We have a theme this week. It is just three news items, but they happen to cluster in a theme. And so I went with it. The theme is medical risk. These are things that are associated with or risk factors for other things. OK, here we go. Item number one, a recent study finds that living in Canada increases one's risk of developing multiple sclerosis by up to 70%, with risk being proportional to the time lived in Canada. Item number two, researchers find that use of anti-acid drugs, including proton pump inhibitors, H2 blockers, and antacids are associated with an up to 70% higher risk of having migraine headaches. And item number three, a recent review of studies finds that gum disease is associated with up to a 30% increased risk in developing Alzheimer's disease. Jay, go first.

<big>'''Jay's Response'''</big>

'''J:''' All right, this first one here, a recent study finds that living in Canada increases one's risk of developing multiple sclerosis by up to 70%. What the hell? If that's true, why the hell would that be? Risk of being proportional to the time lived in Canada. All right, saying that that's true, what would cause multiple sclerosis? I just don't know. That seems so crazy to me.

'''B:''' Well, you would obviously have more than one sclerosis.

'''J:''' Yes, there's multiple. And they come out only at night, Bob.

'''E:''' Nocturnal.

'''J:''' All right, I don't know about that. I just, I don't have anything in my head that's giving me an indication there. So let me go to the next one. Researchers find that use of anti-acid drugs, including proton pump inhibitors, H2 blockers, and antacids are associated with up to 70% higher risk of having migraine headache. So Steve, like if you take if you take like a chewable tablet that has calcium, like that's not good too?

'''S:''' That's an antacid.

'''J:''' All right, so apparently something about that can give you a migraine. Jesus, I just, I'm striking out big time over here. Last one, a recent review of studies finds that gum disease is associated with a 30% increased risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. I think that science, clearly brushing teeth, is incredibly important. So between the first one and the second one, 70%. I'm going to go with the first one, the Canada developing multiple sclerosis one. That seems way too freaking high.

'''S:''' Okay, Bob.

<big>'''Bob's Response'''</big>

'''B:''' Yeah, Jay, 70 seems way too high for that first one. So that's why I think it's probably science. In this case. And the third one, I agree with you, the gum disease and Alzheimer's sounds reasonable. So almost by the process of elimination, I'll have to say that the antacids can increase the risk of having a migraine. And if this is true, Steve, we need to talk about a new antacid that mom is taking.

'''S:''' Okay, Evan.

<big>'''Evan's Response'''</big>

'''E:''' The Canada one is strange. What would be the reason? I can't wait in a way to find out, but it's awful in a way. Why? Why would that be? And 70%? Oh, my gosh. So I'm kind of maybe leaning towards that one being the fiction, as Jay said. The antacids, including proton pump inhibitors, H2 blockers, up to 70% higher risk of having migraine headaches. And I'm thinking that one is science because it kind of leaves a range sort of like up to 70% higher risk. So maybe each of these things, one of these three things maybe is 70%. The others are less, but each one of them is their own risk and increasing risk. The last one about the gum disease being associated with up to a 30% increased risk in developing Alzheimer's disease. Something about this one is not right with me. Obviously, gum disease does impact the body in various ways. I always thought it was heart risk, heart disease risk associated with gum disease. I'm familiar with that. I didn't know about the Alzheimer's though, but I suppose plaques in the brain, plaques in the mouth, gum disease. There's a disconnect there and I can't quite put my finger on it. So I'll tell you what. This week, I'm going to spread it out. I'm going to say the Alzheimer's disease one is the fiction and that will leave Cara to break this tie.

'''S:''' Okay, Cara. Up to you.

'''C:''' One each, huh?

'''S:''' Yeah.

<big>'''Cara's Response'''</big>

'''C:''' I can see there being a link for all of them, except the Canada one makes no sense to me. Multiple sclerosis, I thought was like really complicated, like the etiology is really complicated. Like it's environmental, it's genetic, it's all those things. So I guess maybe some of the variants could be, but what is in Canada? Like, is there some toxin in Canada that we don't have in the US? I don't know. Antacid drugs, all the different types associated with the higher risk of migraine headaches. That's kind of interesting that like all the different types would be. But, and I think these numbers are worrisome. 70%, 70%, 30%, gum disease, 30% increased risk, increased risk too. Like, what does that actually mean? They're all like correlations and associations. But I don't know. The one that doesn't make sense to me is the Canada MS link. So I think I'm going to have to say that that's a fiction.

'''E:''' I almost did that as well.

'''C:''' I don't know though. Come on. We don't know. We never know.

'''S:''' So you guys are all spread out.

'''C:''' Yeah.

=== Steve Explains Item #2 ===

'''S:''' Let's start with number two. ''(laughter)'' Researchers find that using anti-acid drugs, including proton, because I had to pick one of the ones that only one person went with. Researchers find that use of anti-acid drugs, including proton pump inhibitors, H2 blockers, and antacids are associated with up to a 70% higher risk of having migraine headaches. Bob, you think this one is the fiction. Everyone else thinks this one is science. And this one is science. This is science.

'''B:''' God damn it.

'''S:''' Evan, you were correct. 70% is the proton pump inhibitors. And then it is 40% for H2 blockers and 30% for antacids. But they all increase the risk of migraine headaches.

'''J:''' Why?

'''S:''' And Cara, I was interested in that too. Like why these are all completely different mechanisms of action, even though they're for the same purpose. And of course, this is correlational data. But they look at this for a reason, because there's reason to suspect that this might be the case from previous data. So is it just like a side effect of these medications? Or is there some mechanism there? We don't really know. But this is interesting. And that effect size is pretty significant. You know, 70%. That's not nothing.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' It probably means if you have migraine headaches, you shouldn't take these medications. But it doesn't necessarily mean that nobody should ever take them ever. You know, it's all risk versus benefit.

'''J:''' So do you know the mechanism, Steve?

'''S:''' No, as I said.

'''J:''' Is it?

'''S:''' Because they're different. Because right? Those are different mechanisms.

'''C:''' They work completely differently.

'''J:''' Like is there anything that like because I get heartburn every once in a while. And I'll take some chewables, you know. Like is that like I should stop doing that?

'''C:''' Well, do you have headaches or migraines when you do that?

'''E:''' Do you have migraines?

'''J:''' No.

'''C:''' Then probably not.

'''S:''' Yeah, don't worry about it.

'''B:''' It doesn't sound like that big of a deal in terms of like, if you start getting headaches, then you stop taking it. It's not like it's your it's your blood pressure.

'''S:''' Well, the real, but the thing is, but it might like you develop a migraine syndrome. And then even if you stop the medication, now you have migraines. That would be, so that's, I don't know that that's true. I'm just saying that could be true. And if it is, then it's not as simple as just stopping the medication.

'''C:''' It's also interesting for people who, for whom they're having a hard time identifying their migraine triggers. They may not have ever thought about their use of antacids. So now they can I keep a migraine log. And so I kind of generally know, like when my sleep is screwy, when my circadian cycle is really messed up from a lot of international travel, that's when I tend to cluster my migraines. Some people know when it's, they eat certain foods, right, Steve? Like there, some people have triggers.

'''S:''' Oh yeah.

'''C:''' You have to kind of identify them. And maybe people don't even write down how often they take antacids or when they take heartburn because they never thought there would be a link. This might be a way for them to add that to the mix of potential triggers.

=== Steve Explains Item #3 ===

'''S:''' All right. Let's go on to number three. A recent review of studies finds that gum disease is associated with up to a 30% increased risk in developing Alzheimer's disease. Evan, you think this is, am I correct?

'''E:''' Yes.

'''S:''' Evan, you think this one is the fiction?

'''C:''' He's going to be right. You're going to be right, aren't you, Evan? I don't know.

'''S:''' This one is the fiction.

'''C:''' Yeah, go Evan.

'''E:''' Holy crumbs.

'''C:''' But that's weird. Canada, what?

'''S:''' Okay, we'll get there.

'''E:''' Yeah, the Canada thing is bizarre.

'''S:''' So you're right, Evan. Also, this is thought to be a risk factor for heart disease, not for Alzheimer's. That was the switcheroo that I made. And even there, it's not a cause and effect clear. It's not a clear cause and effect. It's possible that both gum disease and heart disease have the same risk factors. Specifically, smoking, right, is a risk factor for both. So you would have to really exquisitely control for that confounding factor before you could say it causes it. But there's also plausible mechanisms, too. The thinking is that if you have gum disease, you get more bacteria in your blood, which then goes to your heart valves or your heart and causes heart disease. So yes, gum hygiene, teeth hygiene, oral hygiene is very important. And it may be an actual risk factor, not just a correlation for heart disease. But it's not 100% certain at this point in time. But it's Alzheimer's I just made up.

=== Steve Explains Item #1 ===

'''S:''' All right, which means that a recent study finds that living in Canada increases one's risk of developing multiple sclerosis by up to 70% with risk being proportional to the time lived in Canada is science. And this is funny because to me, I'm like, this makes 100% sense. But I wondered if you guys would know enough to know why it makes sense. So it's already been well-established. That latitude how far away you are from the equator, is a well-established risk factor for multiple sclerosis.

'''C:''' What?

'''E:''' I never knew that, no.

'''C:''' Is it because of sunlight?

'''S:''' No, it's because of viruses. Almost certainly it's because of these are in these temperate, these high temperate zones, certain viruses are more likely. And we think that the viruses are a trigger for susceptible people. Like you have to have the genetics and the virus. And then it gives you multiple sclerosis, at least some types of it. And it's also very much related to how long you've lived at those higher latitudes and at what age. Some evidence suggests like you really have to be there by the time you're 15, but not necessarily. This study was just looking at immigrants to Canada and showing that the longer they live there, the higher the increased risk, up to 70%, which again is a pretty significant.

'''B:''' Jesus.

'''S:''' Pretty significant.

'''E:''' So countries have to come with warning labels now?

'''S:''' You know, it's a very interesting clue about one of the many complicated causes of multiple sclerosis. And there's also independent evidence that certain specific viruses may be correlated with the risk of MS. So yeah, this was like a completely unsurprising finding. If you're familiar at all with MS, but I figured you guys weren't.

'''C:''' Yeah, I had no idea.

'''S:''' It seems weird, right?

'''C:''' It's super weird.

'''S:''' When you don't know that latitude connection as an environmental risk factor for MS. Yeah.

'''B:''' Could you please in the future pick news items that we are familiar with?

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Maybe. Maybe. How much is it worth to you?

'''B:''' Let's talk later.

'''S:''' All right, Evan, give us a quote.

{{anchor|qow}} 
== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:43:45) ==

{{qow
|text = Failure is a reality; we all fail at times, and it's painful when we do. But it's better to fail while striving for something wonderful, challenging, adventurous, and uncertain than to say, "I don't want to try because I may not succeed completely."
|author = {{w|Jimmy Carter|President Jimmy Carter}}
|lived = 1924-present
|desc = American politician and humanitarian
}}
'''E:''' "Failure is a reality. We all fail at times and it's painful when we do. But it's better to fail while striving for something wonderful, challenging, adventurous, and uncertain than to say, I don't want to try because I may not succeed completely." And that was President Jimmy Carter. Giving some good wisdom there about failure and its importance in a way.

'''S:''' Yeah, you shouldn't live your life fearing failure. And failure, you shouldn't shame people for failing, right? We all fail.

'''B:''' Shame people for not trying.

'''S:''' Yeah. Yeah, but I don't think we should shame people, period. But I mean, I think that certainly I, and I often will applaud you, you guys, if you're striking out on your own for science or fiction and losing. It's fine. As long as you, I'd rather you think for yourself and follow the herd, no matter what the outcome. But yeah, if you never fail at something, you're probably not risking enough, right? You're not pushing yourself enough.

'''B:''' Or you're ridiculously smart.

'''S:''' I don't think there's anyone who is so savvy and skilled and smart or whatever, that they would never fail. And even still, you should be calibrating to what you're capable of. You should be pushing the limits to the point that there should be a certain amount, a certain failure rate expected. And again, if you never fail, either you're delusional, right? You're just lying to yourself about it. Or you're just never venturing outside your comfort zone, you know? And then even then, even then, I don't think you can failure-proof your life. It's just not, it's just, there's too many ways for things to go wrong, you know? What's more important, I think, is how you react to the failure when it occurs.

'''B:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Right. Learn from it.

'''S:''' Right. Admit it. Learn from it. Be humble. Exactly. But that's a good quote. I like it.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' All right. Well, thank you all for joining me this week.

'''E:''' Thank you, Steve.

'''C:''' Thanks Steve.

'''J:''' You got it.

== Signoff ==
'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 

{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
}}

SGU Episode 1025

2025-10-16T05:42:35Z

Xanderox: /* AI Therapists (TW) (24:04) */ reinserting TW template

{{Editing required
|proofreading = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y
|}}
{{InfoBox
|verified = 
|episodeNum = 1025
|episodeDate = {{1000s|1025|boxdate}}
|episodeIcon = File:1025.jpg
|caption = "Next-gen cargo ship: efficient, innovative design sailing towards a sustainable future."
|bob = y
|cara = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|george =
|rebecca =
|perry =
|guest1 =
|guest2 =
|guest3 =
|qowText = "One of the few universal characteristics is a healthy skepticism toward unverified speculations. These are regarded as topics for conversation until tests can be devised. Only then do they attain the dignity of subjects for investigation."
|qowAuthor = Edwin Hubbel, The Realm of the Nebulae (Yale University Press: 1936)
|downloadLink = {{1000s|1025|download}}
|forumLinktopic =
|}}

{{anchor|intro}}
== Intro ==

'''Voice-over:''' You're listening to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the {{SGU|link=y}}. Today is Wednesday, February 26th, 2025, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella...

'''B:''' Hey, everybody!

'''S:''' Cara Santa Maria...

'''C:''' Howdy.

'''S:''' Jay Novella...

'''J:''' Hey guys.

'''S:''' ...and Evan Bernstein.

'''E:''' Good evening, everyone.

'''S:''' So unfortunately, we've got some sad news today. Just today as we're recording this, Michelle Trachtenberg died.

'''E:''' I read it and I didn't believe it at first.

'''S:''' Yeah, so she played Dawn on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

'''B:''' That's how I know her. And she was great. She was so good.

'''S:''' Yeah, she was really good. She had a whole acting career, obviously, not just Buffy. But yeah, apparently she was only 39. Apparently she had a liver transplant and so probably died of complications of that. I'm not seeing any specific information, but that's probably has something to do that. Although I couldn't find why she had the liver transplant in the first place.

'''E:''' Does it seem, I imagine by average it's young to be having a liver transplant.

'''C:''' No, I mean it can be, but some liver transplants are related to lifestyle and some liver transplants are not. People can have things wrong with their liver for a lot of different reasons.

'''E:''' I imagine there's a genetic disposition for liver disease or other factors like that.

'''C:''' I actually recently saw a patient in the hospital who had a form of cirrhosis that is non-alcohol related cirrhosis. It can just happen.

'''E:''' Yeah, oh boy.

'''S:''' Or you can get an infection or you just have some other liver disease. No information. But yeah, that's sad.

'''B:''' Yeah, it blows.

'''S:''' Yeah, if you're younger than me, by definition, you're young.

'''C:''' And if you're younger than me, you're really young.

'''S:''' Yeah, you're really young.

'''C:''' You remember my friend Holly?

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' A rocket just launched, like just now. She was posting about it.

'''S:''' Oh yeah?

'''E:''' Like 10 minutes ago?

'''C:''' No, like today. There was a rocket launch with like going to the moon, I think. Yeah, SpaceX Falcon 9 launches the IM-2 moon mission and there's a bunch of like science on it.

'''S:''' That's a lunar lander. Yeah, intuitive machines.

'''C:''' So I don't know. I think I might have mentioned a friend of mine who is an optical engineer. Her name's Holly Bender on the show before. I've definitely had her on Talk Nerdy, but gosh, that was probably like almost 10 years ago now. So I should probably have her back on.

'''E:''' Where did we meet her in Washington, DC?

'''C:''' Yeah, you guys met Holly. So she worked on an instrument, the Lunar Trailblazer. I guess the instrument that she was working on is looking to see how much water there is in this one crater in the moon. Where did the water possibly come from? Could it be used? And so, yeah, I got to watch the launch, you know, through her Instagram feed, which was only, it looks like just an hour ago, she posted the launch and said, we're going to the moon, which is like just really, really cool. What a cool thing to be involved, to be an engineer who worked on something and then watch it go off to space.

'''B:''' That would just, I can't even relate to how awesome that would be.

'''J:''' I know, right? Could you imagine?

'''E:''' And nerve wracking.

'''C:''' Yeah, that too. Yeah, for sure. So I don't know much about the instrument or about the actual, like what's all going to, in the payload on this rocket.

'''S:''' So it was a Falcon 9 rocket that launched two probes, right? So it was, I would call them a ride share. So it was the Intuitive Machines Lunar Lander and NASA's Lunar Trailblazer, which is the one that your friend worked on. That's the one that's going to be looking at the water. But they're both basically missions to support the eventual Artemis getting people back to the moon.

'''B:''' Yeah, if it ever happens.

'''C:''' Well, these are the kinds of things that make it happen.

'''B:''' Well, I mean, Musk doesn't want it to happen. So what Musk wants...

'''C:''' Well, it looks like this is on Musk's rocket.

'''E:''' Do you think he would want it to happen then?

'''B:''' He does not. He wants to go right to Mars. He does not want Artemis. That's my understanding. He does not think we need to go to the moon at all.

'''S:''' It's too late. We are so committed.

'''E:''' Haven't we talked about this before? You have to have the moon before you have Mars, right?

'''B:''' Of course it does. But he does not, I don't think, I haven't read about it in a little while, but I don't think he agrees with that.

'''E:''' Let me call him. I'm getting him on the show here.

'''B:''' He wants to just go straight to Mars, which is, of course, utterly ridiculous.

'''E:''' His line's busy. I'll try him later.

'''S:''' All right. Let us know if you get in touch with him.

'''E:''' Yeah. I'll let you know. I'll pipe him in.

'''B:''' And another thing.

'''S:''' And another thing.

'''E:''' And about that asteroid.

'''C:''' Oh, yeah. Sorry.

'''B:''' Oh, yeah. Did you guys hear about the news about that asteroid? Well, it looks like, you know, we're not going to get hit at all.

'''C:''' Why do you sound disappointed, Bob?

'''E:''' Good.

'''B:''' I'm going to own this. I'm disappointed. It's down to four one-thousandth of a percent chance to hit Earth.

'''E:''' Yes.

'''C:''' Good.

'''B:''' And that's fine. That's fine. But I forget what venue I said this at, but I was like, you know, I can't help but be a little disappointed. Because for me, a best case scenario would be like, yeah, we're nervous. And we're like, you know, a little bit of like, holy crap. But I like the idea of countries uniting to address this and have a rocket ready within a couple of years to like a dart type mission, to deal with like a kinetic impactor, right? To deal with an asteroid that's heading towards the Earth. And then, you know, in 2028, like, oh, look, oh, yeah, it's not going to hit us. But we got a rocket ready to go. That's what I wanted. I wanted for us to take even more seriously this idea that we need to be ready to go with an impactor to push away or change the trajectory of any asteroid that we might find and not have enough time. And it's great that, you know, getting hit would have that would have been horrible. I mean, not, you know, an extinction level event, but we could have lost a city. So yeah, obviously, I wouldn't want anything like that. But I wouldn't mind a little bit of a scare for a couple of years to be prepared for something that could potentially hit us. You know, who knows?

'''S:''' Could it still hit the moon? Or is that ruled out too now?

'''B:''' I just read about the Earth. I'm not sure.

'''E:''' Bob, the estimate not long ago was as high as 3.2% chance.

'''B:''' Yeah, the highest ever calculated probability for something like that, which was-

'''E:''' So that's what got you all worked up and going, right?

'''B:''' No, that one I got actually a little scared because we had gone-

'''E:''' That was a little too much?

'''B:''' Yeah, I mean, because we went from one in, when I started tracking the news, it went from one in 88 to one in 72. Then it was down to one in 32 or something. I'm like, holy crap, this is like going in the wrong direction, which is common. That happens for these things. It seems to get even more likely, then it's like gone, like, oh yeah, it's not going to happen. Yeah, but one percent, that was the big point. That was the important percentage because over one percent, that's when these agencies get involved and start making plans and stuff. If it stayed at like 1.5%, then we probably would have made serious plans, including potentially getting a rocket ready with a kinetic impactor, if it stayed at 1.5%. So whatever, it's just weird to be even just a little bit disappointed about that. It was kind of a weird thing, but I think I've related my reasoning behind that.

'''S:''' But it's not going to hit us.

'''B:''' Probably not. Overwhelmingly unlikely, but not impossible.

'''S:''' Not impossible.

'''B:''' Just saying.

'''S:''' Is it possible that the percentage will start going up again as we get more data?

'''B:''' Probably not.

'''S:''' Usually does not happen.

'''B:''' I'd put some good money against that once they get it down that low.

'''S:''' But don't worry, Bob, eventually another asteroid will threaten to kill millions of people.

'''B:''' It's basically inevitable. So yeah, that's why, dude, that's why I think we need to be even more prepared. We are much more prepared than we used to be, but I want to be even more prepared than that.

'''S:''' Double prepared. Double super prepared.

'''B:''' It's one of these existential crises that we could do something about.

'''S:''' Yes, we could actually prevent.

'''B:''' Right? If there's a wicked Carrington level, solar flare level event, well, we can actually do a little bit about that too. But we probably won't.

'''S:''' We could do a lot about that.

'''B:''' That's true.

'''S:''' That's not a good example. That's another thing that's going to happen eventually, is going to be really bad, and we can completely 100% prevent, not from happening, but we can prevent any damage from it. We just have to harden our infrastructure against it.

'''B:''' The difference is that we are making really good strides in tracking these near-Earth objects, but I don't think we're doing much. We're not doing near enough, in my opinion, to guard against such a solar event.

'''S:''' Actually, Bob, I've been reading that we are doing a lot about that.

'''B:''' Really?

'''S:''' Actually, we've been hardening the grid and the infrastructure the last 20 years or so significantly. Again, not enough, but it-

'''B:''' Yeah. I think it's not enough. It's glad that it's a little bit better than what I had thought, based on what you've said. But still, I think we can get fried. Even for an EMP, electromagnetic pulse, you don't even need a solar flare to induce those currents. You can just basically explode one nuke over the country, and you're back into the 1700s. That level of hardening, we're nowhere near the hardening required for that. That's something that is not unlikely, unfortunately.

'''E:''' Yeah. We'll probably do ourselves in before-

'''B:''' That's scary.

'''E:''' -any kind of cosmic event does us in.

'''B:''' Yeah. I can't disagree with that, but yeah, there are events, though, that we really can't do anything about. Those are the ones that, yeah, just like, you know, whatever. It feels good, though, just to do stuff-

'''S:''' Even being in the crosshairs of a gamma ray burst, didn't know how much we could do about that.

'''B:''' GRPA, yeah. They're about a light-year wide. Yeah, there's not much you could do about that. You don't even know what's coming, really.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' Right? It's like, oh, there it is. We're done.

'''E:''' Turn into the Hulk.

{{anchor|news_item}}
== News Items ==

{{anchor|news_item1}}
=== Congestion Pricing (09:55) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-widening-highways-doesnt-fix-traffic-but-congestion-pricing-can/
|article_title = Why Widening Highways Doesn’t Fix Traffic—But Congestion Pricing Can | Scientific American
|publication = www.scientificamerican.com
}}
'''S:''' All right. Jay, start us off by telling us about congestion pricing. What is that, and does it work?

'''J:''' Well, you know when you get a stuffed-up nose?

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Oh, yeah.

'''J:''' It has nothing to do with that.

'''E:''' Thank goodness.

'''J:''' Everybody knows about traffic congestion, especially if you live near any cities in the United States. You know, it's a constant problem. This is happening in cities around the world, and the standard response is typically to do what? To add more lanes, right?

'''B:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' We've all seen it happen.

'''B:''' Double the lanes.

'''J:''' It works for a little while, but what happens after a period of time is it stops working, which is a big problem. And a lot of people might think that adding lanes is actually a good thing to do, but research and real-world evidence tells us a completely different story. Ultimately, it makes the congestion even worse, which I really think is amazing when you think about it. The reason is something called induced demand. Bob, have you ever had induced demand?

'''B:''' Have I had it? I'm going to have to say, I'll guess yes.

'''J:''' Okay.

'''S:''' I have. Actually, I've experienced induced demand, exactly the same phenomenon in a completely different context. Our clinic is backed up, especially for new referrals, right? If you want an appointment and you're a new patient, you might have to wait six months to get an appointment. And over the years, I've been there, again, I've been there for 30 years. So I've had to experience this cycle many, many times. We hire new clinic clinicians, which opens up a whole bunch of new slots. The wait time goes down, and then it goes right back up. The idea is that if there is basically a bottomless pit of pent-up demand, people will basically wait a certain amount of time for their appointment, and so the wait time is always going to inflate to that point, no matter how many slots or people we bring on or whatever we do. The question is, is there a limit to that? At some point, it is not literally bottomless, it's just much larger than the supply. The same question comes up with traffic. If you keep doing that, if you keep adding lanes, at some point, will you outstrip the pent-up demand or not? And then the other question I have, if adding lanes makes it rebound and even worse, then would reducing lanes make it better?

'''J:''' I don't think so.

'''S:''' Does it work the other direction, it's not reversible?

'''J:''' In the sense of traffic-induced demand, it's well-documented. It's where you increase the road space, which then encourages more people to drive, because people are aware that the projects are happening, and then they think, okay, I could drive on that road during times I normally wouldn't, because they expanded it, it should be fine. So over time, the roads become just as clogged as they were, because essentially people were waiting for the opportunity.

'''B:''' We're taking back roads too, isn't that a player factor?

'''J:''' All the behavior that people have to avoid the traffic jam.

'''S:''' Or they may make less of an effort to carpool, or they'll take trips they wouldn't have otherwise taken.

'''J:''' Yeah, and the list that the researchers were talking about, they're saying these are people who previously avoided rush hour, or who switched from public transit. In some cases, the expanded highway entices people to take jobs from farther away, particularly if they're driving to their interview during off-peak times, and like, oh, this was great, and the commute is fine. This actually happened to me once, where it really bit me in the ass. The research shows that over time, the highway fills up again, and congestion is back to where it started, or worse. So we've observed this repeatedly. It's been happening so much, and it's so well-documented that there's zero question about whether or not this is happening. A study of expanded highways in the US found that traffic volumes tend to rise in direct proportion to the new capacity, which is basically what Steve was saying. So in other words, for every 10% increase in lane miles, traffic increases by about 10 or more percent. So road expansion doesn't eliminate congestion. It kind of fuels it, if you think about it from that perspective. So beyond traffic, expansion has other unintended consequences, like more vehicles on the road mean more pollution, and encouraging suburban sprawl leads to longer commutes and higher infrastructure costs. Like, there's all these dominoes that fall once you start doing this. Cities end up in a really expensive cycle of expansion that never actually solves the problem. And I was talking to Bob about this. Like, when you talk about road expansion and the cost that it takes to do, like, these three, five, 10-year projects to expand the roads, we could be talking about billions of dollars.

'''S:''' Oh, yeah.

'''E:''' Oh, absolutely. No doubt about it.

'''J:''' It's not cheap.

'''E:''' And chances are they'll go over budget in more cases than not.

'''J:''' All right. So hold on to your pants, guys, because you might not like what I'm about to say. So the researchers concluded that the most effective way to help congested roads is something called congestion pricing. All right? Are you guessing where I'm going with this?

'''E:''' Yeah, it's a toll.

'''J:''' Exactly. So it's a toll to drivers who use the roads during these high traffic peak hours. And what this does, it's an incentive for drivers to adjust their driving habits. So if you want to look at it in a very nice way, you're saying, look, we got to charge a toll during these particular times on these particular roads, because the goal here is to help the congestion problem. And people who have to take those drives at that time, no matter what, they can't deviate, they're going to be really unhappy about it, because it's going to add up. And it could be a problem for certain income levels, absolutely.

'''C:''' How is that different than, like, here in California, it's really common on the larger freeways that there are HOV lanes that are toll lanes?

'''J:''' Yeah, I don't know how effective those HOV lanes are. I mean, I always use them when I can.

'''C:''' But you have to pay for them here.

'''J:''' Oh, you do have to pay for them?

'''C:''' That's what I'm saying. Yeah, they're like fast track lanes.

'''E:''' Do they work?

'''C:''' Well, yeah, they're not nearly as congested as the rest of the traffic.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' Yeah, I don't know if they didn't say anything about it in this study, and I'm sure that there's a ton of different things that states do. Like I know some states have stoplights on the entrance ramps.

'''C:''' Yeah, we have those too in California. We have all the things that you need for congestion in LA.

'''E:''' The point seems to be, though, that it's tied to what price someone's willing to pay. And it's enough people, it's a discouragement for them to not want to pay.

'''C:''' Yeah, and if it wasn't, I think that because LA is an interesting case because we have it side by side, right? Like if you're driving down the 110, on the left side of the 110, there are paid lanes, and the rest of the 110 are not paid. And the left side is less traffic-y than the main side. So people are willing to sit.

'''E:''' Here's your free internet, but if you want the fast internet, pay more.

'''C:''' Exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you know it works.

'''B:''' I kind of like that idea, though. You have the option.

'''E:''' Yeah, you build your own.

'''J:''' Well, what they're trying to do is encourage people to take options that they probably wouldn't take without a little nudge, right? So can you drive off peak times? Can you work from home? Can you shift to public transport? Can you carpool? Because all of these things have directly shown to help reduce congestion if people are exercising them. But what it turns out to is we're animals of convenience, and we usually pick the most convenient thing. And sometimes that's not in the better good for our society. So unlike expansion, this congestion pricing, it actively manages traffic rather than passively accommodating it. And as we know, the accommodating part doesn't really work anyway. So cities that have implemented this congestion pricing have seen some really good measurable improvements. London introduced a congestion charge back in 2003, and the traffic in the city center dropped measurably quite a bit. Air pollution improved, and public transit investments increased.

'''E:''' I didn't realize it's been 20 years that they've had that. Interesting.

'''J:''' Then they did it in Stockholm back in 2006, and traffic declined by 20%. And the policy became permanent after the public support grew. And then they did it in Singapore. They have one of the most advanced congestion pricing systems. They have adjusting tolls in real time based on traffic levels and keeping roads flowing efficiently. So we could clearly see that this works. And the question is, why aren't more cities doing this? So I think the real problem here is there's political resistance. Like, look what happened in New York City recently, right? We had, you want to go to New York City, you got to pay, what was it, $10 or something to get into the city?

'''S:''' It was initially $15.

'''J:''' Or $15?

'''E:''' And then they reduced it to $9, I believe. And that's on top of whatever tolls you're paying to cross bridges and other things. This is on top of that.

'''J:''' You know, but the thing that society has to realize is, you know, it's like you turn this thing on and it costs money, but it is a solution though, right? Like, we can't just not do things because we don't want to pay more money. Like, there is really no option if you think about it. Cities will become so crowded that there will not be another way to fix them. Like, there's only so much that a city can handle traffic-wise and foot traffic-wise and everything. Like, there's just, it's going to be a limit. There's an upper limit to all of these things. What are the other solutions that we could do? That there really, as far as I could tell, there aren't any.

'''C:''' I think what's hard about this is a similar argument that you'll see regarding our prison systems, which is that unintentionally or intentionally, what we often do is either criminalize or financially penalize poverty in our cities. And so the very people who are like, let's say you're going to work and you need to be there at a particular time and you can't afford the time it takes to drop your kids off at school and then get on the bus to get to work and you can't carpool because you don't know anybody else, you know, at your work, you know, whatever the case may be, they're the very people who can't afford this and they have to do it.

'''S:''' Yeah, but you can apply for a discount, basically.

'''C:''' Okay, that's good to hear.

'''S:''' Yeah, so what I've been reading, like, yeah, the congestion pricing can work if implemented correctly, right? If it's not implemented smartly, then yes, it's a regressive tax and it can hurt low-income people, especially if you're a worker, it's barely hanging on and now you've got to spend 10 bucks a day just to get to work. That could be huge. But if you handle it so that, let's say, the revenue is used to expand public transportation and people who would have a hard time affording it can get an exemption or a discount, etc. But there's lots of things that you could do that would amplify its effectiveness and minimize any downside. And so that's, you know, that's just always the nuts and bolts of smart management, right? It just takes thought, it takes the ability to make changes, to evolve, to react to how things work.

'''C:''' And to adapt to that particular, the needs of that particular city, because, you know, you think about New York, and yes, maybe I'm wrong here, but it probably is more of a privilege to be able to ride around in a car in New York, if you can afford a taxi, an Uber, a driver. Like, because you can get anywhere in New York on foot or in the subway, and you can do it fast. Like, usually it's actually faster to take the subway somewhere than it is to take a car. Because of the traffic.

'''B:''' Forget about parking. Oh, my God.

'''C:''' Exactly.

'''E:''' Yeah, parking's a nightmare.

'''C:''' But I think about Los Angeles, it's a wildly different scenario.

'''E:''' Sure.

'''C:''' Right? You have to have a car. You cannot get by without a car in Los Angeles. And so-

'''S:''' But that's a choice too. That is a choice as well that, you know, we collectively make. And we could, you know, especially in cities and in large metropolitan areas, we could invest in public transportation, have dedicated bike lanes, have e-bikes and e-scooters or whatever, have other options that make walking and using these other forms of transportation way more convenient, and not just rely on cars.

'''C:''' But within reason. Like-

'''S:''' Yeah, within reason.

'''C:''' L.A. is also just an enormous city. And I think that, like, we have to sometimes remember too that, like, different geographic locations have different struggles.

'''S:''' But yeah, I mean, congestion pricing should be on the table as one of the options. Right?

'''C:''' Yeah, it makes sense. And now we have the technology to do it. I don't see how we could have done this, you know, 20, 30 years ago.

'''E:''' Well, London did it. I mean-

'''C:''' That long ago?

'''E:''' Yeah. 2003, right?

'''C:''' And how did they adjust that? Was it adjusting, like, minute by minute?

'''E:''' That's a good question.

'''S:''' Well, it's usually, like, in New York, it was just basically, like, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. or something. Like, it's just pretty much most of the day.

'''E:''' Okay.

'''C:''' Oh, so it wasn't really- See, I'm thinking of it as, like, an adaptive rate.

'''S:''' No.

'''C:''' Kind of like surge pricing on a new car.

'''S:''' No, it's not surge pricing. It's just-

'''C:''' I see.

'''S:''' In this zone, during, you know, the day and the weekdays or whatever, they carve out basically most time. Not at 2 in the morning, but basically whenever there was-

'''C:''' Right.

'''S:''' There would actually be traffic there. Yeah, it's not surge pricing. That's-

'''C:''' I see.

'''S:''' So, that's where, like, AI comes in and that kind of analysis, which also needs to be part of the equation here, is, like, really managing traffic light timing, having turn lanes, things like that that could also really mitigate congestion.

'''C:''' Ugh, turn lanes. That's our biggest complaint in L.A. We just don't have that many of them.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' We do something called, like, anti-gridlock, which is during morning and evening rush hour, the parking lane, you cannot park in or you'll get towed.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' And that's really helpful. Like, they turn an entire parking lane into a lane of traffic. But of course, there's always, like, that one asshole, you know, and it's like, well, until they're towed, they're just blocking miles of traffic.

'''S:''' Yeah, but that's a setup for disaster, right?

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' But you might, and you can sometimes just turn a traffic lane into a turning lane, and even though you're taking away one traffic lane, that could still improve congestion.

'''C:''' Oh, massively. Yeah. At these huge intersections where everybody's going left, for sure.

'''S:''' Okay. AI will solve it all. Don't worry.

{{anchor|news_item2}}
=== AI Therapists '''(TW)''' (24:04) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/health/ai-therapists-chatbots.html
|article_title = Human Therapists Prepare for Battle Against A.I. Pretenders - The New York Times
|publication = www.nytimes.com
}}
{{trigger|suicide}}
'''S:''' Speaking of AI.

'''C:''' Speaking of AI not solving things. It's quite the turn.

'''E:''' Wait. AI solves everything.

'''S:''' So, are AI therapists coming, and how do they work?

'''C:''' AI therapists are pretty much already here. But yeah, there's a lot of conflict around this topic, and I think part of the reason why this is a good topic for the show, you know, it has all the things. It has all the ingredients that we talk about a lot on the show, but also I think it lends itself to hearty debate. So I hope that my fellow rogues will engage and give me your two cents on what you guys think about this as well. So there's a recent article in the New York Times. It was actually just published on the 24th, so two days ago, by Ellen Barry, titled Human Therapists Prepare for Battle Against AI Pretenders. And the subtitle is, Chatbots Posing as Therapists May Encourage Users to Commit Harmful Acts. The Nation's Largest Psychological Organization Warned Federal Regulators. So what she's referencing there is a recent presentation to a Federal Trade Commission panel in which Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans Jr., who's the chief executive of the APA, and specifically in this case, I'm talking about the American Psychological Association, which is the, let's call it the professional organization. It's not really a union. It's more of an advocacy group. But the professional organization that I belong to, the APA, for psychologists here. The other APA is the American Psychiatric Association, because that's not confusing at all. But here we're talking about the psychological APA. In this presentation, specifically, Dr. Evans cited court cases involving two teenagers, and these teenagers used an app called Character.ai. Character.ai allows people to create fictional characters and then interact with them, chat with them, and the fictional characters chat with each other. But those fictional characters aren't just avatars. Very often, the characters have AI technology behind them. And so what happens, and happened in this case, and it's cited that it's happened in other cases, is that those chatbots start to sort of sprout up, and they sprout up with different roles. And because of the nature of being involved in an app where there are avatars, where there is anonymity, people start to talk about stuff that's hard to talk about. And when they start to talk about their mental health, what's going to happen? These sort of chatbot therapists start to pop up like weeds. And very often, they use terms like therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist. They claim to have advanced degrees from universities. They claim to offer particular types of interventions. In this particular case, the one that was cited at this APA presentation, they were talking about Character.ai, but there are other apps, obviously ChatGPT is one that we use a lot, Replica. Because they use generative AI technology, they're not programmed to have particular guardrails, right? Their outputs are coming from a black box, and they learn from the user. One of the things that often happens is that they follow, it's not encoded, but it's something that's been observed by computer scientists over and over. They observe a tendency of chatbots to utilize a phenomenon called sycophancy. So it's this tendency for the chatbots to mirror, amplify, and validate whatever the person interacting with them says, right? That's what's going to enamor you to the chatbot. That's what's going to make you feel like it is safe. Of course, right?

'''E:''' A safe space.

'''C:''' You're not going to want to engage in a chatbot that's like, you're wrong and let me tell you why, or I'm going to challenge that belief of yours, right? You're going to want to engage in a chatbot that's validating what you're saying, that's amplifying what you're saying, that's reinforcing what you're saying. Now, don't get me wrong, that is a fundamental principle in mental health intervention. Any psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other mental health worker that has legitimate training that is a licensed provider will tell you that part of what they do is validate the patient, client, whatever term that they use within their profession. They validate the very human components, their fears, they validate their worries, they validate their emotional expressions. It's important to establish rapport, but we know the difference between psychologically beneficial or fundamentally human experiences and unhelpful or sometimes dangerous negative self-talk, unhelpful or sometimes dangerous beliefs and narratives, and we know what to look for, the red flags we need to look for if somebody is at risk for engaging in harmful behavior towards themselves or towards others. Not only are we trained in how to see that, we're trained in what to do about it. We have a duty, right? We are legally bound to protect individuals from themselves and from others in particular situations.

'''S:''' Now, Cara, it sounds like these are not AI therapists, they're chatbots that people are using as therapists, but they're not programmed to be therapists, they're programmed to be chatbots. Is that fair?

'''C:''' They're just chatbots that are getting labeled as therapists and are generatively moving more and more into that role. But the point, I guess, here that's important is you make an important distinction, but to the end user, they don't know the difference.

'''S:''' Right. But something shouldn't be offered as an AI therapist unless it's programmed to at least follow the standard of care.

'''E:''' Yeah. Why allow this confusion to reign?

'''C:''' Well, and that's the question, right? So character AI is simply a platform where people go and they chat to each other. And so you may be chatting to a person behind an avatar, you may be chatting to a chatbot. You don't know. Because they say, hi, my name's Dr. whatever, Dr. Laptop. And I-

'''E:''' Well, should it be obligated to disclose?

'''C:''' Right. So here are some guardrails that character AI says that they, since these, and I didn't even tell you about the scenarios, but have said that they are using these new safety features that they say they're using within the last year. They said that they have a disclaimer present in every chat that reminds users that, quote, characters are not real people. And that, quote, what the model says should be treated as fiction. They also said that when users are dealing with mental health issues, a disclaimer is added to any character that calls themselves a psychologist, a therapist, or a doctor that says, quote, users should not rely on these characters for any type of professional advice. And also if the, I guess they're able to scrub the content of the chats, if references to suicide or self-harm come up, a pop-up will direct users to a suicide prevention helpline, likely 988 or an online version of that. But some people argue that that's not enough because what ended up happening in the two cases that were cited by the APA chief executive, they cited two teenagers, a 14-year-old boy and a 17-year-old boy. The 14-year-old boy, and I'm going to, and I probably should have said this at the top of the show, but I'll say it now that there's a kind of trigger warning here because I am going to be discussing suicide. The 14-year-old boy in Florida died by suicide after interacting with a character claiming to be a licensed therapist. And the 17-year-old boy in Texas had what they're calling, quote, high-functioning autism. And after interacting with a chatbot that claimed to be a psychologist, there was a lot of kind of hostile and violent behavior that started to develop and that was particularly targeted towards his parents. So both of the boy's parents are now suing Character AI because of what happened. That raised alarm bells for the APA as a whole. Like he was saying, basically, if this was a real therapist, they would have lost their license. But because it's an AI chatbot, there's no recourse. What do we do here? It's almost like it's a part of the design that these chatbots are going to mirror, mirror, mirror. So if you have a person saying, I'm concerned about this, I'm worried that I might do this, is there sort of a bug within the actual black box that is generative AI where they would say things like, that sounds like a good idea? That's concerning. It's deeply concerning. And so how do we regulate something like this? That's an important question. It's one thing if a company is building an AI therapist and they're trying to market it. It's another thing if chatbots within a platform are popping up, whether it's the users themselves that are creating them, or I don't even know if they're sort of like self-creation within these platforms, how do we police that information? Are disclaimers enough, especially when we're talking about children on the platforms who may not understand the difference and honestly shouldn't be engaging in anything, even remotely claiming to be therapy, without consent of their parents?

'''S:''' If you make the companies that produce the chatbot liable, they'll find a way to keep it from happening.

'''C:''' And that's the interesting thing about what's happening right now is that the parents are engaging in civil suits against the company. And so money talks. And so in this particular situation, I guess time will tell what comes from that. So the APA said part of the concern right now is that generative AI is just too damn good. Ten years ago, you knew. You knew when you were talking to a bot. That's just not the case anymore because of generative AI. In this New York Times article, the author also talks about some examples of when this happened in the past that were really problematic. So of course, organizations that are concerned about the mental health of the citizenship or of the citizenry, they cite the National Eating Disorders Organization. This is an organization that is legitimately concerned about eating disorders in America and wants to enable or provide intervention or at least screening for individuals so that they can get the help that they need. We know that we have a mental health crisis in this country. We know, Steve, you just mentioned this in the very last segment. We know that people sometimes wait months to see a professional. Of course, as professionals, we want to make it so that people can get access to help sooner. We're not trying to bottleneck access to services here. The problem is, here's an example that was cited, in 2023, a chatbot was developed by the National Eating Disorders Association and it utilized generative AI and doing what generative AI does, ultimately, they found that it was offering users weight loss tips. That is not what you want from an eating disorder chatbot therapist. There's a lot of screenshots up on Reddit. You can search for them, but showing chatbots encouraging suicide, encouraging eating disorders, encouraging self-harm, encouraging violence. Some of these may not have intended to be therapeutic chatbots. They may have had a totally different intention, but there is a real risk there. Basically, the APA is asking the FTC to start an investigation into chatbots claiming to be psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health professionals. They're hoping that this inquiry will then compel companies to share this data so that then there can either be new legislation or the legislation that already exists on the books can actually be enforced by law enforcement and we can start to see a change. Because we are at a point where this can be really, really dangerous and we have seen some changes before. For example, during the Biden administration, they cite that the FTC chairwoman, Linda Kahn, was really focusing on AI and fraud and that only recently within the past month, the FTC imposed penalties on Do Not Pay, which is, I don't know if it's an app or a website, but they claim to offer, quote, the world's first robot lawyer. And they're like, you cannot say that. That robot is not a lawyer. They did not pass the bar.

'''E:''' Pass the bar? In what state and where?

'''C:''' And so now they are prohibiting the company from using that language and making that claim. And so that is sort of one direction that we're hoping, we, they, are hoping that this goes. The article talks a lot about the two tragic cases with these teenagers and how they were harmed. But the article also does the thing that I sometimes struggle with in media, which is that they, in an effort to provide, I think, balance, they tell the other side of the argument and the other side of the story. Now, to be fair, on the one side, they're talking about the APA, this massive organization that represents tens of thousands of psychologists. And on the other side, they talk to one psychologist, somebody named S. Gabe Hatch, who is both a clinical psychologist and also an AI entrepreneur. And they talked to him about some of the computer or the AI work that he's been doing, where he's been trying to design experiments that test people's ability to get help from AI chatbots. So in this experiment, he asked both human clinicians and ChatGPT to comment on vignettes where there were like fictional couples in therapy. And then they asked 830 human subjects to look at the answers and choose which ones were more helpful. Now, in his study, which was recently published in PLOS Mental Health, they found that the bots received higher ratings. And the subjects said that they were more, quote, empathetic, connecting, and culturally competent.

'''S:''' Cara, my wife, as you know, is a PhD counselor and she teaches counseling students, right, to get their degree. She's been using ChatGPT to create her vignettes for teaching purposes, and she says they're awesome. Like, it just saves her so much work.

'''C:''' Yeah, that doesn't surprise me.

'''S:''' Completely nails it. It's like, whatever, it has access to that information. So yeah, if, again, in the hands of a professional who could then read it and evaluate it, it can function in that way.

'''C:''' And that's an important point. And that caveat should not be lost in the hands of a professional. And here's a quote from Dr. Hatch. He said, I want to be able to help as many people as possible. In doing a one-hour therapy session, I can only help at most 40 individuals a week, which, by the way, is insane. There's no way you'd think 40 people a week.

'''E:''' Yeah, when you go to the bathroom, my gosh.

'''C:''' But yeah, then he says, we have to find ways to meet the needs of people in crisis and generative AI is a way to do that. And what I say to that is, not yet, not yet.

'''E:''' More bugs to work out.

'''C:''' We need stronger regulation. We need more research into this area. And just like when we talk about robotic surgery, just like when we talk about all of these other ways that technology is really, really helping provide increased access, we need to be able to have a human being at the helm. Checks and balances are necessary. You know, they didn't talk about this in the article, but one thing that I think AI would be brilliant at is the assessment component.

'''S:''' Yeah, the triage.

'''C:''' Of course. Because a lot of people don't make the distinction, and it is harder to make when we're talking about psychology, psychiatry, less so with counseling and like LMFTs and LCSWs, but sometimes this is the case as well. When we're talking about psychiatry and psychology, a large component of what we do is psychodiagnostics. And then another component of what we do is psychotherapeutic intervention. But oftentimes, while we were doing psychodiagnostic work, we are also therapeutically engaging with our patients and vice versa. When we are doing intervention, we may see the need to tweak a diagnosis or to dig a little bit deeper. But sure, screening tools. Does this person seem to be at high risk for depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia? A decision tree of questions that are answered to help flag somebody who's at risk. Of course an AI could do that. I do not like the idea of AI intervention yet. I think that there are probably going to be cases, kind of very, very fundamental CBT, ACT, DBT interventions that are already quite manualized, where this may actually be really, really helpful. And maybe this is my own bias. I see it being tough to do the type of existential work that I do with cancer patients and end of life patients. If you're an AI chatbot, I could be wrong though. That's probably my own hubris.

'''S:''' What I think is that I think the technology is there. It just hasn't been adapted to purpose yet. And as you say, evaluated, regulated. And you also have to think about how is it going to be used by whom, what's the workflow going to be, et cetera. You can't just throw it at the problem and hope that it works. This is too critical an area. You have to use it intelligently.

'''C:''' And you can't assume that just because generative AI is really good at providing information or producing a piece of art or producing a song, that they're also good at ethics. And that's a huge part of mental health intervention.

'''S:''' What I can't see a role for it in the nearer future is, let's say, in conjunction with a therapist or a psychiatrist or whatever, that they do the assessment and whatever. They get the patient to a point where they say, all right, I'm going to see you once a month now. And you have access to this AI therapist that you could use in the meantime. And that program is designed to flag concerning language and alert the therapist or whatever. And that way, it could be an increase, it's like an extender of the physician, not a replacement. And it makes them more effective. They could see more patients.

'''C:''' And you can have a bigger caseload. Yeah, exactly.

'''S:''' Yeah, you can have a bigger caseload because 75% or 80% of the work is being done by AI, et cetera. So yeah, used correctly, it could be huge. But yeah, you can't just throw it at the problem. All right. Thanks, Cara.

{{anchor|news_item3}}

=== Redefining Dyslexia (43:31) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/redefining-dyslexia/
|article_title = Redefining Dyslexia | Science-Based Medicine
|publication = sciencebasedmedicine.org
}}
'''S:''' Guys, let me ask you a question. Cara, I don't want you to answer this question.

'''C:''' Okay. I always do that to you, Steve. Everybody but Steve.

'''B:''' Four for one.

'''S:''' How would you define dyslexia? What is... Well, phenomenologically, what is dyslexia?

'''E:''' I think the common understanding is that people will read words and get the characters either in the incorrect order, and they interpret... Their brain can't interpret the words that they're trying to read.

'''S:''' What do you think, Bob and Jay?

'''B:''' Transposition, is that the proper word for that, of letters and words? Misidentification of word strings, letter strings, and within words, I mean, it's a pretty superficial understanding of it.

'''E:''' Do they see letters upside down? Is that part of it? I've never really known.

'''B:''' I don't think so.

'''S:''' So you guys are reflecting the common public conception of what dyslexia is. That idea is about a hundred years old.

'''E:''' Oh, happy birthday.

'''S:''' And it's amazing the cultural inertia of that idea.

'''C:''' Yeah, it is incredible. Because you're right.

'''E:''' It takes 10% of my brain to figure that one out.

'''C:''' I don't think about it that way at all, but it was probably beaten out of me.

'''S:''' That's why I didn't ask you.

'''C:''' Yeah. That's so interesting. But most people think it's like transposing around letters.

'''S:''' Reversing words or transposing words or letters, reversing letters.

'''E:''' Let's see what Sigmund Freud had to say about it.

'''C:''' It's a reading disorder.

'''S:''' Yeah. So now I'm going to ask you, Cara, see how up to date you are. This is kind of more neurological than psychological, but...

'''C:''' Oh, okay. I'm thinking from the DSM. That's when we diagnose it. It's identified in the DSM-5 as a specific learning disability, and it's specific to reading. So there are different kinds of learning disabilities. Dyslexia is the one that's specific to reading.

'''S:''' Okay. Yeah. So you're up to the 1960s, 70s kind of level.

'''C:''' So reading comprehension, things like that.

'''S:''' Yeah. So it's very interesting because, obviously, I'm very interested in neuroscience in general, but also just definitions, how we define things and how that shapes how we think about it. Dyslexia was first identified and named, that name was coined in 1887 by a German ophthalmologist, that's important, Rudolf Berlin, by an ophthalmologist. And he thought that this inability to read that he was detecting in some specific cases was due to, quote unquote, word blindness. And he thought it was a difficulty of visual processing, right? And that part of that was like that they reverse things or get them in the wrong order. That idea from 1887, which was never correct, then got stuck in the public consciousness and will just not go away. But it's not correct. In 1925, next milestone, now very interesting, a neuro-ophthalmologist, right? So this is somebody who's both a neurologist and an ophthalmologist.

'''E:''' That is 100 years from right now.

'''S:''' Yeah. It's 100 years ago.

'''C:''' Oh, stop.

'''S:''' Advanced a theory that it's not due to word blindness, so it's not a visual problem. It's not an eye problem. It's a neurological problem. And he thought it was due to a problem of cortical dominance, which is not correct. But he did shift the conversation from the eye to the brain, basically. Not a visual processing problem. It's a word, a language processing problem. And so then that became the dominant theory. Then of course it moved to neurology entirely, like it has nothing to do with ophthalmology. And you know, by, you know, more research was done by the 1960s, you have kind of the definition that Cara was talking about, where it, the definition focused on the fact that it was a specific learning disability, meaning there were children who had, and this is still part of the definition.

'''C:''' Oh yeah, this is a specific learning disability still in all of the diagnostic criteria.

'''S:''' Yeah, yeah. So in other words, you have more of a problem with language than your general IQ or your learning level would indicate, right? Does that make sense?

'''C:''' Right. So you could do a full neuropsych battery and it shows that you, we would predict that you would have this level of, you know, reading comprehension, language understanding, but for some reason there's a decrement there.

'''S:''' Yeah. So there's a specific decrement in language. But that definition is just, not that it's wrong, it's just inadequate because it doesn't address-

'''C:''' It doesn't say why.

'''S:''' It doesn't address the why. Exactly. It is completely agnostic as to the why. It's a purely clinical diagnosis of you have this specific problem. But of course, that's not enough because we want to research and think about, and especially if we're going to treat it, we want to know what's causing it. What kind of a problem is it? Not just what the deficit is, but what actually is producing the problem. So when we go beyond the 1960s, more research gets done. By the 1990s, the term phonological awareness comes about, and Cara, have you heard that before?

'''C:''' I mean, I've heard of the phonological loop. I know phonological and I know awareness.

'''S:''' All right. But yeah. But you've never heard of like dyslexia is a problem of phonological awareness.

'''C:''' No. I don't think I have.

'''S:''' Yeah. I think that's when it really became a neurological disorder.

'''C:''' Yeah. I don't think we use that. Even in neuropsych. I don't know if I've heard my neuropsych colleagues.

'''S:''' But that's since the 90s. That's been, that's when I was in medical school in the 90s. I remember there were two husband and wife doctors at Yale, pediatric neurologists, very good, who specialized in dyslexia. And that's what they taught me in 1990. You know?

'''C:''' Yeah. I guess it's the awareness part that I don't often hear. I do hear people-

'''S:''' Phonological awareness.

'''C:''' Talking about-

'''S:''' It's the problem. And the way it was described to me at the time was that these are children who have difficulty understanding at a conceptual level that words are made up of sounds. And so they have difficulty going from phonemes to words. That's the problem. And so if you're decoding the letters in a word, you don't know how that relates to the sounds. And you can't build a word out of the sounds, out of the letters. So they never get to that point where they can go from the written word to knowing what the word is. And then, of course, everything flows from that.

'''C:''' And you know what? The more... I'm actually... Now I'm interested, and I'm looking up a few things from neuropsych rehab, and I am seeing that term used a lot.

'''S:''' Yeah. Oh, yeah.

'''C:''' I'm seeing phonological awareness, but I'm also seeing things like, obviously, visual processing, auditory processing, orthographic processing, executive function, and even something called rapid automatized naming. So there are a lot of different domains.

'''S:''' There are. And this gets to where I'm eventually getting. So-

'''C:''' Okay.

'''S:''' So the definition, this is the sort of the official definition of dyslexia was, dyslexia is a specific learning disability, and it's still part of that, that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and or fluent word recognition, and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. In 2002, this was expanded a little bit. The definition then became, a deficit in processing and phonological component of language resulted directly in difficulty with decoding, spelling, accuracy, and fluency that, in turn, impacted comprehension and reading experience. Impoverished reading experience further impacted the development of vocabulary and background knowledge, which also had a negative influence on comprehension. So it's just a more of a holistic, if you will, view of language and dyslexia. So it's like, yeah, at its core, it's a specific deficit of phonological awareness, but you have to see this in the context of how language develops, how people learn, their culture, their language, because it affects different languages differently. Some languages are easier to read than others, and it doesn't have as much of an impact.

'''B:''' Interesting.

'''S:''' Yeah. For example. And the child's other intellectual abilities, right? So it's in the context of each individual child. But at its core, yep, they're just that the part of the brain that turns letters into sounds and sounds into words is not working well, and that has all these downstream effects.

'''B:''' It sounds almost an all-or-nothing thing, but the way I've seen it in modern culture, though, it's like...

'''S:''' It's a spectrum.

'''C:''' It's totally a spectrum.

'''B:''' Huh?

'''S:''' It's totally a spectrum.

'''C:''' It's a spectrum.

'''B:''' Yeah. So why would some words... Why would they have trouble decoding some words but not other words?

'''S:''' Well, some words... I mean, think about English. English is a horrible language. I mean...

'''C:''' Yeah, we all have trouble decoding some words and not other words.

'''S:''' Some words are more phonetic than others, right? I can't remember who it was that said, why is the word phonetic and not spelled phonetically?

'''C:''' Yeah. Yeah.

'''E:''' Exactly.

'''B:''' That's pretty funny.

'''C:''' Yeah. So somebody with dyslexia is going to... Somebody without dyslexia is still going to struggle with encoding certain words. Somebody with dyslexia is going to struggle with more of them. Yeah.

'''S:''' And again, you could have mild, moderate, severe, like dyslexia is a continuum. And interestingly, even up into the 2000s, even the 2000 teens, people deny that dyslexia even exists as an actual neurological disorder.

'''C:''' What did they think? It's a disorder of will?

'''S:''' Well, here, I'll tell you. In the 2000s, a UK labor MP, Graham Stringer, called the diagnosis of dyslexia a cruel fiction and stated to label children as dyslexic because they're confused by poor teaching methods is wicked. So basically, poor reading ability was blamed on poor teaching and poor parenting. Now where have we heard that before? So blaming neurological disorders on bad parenting or bad teaching has a very long pedigree from ADHD to autism, right? Pretty much any...

'''C:''' To schizophrenia, refrigerator mothers.

'''S:''' To schizophrenia.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' There are so many things.

'''C:''' And it doesn't make sense because you have a class with the same teacher and some kids are struggling and some aren't.

'''S:''' Right. But they're just a bad teacher.

'''B:''' Right. You think it'd be widespread in the classroom.

'''C:''' Right.

'''S:''' But it's just easy just to blame the parents or blame the teachers. And plus, some people just don't understand neuroscience, like, no, these are specific abilities. We're not blank slates. Our brains have strengths and weaknesses. They have abilities. And everything is on a spectrum. Everything is a bell curve, basically, of ability.

'''C:''' Yeah. And I think that there's a cultural phenomenon here, which this taps into as well, which I struggle with a lot being a psychology researcher who both has a foot in the very medical model, but also a foot in the very phenomenologic philosophy side of psychology, which is that we do have a tendency as a culture to talk about things as if they're, quote, real and or in your head and not real, which is insane to me. Yeah. It's totally false. Everything is real. Like, unless we're talking about pure malingering, right, feigning a mental illness for secondary gain or for primary gain, actually, just for primary gain.

'''S:''' Even then, like, it's complicated.

'''C:''' It's even complicated then.

'''S:''' Is Munchausen disease, is that a...

'''C:''' Well, Munchausen is secondary gain. So let's get rid of secondary.

'''S:''' But wait, but that could be a disorder unto itself.

'''C:''' It could be. It could be. It could be just straight up primary gain. Just straight up malingering.

'''S:''' Deliberate fraud for primary gain.

'''C:''' Fully faking so they can get out of prison or so they can make money or something like that.

'''S:''' But that aside, which is not...

'''C:''' Which is super rare.

'''S:''' Super rare compared to all the more complicated...

'''C:''' Yeah. Like functional neurological disorder. I'm sorry. There's something going on there.

'''S:''' And the distinction between psychiatric and neurological is also kind of a fiction. It's all the same. It's all the brain.

'''C:''' It is. It's all the brain.

'''S:''' It's just different specialties about how we treat it and the kinds of things that we're familiar with. But it's all the brain.

'''C:''' And it's really dangerous, I think, not only to my profession, but also to the patients who need help to talk about something being legitimate over here and just in somebody's head over there.

'''S:''' Exactly.

'''C:''' That's super dangerous.

'''S:''' It's a very harmful false dichotomy. And we have, as a profession, we have tried to move as far away from that as possible. Like even calling it a functional neurological disorder or non-epileptic seizures. We use terms that are not judgmental, just describing the phenomenon, not saying like, this is fake seizures or this is psychogenic or whatever.

'''C:''' Yeah. Some people still use those.

'''S:''' I know. It takes time. It takes time. All right. So in 2009, there was the Rose Report, which was an overview of dyslexia. It basically reinforced the phonemic awareness theory and that dyslexia is a specific neurodevelopmental disorder with genetic predisposition. It made focus, however, I'm just making a number of very specific recommendations for interventions at the individual and societal school level, et cetera, et cetera. That's basically where the definition of dyslexia sat until today, right? Until this year. But there's been research going on and every now and then, so much research gets done. It's like, okay, we have to now retool our definition based upon the last 10, 15, whatever years of research. So there's a new study that is called Toward a Consensus on Dyslexia Findings from a Delphi Study. So this is basically looking at a lot of data and saying, all right, what can we say about dyslexia given all the latest research? Basically a consensus of an expert panel on dyslexia. So here's their conclusion. They conclude with a proposed definition, which has a lot of pieces to it. I'm going to read you the ones that they emphasize. Here's the consensus statement. Dyslexia is a set of processing difficulties that affect the acquisition of reading and spelling. It's a little bit more broad than just phonemic awareness, because that's not the whole picture. It's only part of the picture. They say, in dyslexia, some or all aspects of literacy attainment are weak in relation to age, standard teaching and instruction, and the level of other attainments. That's the specific disorder part of it. Across languages and age groups, difficulties in reading, fluency, and spelling are a key marker of dyslexia. Difficulties exist on a continuum and can be experienced to various degrees of severity. The nature and developmental trajectory of dyslexia depends on multiple genetic and environmental influences. Dyslexia can affect the acquisition of other skills, such as mathematics, reading, comprehension, or learning another language. The most commonly observed cognitive impairment in dyslexia is a difficulty in phonological processing. In phonological awareness, phonological processing speed, or phonological memory. However, phonological difficulties do not fully explain the variability that is observed. That's kind of the new bit. Working memory, processing speed, and orthographic skills can contribute to the impact of dyslexia. So that's now the modern sort of synthesis, the consensus on what we're doing. It's more complicated, more nuanced.

'''C:''' Yeah, but it's also like, honestly, it's clunky AF.

'''S:''' Oh yeah, it is.

'''C:''' What do you say to a parent when they go, what does it mean that my kid has dyslexia?

'''S:''' Well, translating that to the family, to the patient, to the parents, that's part of the skill of the job.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' I don't know what to tell you.

'''C:''' Exactly. You still gotta give them the elevator answer.

'''S:''' But when we're talking to each other, that's not meant for a public-facing, concise definition. That's professionals talking to professionals. So it has evolved over time, and basically tracking with the research, I think it's really important to know what the professionals say now about what it is. And it's really fascinating also to think about how persistent that hundred and whatever 40-year-old myth about dyslexia being a visual processing problem is. It's really interesting.

{{anchor|news_item4}}
=== Small Modular Reactors for Cargo Ships (59:40) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/korean-smr-powered-container-ship-design-revealed
|article_title = Korean SMR-powered container ship design revealed - World Nuclear News
|publication = www.world-nuclear-news.org
}}
'''S:''' All right, Bob, you're going to tell us about using small modular reactors for cargo ships.

'''B:''' Yes, I am. Earlier this month, a Korean shipbuilding company unveiled a bold new design, a nuclear-powered container ship using a small modular reactor coupled with an innovative propulsion system using carbon dioxide. Now, of course, I had to do a deep dive on this. Doing that, though, it kind of reinforced the idea in me that if nuclear reactors are cool, mobile nuclear reactors are even cooler. And so not just reactors that sit in one spot to power cities or research labs or whatever, but ones that are integral to propulsion. It's just such a fascinating idea. One iconic version in history that I found and reminded myself about was the atomic car from the 1950s. You guys remember that? There was actually a few ideas tossed around. The one that stood out for me was the Ford Nucleon. What a great name. The Ford Nucleon was a concept car. It was designed as a fission-powered car of the future. The reactor was in the back. It would power a steam engine for propulsion. It seems ridiculous now, right? Just thinking about that, it's like, really? Obviously, technical and safety issues make a car like that impossible. Even 70 years later, it's like we could not pull that off. If you go through those years, though, nuclear planes and tanks were seriously studied as well, especially during the Cold War. But those designs always had issues like weight, shielding, radiation, size, just not practical at all. With all that said, we do have mobile nuclear reactor-powered vehicles today. And by nuclear reactor, I'm talking fission. A nuclear reactor is basically fission or fusion or other even more sci-fi ones like antimatter or whatever. So I'm talking fission when I say nuclear reactor. So we do have them. What are they? What exists today?

'''S:''' Nuclear subs.

'''B:''' Nuclear subs, right? But also?

'''S:''' Aircraft carriers.

'''B:''' Aircraft carriers, right? They are just... Think about that. They are amazing.

'''E:''' Nuclear vessels.

'''B:''' I'm glad somebody said that. These guys can operate for a quarter of a century without refueling. And on top of that, they have amazing safety records. And then there's another one. What's another example? There's one other one that I think that should be on this list. And that's the Russians' famous nuclear-powered icebreakers. And that's kind of it. There's other examples, you know, maybe a commercial ship here in Russia or maybe even some other Russian projects. But they're kind of more footnotes than anything else in my mind. It's really just the subs, nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, and the icebreakers. But that's it. I mean, it's a little frustrating for me as a sci-fi geek because that's the only really three types that we have. Of course, I have to throw in nuclear rockets there because that is absolutely changing. They are working on nuclear-powered rockets now. It seems inevitable that this is going to happen. But they don't exist yet. They don't exist yet. So one recent advance, though, I think is going to make a big change in that. This is something we've mentioned a few times on the show, small modulate reactors, SMRs. So this is a class of small fission reactors that could be many different types. It could be Gen 4 reactors. It could be pressurized water reactors. It could be molten salt. It doesn't matter, really. The specific tech doesn't matter, but they're all basically small fission reactors. And they're also built, the idea is that they will be built at a factory and then shipped to a location to power things. Many different things. It could be microgrids, communities, remote communities, buildings, data centers. I'm sure we're going to be seeing these in data centers. Their power output is typically 10 to 300 megawatts compared to the real big boy reactors. They can range from 700 megawatts to 1,600 megawatts, 1.6 gigawatts. And right now, where do you think the actual small modular reactors are right now that are actually working and doing stuff right now?

'''J:''' Well, for the military, right?

'''B:''' No, it's like China and Russia. And they have like four. So we're kind of at the precipice of this really taking off. There's really not many right now. And it's not hard to predict, right? Maybe I should have predicted it at the beginning of the year. The number of these types of reactors are going to explode worldwide, so to speak.

'''E:''' Yeah. Thank you.

'''B:''' Yeah. There's at least 80 SMR designs being developed now across 19 countries. And they're being seriously considered for tons and tons of applications. So I mean, it's kind of obvious that some of these designs will almost surely proliferate in the near future. And some, I hope, will be used to move ships.

'''S:''' Well, Bob, we have to say, though.

'''B:''' Yeah, there's a lot of stuff we have to say. But go ahead.

'''S:''' I appreciate your optimism. But you know what the big deal killer is for SMRs?

'''B:''' Yeah, the expense.

'''S:''' The expense. They are more expensive per unit energy than the big reactors.

'''B:''' Yeah. That's a problem.

'''E:''' A lot more to ship their products.

'''S:''' It's more than a problem. It could be a deal killer. Because why would you spend? Already nuclear power is at the high end of the cost per unit energy. And if now you go even higher cost, why would you do that? If you're just having something stationary attached to the grid, why not build a big boy and it's more cost effective?

'''B:''' Oh, absolutely. Yeah, that's definitely a good point. I was going to segue to that at some point after I got over a little bit of my techno-optimism here. But yeah, that's a potential problem. But I think, Steve, I think if that proves to be almost a deal killer, essentially a deal killer, I think that cheaper micro-reactors, which are out of scope of this news item, micro-reactors, I think, will probably proliferate.

'''S:''' But this dovetails with your news item, with your point. So if you're just attaching it to the grid and making electricity, you have to compare it to all the other ways to make electricity in terms of cost effectiveness. But if you design an SMR with a specific purpose that is worth the trade-off, then it can become cost effective. The military uses it because the strategic advantage is worth the higher expense.

'''B:''' Absolutely.

'''S:''' And what you're going to talk about is for cargo ships, and that's, they are designing it to purpose so that it's not just, again, connected to the grid. And that also can be cost effective. You also mentioned data centers, so there's a company that's designing them specifically for data centers that, again, because it's designed for purpose, it can be cost effective. So I think that's the direction that the SMRs are going to go, not just hooking them up to the grid, but for specific purposes where the advantages make it cost effective.

'''B:''' Right. And that's why I mentioned 80, there's 80 of these designs being developed by 19 countries. All of them are similar, but also kind of distinct. And in my opening statement, I made a specific point to say that this idea, this new idea is to use a small modular reactor coupled with this innovative propulsion system, which is critical, which is critical to their plan because it brings in efficiencies that make it a better cargo ship in terms of space, in terms of safety, in terms of a lot of stuff. So let me go through some of the ideas.

'''S:''' There's one other thing that can make an SMR cost effective, is if you build it in a location where the waste heat can be utilized for a specific purpose, then you double their efficiency. And so that's like with the data center thing, that you have to build it with the data center, and then you could use the waste heat to cool the data center, and suddenly it's twice as cost effective as it was.

'''B:''' Yeah. So all that said, I think, I still think that SMRs are going to have a future. And from what I could tell doing the research for this specific application for cargo vessels, it sounds very promising. Of course, it's got to be vetted, and a lot of the information that I've seen is coming from this company. And the company is South Korea's HD Korea Shipbuilding and Offshore Engineering. And they're a big player in the movement, and they are what this news item is about. They recently announced plans for a nuclear-powered cargo vessel capable of carrying 15,000 20-foot containers, which is a massive commercial transport ship. It's at definitely the bigger end of the spectrum. Their release, the information that I've come across so far, it seems to focus on three things, and it makes a lot of sense. They're focusing on regulations, safety, and efficiency. Those things, I can't, I mean, those are the top three. It seems, I can't think of anything else that would really be more important than those. So that's a little bit encouraging. So to illustrate what they're doing with the regulations, I'll quote Park Sangman. He's the head of the company's Green Energy Research Lab. He said, HD COSO is strengthening cooperation not only with major classification societies, but also with international regulatory bodies to establish international regulations necessary for the commercialization of nuclear-powered vessels. Okay, so what are classification societies? These are organizations that set and enforce technical and safety standards for ships, including nuclear-powered vessels. So safety, okay, safety is the second critical focus here. Their ships are really, their plan is really taking this seriously. They're planning a double shielding system where you've got stainless steel and light water working together to shield and protect against the things you need to shield against, ionizing radiation, gamma rays, neutrons, and it also dissipates heat very, very well. So the steel absorbs gamma radiation and gives structural integrity to the system, and the light water moderates the neutrons and absorbs radiation as well and dissipates the heat. Then they also plan to create a facility in South Korea specifically for testing and validating their design. So that's, you know, that sounds good. Those words sound good. So in terms of the company's final focus, efficiency, I think this is where their design could have some impact, I found really fascinating as hell. So critical to this efficiency that they talk about is the partnership of the fission reactor with the propulsion system. Having a small modular reactor on the ship, it's not only an efficient source of heat, right, because nuclear energy is much more dense than chemical energy, but it also means that you think about what you can get rid of. Now you can get rid of the exhaust system, the engine exhaust system. You can get rid of the fuel tanks. Because you have this reactor, you don't need those things. So you can just pull them right out of the ship, and now you have a lot of extra space where more of those 20-foot cargo containers can now go where this other stuff was. So the more cargo you can carry, the better, the more efficient the whole enterprise is, and the better the bottom line. So that's one. That's one boost in efficiency. The next boost comes from what the ship actually does with the reactor's heat, right? Because the heat, the nuclear reactor, that's just a source of heat, whether if you're burning fossil fuels or if you have any other type of reactor, you're really just like, we need to create a source of heat that's efficient. So that's it. You've got your heat source. Traditionally, ships use their heat source to heat water to make steam, right? You make the steam, that drives the turbines, and that generates the electricity for the propulsion. That's kind of how the flow goes for a lot of ships. So this propulsion design, though, is different. It does away with the steam, and it replaces it with supercritical carbon dioxide. And this is kind of like a secret sauce. It's such a really cool idea. So the bottom line is that why CO2? Why are we using CO2? Why not just use water? One of the main reasons is that CO2 expands more efficiently than steam. Bam, right there. It's just like, it's just flat out more efficient, and it's because of the supercritical state. So how efficient is it? A traditional steam cycle is 30% to 40% efficient. The supercritical CO2 cycle is up to 50% efficient. And if you look at the numbers they're talking about, they typically say that their design is going to be about 5% more efficient, and 5%, it might not sound like a lot, but that could be huge for lots of ships traveling the seas, 5% increased efficiency could be pretty awesome. And so not only is it more efficient, but it's smaller and it's lighter than steam turbines. There's no water or steam, and so that means that there's less corrosion and no emissions as well, which of course is a wonderful addition there. So this is kind of, I see it as like a nice one-two punch. You got the small modular reactor, and you've got the CO2 replacing water, and it makes such a potent combination. Bottom line, there's less fuel waste, there's more cargo space, there's lower maintenance, there's zero emissions. And that's nothing to sneeze at. The shipping industry consumes about 350 million tons of fossil fuel annually. So decarbonizing shipping could really, really help in our damn climate crisis. It's not something that's going to make a hugely dramatic difference because I think shipping accounts for only 3% of worldwide emissions like that. But any little bit helps, and this is, I think, a pretty cool idea. So yeah, so a lot of industries are looking into SMRs, and hopefully they're going to pan out here and become cost-effective. It seems like we're on the edge of this stuff taking off. It's not just SMRs and micro-reactors. I hope. I hope. Maybe I'm being too positive, but I hope that it takes off and it's more than just little niches here and there. So do all of these developments and all these advances and improvements in our technology, does that mean that the Ford Nucleon may be closer to reality? It can be if you're okay with five feet of steel or concrete shielding in your car. Otherwise, that's not going to happen. It's just like, you know, can you imagine the car, it would be far, far worse than the car that Homer Simpson made up in that famous episode of The Simpsons where it was just a car that uses a nuclear reactor like this would just be ridiculous. So we're not going to see anything like that. I think battery technology is more than enough for small applications like cars. But bigger stuff, bigger stuff, I think reactors will be in the mix.

'''S:''' Well, the hope is too, Bob, that with these niche applications like data centers and cargo ships and things like that, that will cause an economy of scale. Like I said, if you have factories cranking out SMRs, then they might become cost-effective for more general applications like just plugging into the grid.

'''B:''' Creating these, the hope in the beginning, Steve, was that if you create enough of these, it could really help decarbonize a worldwide economy. But even powerful big SMRs, you know, five to 300 megawatts, they calculated you would need tens of thousands of them to really start making a difference. And I'm not sure how long it's going to... I think we'll be probably well past 2050 by the time, if ever, we could start making them and get some economies of scale like for that. I mean, shit. It's scary to think, but it's still the idea. It's just fascinating.

'''S:''' It doesn't have to be the solo solution, but if we want to decarbonize shipping and, yeah, take a chunk out of the grid, that would be nice.

'''E:''' Yeah. There'll be hundreds of pieces to this puzzle.

'''S:''' Yeah.

{{anchor|wtn}}
{{anchor|futureWTN}}
== Who's That Noisy? + Announcements (1:19:31) ==

'''S:''' Jay, it's Who's That Noisy time.

'''J:''' All right, guys. Lat week I played this Noisy. [plays Noisy]

'''E:''' I know what that is.

'''J:''' Yeah, so there's a lot going on there.

'''S:''' There's a lot going on there.

'''E:''' I know what that is. That is the world's first popcorn machine built in 1884, which you had to start up with diesel fuel or whale oil or something. And it popped like eight kernels. Like at the end there, it sounded like kernels of corn.

'''S:''' I thought that was the sound of... That's what happens after I put my quarters into the candy machine and waiting for the candy to dry.

'''J:''' Well, we had some guesses. Visto Tutti wrote in. This guy's very busy and I feel very lucky when he emails me. So he said, this one sounds like an ice maker, the mechanical part of the refrigerator that cracks ice cubes into a receptacle for drinks and such. Man, if you had that in your kitchen, I'd be pissed, right? That's a noisy fricking ice maker. That is not an ice maker, but they do make noise. So I hear what you're saying. Cooper Parrish wrote in and said, howdy. Here's my guess. Coint operated mechanism, two bit selection interface pushing a ball down a long metal track on dispaly inside a box. So he's saying it's a vending machnie. I thought that was a good guess because-

'''E:''' That's basically what Steve said.

'''J:''' Yeah. There's lots of noises. You're putting the coin in and the thing turns and then the thing falls and then maybe an arm grabs. Whatever, right? There's all these different things. It's not a vending machine, but that was a good guess. A listener named Derek Dunsmore wrote in and he said, hi, I may finally know this one. As a hobbyist 3D designer, I recall watching a video of a man producing a small but functionally manned bumper car sized tank out of 3D printed materials. I believe this is the sound that vehicle made when the tank treads were moving over terrain during a trial run. I thought that was cool. I didn't know that someone 3D printed a tank that could move. I'm sure they had to put some type of motor in there. But anyway, this is not correct, but I would like to see the tank. We have a couple of closer guesses. So Gerard Steenbeck wrote, first time guessing that sounds like a plotter printer, a massive printer that uses pens or something to draw blueprints on big sheets of paper. So I think I've been around one of these and they definitely make lots of different kinds of noises and everything. This is not a plotter printer though, but that was an interesting guess. Dan Tenhove said, I'm guessing that this is a recording of the inside of a VCR. And I know you have to be kind of older to know what a VCR is. Cara, do you know what a VCR is?

'''C:''' I'm not that... Come on. Of course I know what a VCR is.

'''E:''' I was going to ask if you knew what a vending machine is.

'''C:''' I was born in 1983, you guys. My entire upbringing was with the VCR.

'''E:''' You're a millennial.

'''C:''' I'm an elder millennial. I'm two years away from the millennial cutoff.

'''E:''' Oh.

'''C:''' Yeah, I'm an elder millennial.

'''E:''' Elder millennial.

'''J:''' So I remember when we were kids that Bob actually could repair VCRs. The tape got caught in there or whatever. Bob was always tinkering around or whatever because he was really obsessed with taping Star Trek and Bruce Lee and Spider-Man, which I was 100% behind. So yeah, they make different noises. There's things happening in a VCR. There's moving parts. There's things that grab the tape and there's things that are happening. So I could see that. I think that was a good guess, but that wasn't correct. I do have a winner. And there were actually two people that guessed pretty quickly. There were a lot of other guessers, but I'm going to tell you who the first two are. The person who won and who submitted it first is Travis Warburton, and he said, this is 100% a canister being sent down a pneumatic tube system.

'''B:''' Oh.

'''C:''' Oh, like at the bank?

'''J:''' He says, the beeps are probably the destination station being typed in. I'm a nurse at a hospital and use these every day. And Madeline Love also guessed correctly on that. These are two new names to Who's That Noisy. So yeah, that's basically what it is. I will remind you that a young listener named Gertie sent this noisy in, so I wanted to thank her personally for doing that. Thank you so much. And yeah, essentially that's what it is. I mean, the people who recorded this, there was different use of this whole thing. But that's basically what's going on. Pneumatic systems are pretty cool. I remember that one of the banks that I used to use had one of the canisters get stuck. I guess the tube went underground for this one, and it got stuck in there because somebody put in like $20 worth of coins.

'''E:''' Oh.

'''C:''' And it's too heavy.

'''J:''' Yeah, they had to dig it out, and that was that for that pneumatic system. But Costco uses-

'''E:''' They took a backhoe and dug it out?

'''J:''' Yeah, they had to dig it out.

'''E:''' Holy moly.

'''J:''' Costco uses a pneumatic system, and there's pretty extensive ones out there, especially today. With the modern technology, they can make them pretty interesting.

'''S:''' We still use them in the hospital for sending blood samples to the lab.

'''J:''' Yeah, that's it. There you go.

'''B:''' Oh, I thought that tech was dead.

'''S:''' No, when you still have to physically move stuff around, it's pretty useful.

'''C:''' Yeah, if it's not broken, don't fix it.

'''J:''' Yeah, like when you need blood immediately, you put it in the pneumatic system.

'''E:''' In a tube in the pneumatic system.

'''J:''' Oh, I thought it was opening your vein. You know, suck the blood. No, it doesn't work that way.

'''E:''' No?

'''J:''' I have a new noisy guys. This one was sent in by a listener named Ed Barrett. [plays Noisy]

'''E:''' Oh, those all sound like wrong numbers.

'''J:''' Yeah, there is a pranking kind of vibe to that. Guys, if you think you know what this week's noisy is, or you heard something cool, email me at WTN@theskepticsguide.org.

'''J:''' NOTACON 2025, guys, is coming. We have a couple of months. We're very excited. And in fact, the person that we're interviewing this week is a special guest that we're going to have at NOTACON, so listen to the interview. And please do consider coming, because you're going to miss out on one hell of a good time with lots of music, lots of fun things that we're going to do. There are surprises. There are jigs and jags. Steve is going to teach someone how to do kung fu. It's going to be awesome. Don't miss it. NOTACON CON, Evan. [https://notaconcon.com/ notaconcon.com]

'''E:''' That's the website.

'''J:''' That's the website.

'''E:''' [https://notaconcon.com/ notaconcon.com]

'''S:''' All right. Thanks, Jay. All right. Well, let's go to that interview now.

{{anchor|interview}}
== Interview with Adam Russell (1:21:32) ==

'''S:''' We are joined now by Adam Russell. Adam, welcome to the Skeptics' Guide.

'''AR:''' Hello there. Good to be here.

'''S:''' Adam, you are a musician, the bassist for the group Story of the Year. I also understand you have a Star Wars podcast called Thank the Maker, but we wanted to chat with you because you're going to be joining us at NOTACON, but tell us a little bit about yourself first. Tell us about your career.

'''AR:''' Yeah. I've been, we were just talking about this offline, I've been with this band and this group of guys the majority of my life, going back to the late 90s when I first started playing music. St. Louis is a small scene, so we all kind of played in bands together, ended up as this lineup plus one other who's no longer with us and released our first album in 2003. It's a big debut. It was the just like perfect alignment of stars. We were so lucky to have the success we had then and over these years, these 25 years almost since then, we're riding the wave of the 20-year cycle, the resurgence, and our music kind of came back into the public consciousness and we're on to another generation of fans and things are in a really fun, exciting place where we're lucky enough to have another chance. We've kind of threaded the needle down into this small group of bands who are still around and can still pull it off. I'm a lucky guy. I'm happy to be here.

'''S:''' Yeah, there's so many sub-sub-genres of music these days. You don't need to have, it's not like there's just this one bucket of musicians. You could survive in a really small niche.

'''AR:''' I mean, there's so, you look at that with anything, there's so many subcultures. You go onto social media and see people who have literally millions of followers that I've never heard of. I have no idea what they do. I bet they have these communities, whether it's just on social media or somebody on the reality TV or any kind of artist, and it's wild to think that there are that many people on earth that each of us can succeed well enough with our little niche.

'''S:''' Yeah, well, it's more than 8 billion people on the planet.

'''AR:''' Yeah, that'll do. That'll work.

'''J:''' Adam, what is the style of the band?

'''AR:''' I think we would describe ourselves most accurately as post-hardcore, a lot of punk influence, emo, I think is the most mainstream, most known title for this subgenre, but we have influence of just 90s rock, metal, punk, everything, good music, I'll call it good music.

'''E:''' It does touch on emo, although I would not necessarily peg it as such. However, in the early 2000s, that was kind of the wave that carried a lot of groups forward into the mainstream.

'''AR:''' For sure. If you know the Vans Warped Tour, that sort of moving window of that Venn diagram of genres, that's what we fit into.

'''E:''' Yeah, perfect.

'''J:''' How does skepticism and your music connect to each other?

'''AR:''' Science was my first passion. I grew up on science like any kid, pretty much. It was dinosaurs and then the space shuttle and everything in the 90s, especially. All of that was front and center. I went to space camp. I was always at the science center and stuff like that in St. Louis. Friendships were always kind of adjacent to those things. Music just happened to overlap, but our guitar player and I are big Star Wars nerds. We're all kind of into similar things and into science. I've always tried to make it part of anything that I do, whether it be like the Star Wars podcast or the band. On our third album, actually, we got pretty political and kind of got into social and other kind of topics in our second and third album, lyrically. We had a few songs that were inspired by Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot specifically. We ended up using an excerpt from the Pale Blue Dot as sort of an interlude, cut it together. It got the old audio tape and ran it into Pro Tools and chopped it up. We actually had to get permission from the estate, so Andrean had to approve it and sent us an email back, which I still have buried somewhere in an inbox. It was like the peak of my life. She wished us luck. She said, you know, I hope the album climbs the charts like a rocket into space or something like that. It was amazing. We've touched on that stuff here or there, but it's always been more like personal stuff that you try to inject wherever you can.

'''J:''' We've worked with her in the past and she is just amazingly generous that way, so I'm not surprised that you say that.

'''AR:''' Yeah. She's an angel.

'''E:''' How did you stumble across the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe?

'''AR:''' Like I said, I've always been into science, but when I really got into music in high school and went from being this fairly intelligent kid who kind of coasted through elementary school, got into high school, discovered music, and then my grades just tanked. I got so off track. Music was the only thing that mattered to me, but once that mission was sort of accomplished, we got signed and it was happening, I found myself with all this free time and the spark kind of reignited my passion for science. I just went headfirst into reading and finding podcasts and everything. It was also about the time that at the end of high school, around teenage years, I realized my beliefs didn't align with what I was raised on. I was raised Catholic and realized I didn't believe in God or any kind of metaphysical stuff like that. I leaned into science and then found, through the New Atheist Movement and those folks, many of which are questionable people at this point, but listening to Dawkins' interviews and things like that on Point of Inquiry and things like that, in discovering podcasts, found you guys. I want to say it was maybe less than a year after Perry died, I was working on a DVD that we were editing. I had this long process of censoring, had to go through frame by frame and do all this stuff. I spent a month solid at my desk with just visual stuff and I needed something to listen to. I ended up listening through your entire back catalog and got fully caught up. I don't think I've missed an episode since then, since 2007 probably.

'''E:''' Yeah, 2007, yeah, that's when Perry left us.

'''AR:''' Yeah. That was the beginning.

'''J:''' That's amazing. You must experience this. When you find out that people are into the work that you create and then they sustain it, like what you just said, it really surprises me that people can do that with podcasts because they can go on for a very long time, which at this point, there's a lot of them out there. It means a lot to me to think that people are just into the show to the point where they're going to keep going with us.

'''AR:''' Like we were saying before we started, what you guys feel about what you've accomplished with your podcast, I feel so similarly about our music and our band. I feel very lucky to have people still with us after all these years.

'''S:''' Adam, have you ever been to a live skeptical conference before?

'''AR:''' Not a conference, but pardon the pun. I was at one of the live recordings in, what was it, Phoenix?

'''E:''' Phoenix.

'''B:''' Yeah, yeah.

'''AR:''' That's about as close as I've come.

'''J:''' Well, you're not going to get laid-

'''AR:''' Well, my wife's going to be there, so, I mean-

'''C:''' Jay, that's none of your business whether or not you get laid.

'''S:''' Adam, tell us about L.A. Strikes Back.

'''AR:''' Yes, L.A. Strikes Back is a fundraising initiative to support victims of the L.A. fires. Started with a handful of other folks who I know through the Star Wars community, Mike Forrester, one of the co-hosts of Thank the Maker, and some other prop makers and folks who are members of the 501st Legion, the costuming group. A few of the folks live in L.A. and have been directly affected by the fires. Actually, our producer and editor, Jason, he and his wife are living in a rental house right now. They were in Altadena. They didn't lose their house, but the whole place is uninhabitable. We have a direct connection to people in L.A. who have been affected, and we, of course, as we like to do in the community, in the Star Wars community, has banded together to try to help folks out. We're combining Star Wars and music. I'm kind of bringing in the music side of it, trying to get donations from friends. It's a lot of custom-designed helmets and different props and things and collectibles, anything we can put on auction to raise money. I'm donating a bass, some old Star Wars figures that I have from years ago, some kind of rare collectibles.

'''E:''' The original Kenner Boba Fett, maybe?

'''AR:''' I don't have that, unfortunately.

'''B:''' What's that worth?

'''E:''' Oh, it's too bad.

'''B:''' What's that worth these days?

'''E:''' Is that a million bucks?

'''J:''' Well, there's different kinds. The one that's super expensive...

'''E:''' The prototype?

'''J:''' Yeah, it was just a prototype that shot a little red missile out of the back. If you get one of those, you have a lot of money on your hands.

'''E:''' I'm sorry. I digressed.

'''AR:''' Harmful if swallowed, the rocket.

'''E:''' That's right. Always.

'''AR:''' It's mostly props and things because, again, 501st Legion and other makers are contributing some really, really cool stuff. We're doing the auction at the end of March. We pushed it back a little bit because we just want to give it some more time, but it's already going very well. The stuff we have lined up, I think it's going to pull some considerable funds. Obviously, we're not going to solve the problem, but we're going to do our part.

'''E:''' You mentioned Thank the Maker podcasts. How did that come about, and what is that about?

'''AR:''' It was a pandemic project. We were all... Actually, Ryan Key, the singer of Yellow Card, and I... Yellow Card and Story of the Year have toured together off and on for years. We connected over Star Wars, and at some point, I realized I wanted to do a podcast. I've been listening to you guys forever. I've listened to so many podcasts. I wanted to do something, and I was thinking a movie podcast, kind of a pop culture thing, do all the classics that we grew up on. Then literally the night before we were about to record our first episode, Ryan and I, he said and called me up and said, look, man, you're going to kill me, but I have an idea. I kind of want to change up this idea. What if it's just about Star Wars? I was skeptical at first, but we ended up going with it. It ended up being perfect because there's a built-in listening base, and it ended up being something that we could find the slice of the Venn diagram where people who grew up on our music and people who grew up on Star Wars, especially the prequels, that actually lines up perfectly. We just crossed 250 episodes recently, our fifth anniversary. It's not our full-time job, but it's a paid hobby that works, and it's worth our time. The main thing is that we've created this community around what we love about Star Wars.

'''J:''' What do you think about Kathleen Kennedy supposedly not being a part of the brand anymore?

'''AR:''' I'm excited to see what the next chapter is going to be, but I'm already just worn out by all the bullshit negative celebration of her retirement. She's a legend. She's been producing some of the best films of all time literally our entire lives. We're all in our mid-40s, starting with Poltergeist and E.T. She's been at the helm of all these incredible films. Maybe she wasn't the best studio head, per se. Who can say? None of us have that skill set. Who are we to say that? She's a legend. She should be praised for her long, illustrious career. I have nothing but respect for her.

'''J:''' Yeah. I don't know if I agree with that. I can respect your perspective on it. I get the whole, let's not focus on the negativity, and I have done what I think you have, which is completely not be a part of any of it, because I don't want to focus on that. Without getting into the whole thing, because there's a lot to talk about, the bottom line is I'm an episode four, five, and six guy, and I probably won't be happy with much that comes after that. It is what it is. I liked a couple of the movies. I liked Andor, and that's good enough. I recommend to people, just watch the things that you like and let the other stuff, just ignore it.

'''AR:''' Exactly. Let people enjoy stuff. Just leave the negativity out of it. Yeah.

'''E:''' I agree as well. There shoulb be something someone can find somewhere in the Star Wars universe that they can enjoy and just concentrate on that for what it is.

'''AR:''' Absolutely.

'''C:''' Really? Really?

'''J:''' Except Cara.

'''AR:''' Everybody except Cara.

'''C:''' Except me. Yeah. I don't know.

'''J:''' Cara knows a little bit more about Star Wars now because of us.

'''C:''' I know a little bit more about Star Wars than I ever wanted to.

'''E:''' That's called osmosis.

'''C:''' See, but the difference is, I'm not one of these Star Wars fans that's obsessed with Star Wars and then just shits all over it. I just don't care about Star Wars. I feel like that's different.

'''AR:''' I much prefer that too.

'''C:''' Yeah. Yeah. It's a different take. We don't have to all be all about everything all the time.

'''J:''' Of course not. Of course not.

'''E:''' No. But again, Venn diagram, it's a good example. You know how science, skepticism, Star Wars, those three circles definitely are here in this family.

'''AR:''' Well, Jay, I'll re-ask you officially right now. I'll put you on the spot, on the air, so to speak. Would you like to join us on Thank the Maker, perhaps, for an episode?

'''J:''' Oh my God. How many times can I be on the show?

'''AR:''' All of them?

'''J:''' Yeah. A hundred percent. Just email me. I mean, I will make myself available. I would love to do that.

'''AR:''' Awesome. I have some ideas.

'''J:''' So you're going to come to NOTACON. You know, we've been very selective about who we let on that stage because we have a core group of people that we work with, that we love to work with. But I mean, it was a pretty easy decision to have you do it because, first of all, Evan came out swinging about how awesome you are. But I mean, after I found out about the Star Wars thing, I'm like, this guy's awesome. I got, you know, like, he's in, a hundred percent.

'''E:''' I cinched it.

'''J:''' Yeah. So we're going to have you join us for a few of the bits that we're doing. I will give you a couple of reveals right now. We haven't really gone into much detail. We're doing something, George changed the name, didn't he? We used to call it Woo Tank.

'''S:''' It's Pitching Woo.

'''J:''' Pitching Woo.

'''E:''' Pitching Woo.

'''J:''' Okay. So the idea is that we are going to have the audience pitch to us things that revolve around pseudoscience as if they're like, they could be products, it could be a, you know, a cult.

'''S:''' A pseudoscientific business. Yeah.

'''J:''' Yeah. And we're going to judge it on whether or not we think it would work and everything. Like, we're going to be very critical about it. And we think that this is going to be funny because, you know, the audience is going to come up with some really, really crazy stuff, I'm sure. So you know, there's going to be a lot of the judges talking to each other and we're going to be, you know, doing the whole thing that like the show does. I think that's going to be a lot of fun. And then we're going to do a bit called Never Seen It, which is a improv comedy bit where you find out movies that people haven't seen, that most people know about, and then you make them do a live read of a scene with somebody else.

'''AR:''' Yes.

'''J:''' And you have to, you know, you have to be-

'''S:''' But no context.

'''J:''' No context, but you have to be 100% committed. Like you're doing this as if you're in the movie. You have to be dramatic and you have to have total buy-in.

'''AR:''' Oh, I love this. I love this so much.

'''J:''' I think that one is going to be, people are going to really love it because it's going to go off the rails immediately.

'''E:''' Oh gosh. Hilarity will ensue.

'''AR:''' Yes. This is great.

'''J:''' Yeah. So Adam, I think you're going to love this stuff. We're going to have a great time. You know, I'm really happy to welcome you to White Plains, New York. I mean, God, this is one of the cultural hubs of the United States.

'''E:''' Adam's familiar with many, many White Plains-ish types of towns throughout America.

'''AR:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Basically, it's an airport, a train station, and some hotels.

'''J:''' And a huge mall. One of the biggest malls.

'''E:''' That is a big mall.

'''AR:''' Hey, I'm a child of the 80s and 90s. I love malls.

'''J:''' Yeah. We did the food court last time and it was great. So we did the 2023 NOTACON there. It was awesome. The hotel was awesome. We basically took over the entire hotel. So I think this year is going to be even better than last time. So we're really excited that you're coming. And I just want you to be prepared because you're going to have to do improv comedy with us.

'''AR:''' I'm ready. I'm prepared.

'''S:''' All right.

'''E:''' Adam tell us where we can find you and all your endeavors that you do so our audience can easily find you?

'''AR:''' Yeah. Find the band at Story of the Year on all the socials. I think we're still on Twitter, X, whatever that was called, unfortunately. Thank the Maker Pod at Thank the Maker Pod on Instagram, TikTok for now, Blue Sky, I think we're on there maybe. At Adam the Skull on all the things, Thank the MakerPod.com, StoryoftheYear.net and so on and so forth.

'''S:''' All right. We look forward to seeing you in May, Adam.

'''AR:''' Same to you guys. Thanks again for having me.

'''S:''' Yep.

'''J:''' You got it, man.

'''C:''' Good night.

{{anchor|theme}}
{{anchor|theme}}
== Science or Fiction (1:39:31) ==
{{SOFinfo
|theme = None
|hiddentheme =

|item1 = Researchers successfully used mRNA which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment.
|link1web = https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-025-01360-5
|link1title = Radioprotection of healthy tissue via nanoparticle-delivered mRNA encoding for a damage-suppressor protein found in tardigrades | Nature Biomedical Engineering
|link1pub = www.nature.com

|item2 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).
|link2web = https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado3843
|link2title = https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado3843
|link2pub = www.science.org

|item3 = A new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars.
|link3web = https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu6058
|link3title = https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu6058
|link3pub = www.science.org

|}}
{{SOFResults

|science1 = Researchers successfully used mRNA which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment.

|science2 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).

|fiction = A new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars.

|rogue1 = Jay
|answer1 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).

|rogue2 = Evan
|answer2 = Researchers successfully used mRNA which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment.

|rogue3 = Bob
|answer3 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).

|rogue4 = Cara
|answer4 = A new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars.

|host = Steve
|sweep =
|clever = y
|win =
|swept =
}}

''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''

'''S:''' Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and then I challenge my panelk of skeptics, that's you guys, to tell me which one is the fake. I've got three exciting news items this week. You ready?

'''J:''' Yes.

'''E:''' Mm-hmm.

'''S:''' Okay. Here we go. Item number one, researchers successfully used mRNA, which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment. Item number two, studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct Diel classification, what time of day they are active. And item number three, a new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars. Jay made a noise. Jay did. Jay gets to go first.

'''J:''' All right. The first one here, these researchers, they successfully used mRNA, which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment. I have a lot to say about that one, Steve, because I remember I did specifically, I did a news item where they tracked tardigrades that were attached to rockets that went into outer space.

'''E:''' I remember that news item.

'''J:''' Yeah, me too. And I remember talking about this protein that they have that's covering their DNA and protects it from radiation coming in and messing it up. And this is exactly the kind of thing that I think you would make up. And man, if we could do that, though, they successfully used mRNA to produce, but who did they successfully use it on, Steve?

'''S:''' Well, since you're going first, I'll tell you. This is a mouse study, not that it matters.

'''J:''' Wait. So there are anti-radiation mice running around this planet now?

'''E:''' Well, not running around a laboratory.

'''S:''' And of course, the cancer treatment is radiation therapy, right? I hope that was obvious.

'''J:''' All right. So this is how supervillains are made, by the way. Okay. So I'm going to put that one on the back burner for a second. The second one here, you're saying studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct deal classification, what time of day they are active. So only 39% were correct in saying when they're active during the day.

'''S:''' Yeah. So in other words, like if an animal is categorized as nocturnal, this study found that 61% of the time they were not nocturnal.

'''J:''' That's crazy. If that's real, if that's legitimate, then it really, you know, what are these scientists and researchers doing? Like they're falling asleep at the wheel here while they're doing... They made 8.9 million observations of 445 species and 39, they were that wrong? That's a big mistake there, right? That's bad. I don't like that and I hope that one is not science. The last one, a new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars. Okay. I mean, I just...

'''B:''' Could you expand on that one, Steve?

'''S:''' A little. So you know what a rogue planet...

'''J:''' Rogue? Yeah, of course.

'''E:''' Yes.

'''S:''' It's roaming between the stars. It's not in orbit around a star. Right. So rogue planetary mass objects, right? So these are not stars. They're big, but they're planetary mass, they're not stars. And so the question is, do these planetary mass objects that are rogue, do they form as failed stars or do they form as planets that then get ejected from their solar system? This analysis says that most of them are ejected planets, not failed stars.

'''B:''' But you said they're planetary mass, so by definition, they would have to be planetary and not stellar.

'''S:''' No, because they're ...

'''B:''' Why?

'''S:''' Planetary mass objects...

'''C:''' I think that's a mass of planets.

'''S:''' They're big, but they're not stars, right? So are they too small to be a star or are they just big planets?

'''B:''' Okay. So you're talking like Neptune type, Jupiter gas giants?

'''E:''' Yeah, Jupiter.

'''S:''' Even bigger than Jupiter, but just not bigger than Jupiter.

'''E:''' Jupiter's a failed star.

'''B:''' Okay.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' But not in orbit.

'''S:''' They're rogue. Yeah, they're floating around.

'''J:''' So the question is, how does a planet get out of its own solar system, right? That's because it needs to be... I think the planets need to be around a star to form or at least that's... Oh boy, this is not an easy one, Steve. Nothing is sticking out. I am going to say, the first one about the mRNA that produces the tardigrade protein, this is exactly what we were saying we hoped would happen, right? And I could see them doing this. It makes sense. So I'm going to say that one is science. I'm going to say that the 39% here, the 8.9 million observations that were made of these 445 mammalian species, if they were that wrong, then something is really wrong. I don't think the number is 39%. I think it's a lot lower than that.

'''S:''' Or you mean higher.

'''J:''' You know what I'm talking about.

'''S:''' Yeah. I know what you're talking about.

'''J:''' That's the fiction.

'''S:''' Okay. Evan.

'''E:''' Oh boy, I don't want this tardigrade protein one to be science. Oh gosh. Right, Jay?

'''J:''' Of course.

'''E:''' I mean, this is too good. Tardigrades are amazing little buggers, aren't they? Can't kill them.

'''C:''' Animalcules. Steve's favorite word.

'''E:''' Again, that's the one that can trap you, right? You want it to be true. You don't kind of care, but at the same time, you'll lose the game. And then the 445 mammalian species, 39% correct deal classification, I suppose that could be right. It's more refined. Make observations and over time, you make more and more and more observations and you start concentrating on you can realize you were pretty far off the mark to begin with. I don't think there's a problem with that one per se. The last one about the rogue planetary mass objects, the rogue ones, ejected planets rather than failed stars. Okay. I believe that. Oh, what the heck. I'll go with the tardigrade one as the fiction because when it's not, if it turns out to be science, then my sadness from losing the game will be overridden by my happiness in that it was a fact.

'''S:''' All right, Bob.

'''C:''' Yeah, Bob's going before me.

'''B:''' I was hoping you'd go before me. Jesus. Tardigrade protein, huh? I guess. Why wouldn't they use the code from, what's the name of that bacteria, radiodurans? This is a bacteria that could have its genome obliterated by radiation and then it just like puts itself back together. I think it's even heartier than even a tardigrade. But tardigrades have some amazing, famously amazing resilience. So sure, I want that to be true too so badly. Let's see. So 8.9 million observations of only 445 species. That's 20,000 observations per species. That's a lot. And they still were that wrong? That's pretty dramatic. Wow.

'''S:''' That's the database they used to figure out that the older classifications were wrong, right?

'''B:''' Right.

'''S:''' You understand what that says?

'''B:''' I think so.

'''S:''' Yeah, you made it sound like, and they're still wrong after 8, no, 8.9 million observations is what led them to, you know, based upon those observations, the existing deal classifications were only correct 39% of the time.

'''B:''' All right. That's not encouraging. Let me look at this third one here. All right. So this one's interesting. So you've got, I mean we've, Steve, we've believed for years that there's more rogue planets ejected from solar systems than there are planets in orbit around a star, right? Isn't that kind of like many billions of these rogue planets. For years, that's kind of been the consensus. He's not even, you're not agreeing with me, but I know you would agree with me.

'''C:''' He's not done it.

'''B:''' So you're saying here that potentially these, some of these could be failed stars. I don't like, I don't like that. I like the idea of these, these rogue planets just like, you know, I don't need a star, you know, screw.

'''S:''' It says they're ejected planets, not rogue stars, not failed stars.

'''B:''' Just the idea of potentially thinking that these were failed stars is like, I like the idea of the rogue planets. It makes sense. It's like, you know, screw those billionaire stars. I don't need them. I'm out on my own. I don't need those guys. And imagine the life forms that could have evolved on an exoplanet with no star, with no stellar-

'''C:''' In what universe could anything live off of a, okay, sorry.

'''B:''' Plenty. Plenty. First off, you've got, you know, microbes living under the ground because of the heat of nuclear decay. That's, that's like, yeah, that absolutely can happen. But yeah, surface life, yeah, that's going to be, that's going to be difficult for sure. But there still could definitely be life on those. I mean, you know, there's still plenty of heat inside the earth. So this one, that one makes sense to me. All right. I'm going to say that the 39% correct one, something, yeah, I'll just, whatever, throw my coin down on that and say that's fiction. I don't know. Any of these could potentially be, except the third one.

'''C:''' Wait. So the brothers are saying it's the mammalian classification.

'''S:''' Evan, the tardigrade.

'''E:''' Yeah. I went with tardigrades for my own selfish purpose.

'''B:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Who do I go with?

'''S:''' All right, Cara.

'''B:''' Don't. Just try to suss it out.

'''E:''' Or the rogue planets. You could do the rogue planets.

'''C:''' I could?

'''B:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Fun.

'''C:''' Let's see. The tardigrade one I think could be true. At least somebody probably researched that. They were like, oh, these are radiation resistant. Maybe we can take something from them and put it in tissue. And it doesn't say in people. It says in tissue. So this could have been in vitro.

'''S:''' I said it was in mice.

'''C:''' Oh, in mice. Yeah. Totally happened in mice. I don't know why everybody is as bothered by this database one, though. Like, I'm not bothered by any of them. Okay. So what you're saying is that a new database where they had tons of observations. What I'm reading this as, the first time they did a big data analysis of this, they realized that all of their boots-on-the-ground non-comparison data was kind of wrong. And naturalistic data is just, oh, I'm standing out in the forest and I'm writing down how many of these creatures I see. But if they were using camera traps or CCTV or some way or satellite footage or something.

'''E:''' Thermal imaging.

'''C:''' Yeah. Thermal imaging to get big data, I could see them being way off. Animals are famously very good at evading human observation. So this one doesn't bother me at all. Now, the rogue planet one, I have no idea.

'''E:''' That must be the fiction by process of elimination.

'''C:''' I want, I mean, the other two don't bother me. This one, but Bob says this one doesn't bother him. And I have to think Bob is a proxy for my own brain, which I don't know anything about. So okay. In an attempt not to sweep Steve, I'm going to be, I'm going to use strategery here and I'm going to say it was, it's that they're not rogue planetary or they're not ejected planets. They are failed stars or something different.

'''S:''' Just to screw me out of it. That's your strategy. Okay. All right. Well, you're spread out, which means I did my job this week and well, it means I take them in order. Take them in order.

'''B:''' But you didn't do the job as good as you could have.

'''S:''' Please. You guys were confused and befuddled. Here we go. Item number one, researchers successfully used mRNA, which produces a tardigrade protein to protect the surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment. You all want this one to be correct, but Evan thinks it's the fiction.

'''E:''' And I still want it to be correct.

'''S:''' And this one is...

'''B:''' Say it.

'''S:''' Science.

'''E:''' Oh, yes.

'''S:''' This is super cool.

'''E:''' I lose.

'''S:''' Yeah. So...

'''B:''' Tell me about it.

'''S:''' Well, I'll tell you. So yeah. So it's pretty much what it says. They identify the protein that binds to DNA and protects the DNA from breaking apart due to radiation. They made the mRNA that produces that protein. They inject it into the tissue of mice. They then gave them radiation therapy for their cancer because they actually had cancer, the mice that they were studying. And the mRNA produced tardigrade protein protected the surrounding tissue from radiation damage. They did not get as much DNA damage from the radiation. The idea here is that the mRNA is only going to last for a short amount of time. So it'll produce a bunch of the tardigrade protein. You give the radiation therapy and then within a couple of weeks, it's gone, you know, so it doesn't have any long lasting effects. And that's basically what they found. So the research was successful. Obviously, this is a long way away from human treatments, you know, doing.

'''B:''' Yeah, but extrapolate that. That's pretty, could be potentially pretty awesome.

'''S:''' But it could be.

'''C:''' Hell yeah.

'''S:''' Absolutely. So this is a good proof of concept, you know, in an animal model and very, very encouraging. Radio protection of healthy tissue via nanoparticle delivered mRNA encoding for a damaged suppressor protein found in tardigrades. Cool study. All right, let's go on to number two, studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct deal classification. What time of day they are active. Bob and Jay, you think this one is the fiction. Cara and Evan thinks this one is science. And this one is science. Sorry, guys. Cara's strategy, unfortunately, worked.

'''E:''' Oh, it worked. Yeah.

'''B:''' Failed stars. That sucks.

'''S:''' Hang on, Bob. Hang on. Hold your horses.

'''E:''' Hold your fire.

'''S:''' So...

'''B:''' Hurry up.

'''E:''' Yeah, yeah. Mammals next.

'''S:''' Cara, you pretty much are correct. You know, a lot of the classifications were based on field observations, and a lot of them were just too few field observations.

'''C:''' Nocturnal, diurnal, crepuscular, and the one I don't know, either crepuscular?

'''S:''' Cathemeral.

'''C:''' Is that the opposite? One's done, one's does?

'''B:''' I never heard of that one.

'''S:''' Cathemeral means that they're active during multiple phases throughout the day.

'''C:''' Oh, okay. Okay. So it's a catch-all.

'''S:''' Yeah, it's kind of a catch-all. And what they found was a couple of things. One was that a lot of the classifications that we had were not correct, but also that there's a lot more variability than we previously assumed. So in other words, like a quote-unquote nocturnal animal is active during the day quite a bit. So a lot more of the animals were cathemeral than strictly nocturnal or strictly diurnal.

'''B:''' Oh, that makes more sense.

'''C:''' That doesn't surprise me.

'''S:''' Yeah, but it's interesting, and it was a massive database, which of course, as Cara was saying, of course they would revise the less accurate information. This was a global network representing 38 countries, leveraged 8.9 million observations. So they updated our deal classifications. Quite a deal.

'''B:''' Nice.

'''S:''' Okay. That means that a new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars is the fiction.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''S:''' But they're not failed stars either. This is kind of a trick. It's neither.

'''C:''' Oh.

'''B:''' What?

'''J:''' What are we talking about?

'''C:''' So what are they?

'''B:''' Okay. Specify, please.

'''C:''' What else is there? Are they comets? I'm confused.

'''S:''' Right. So basically, there's two main ways that stuff gets made, right? You either get made as a star, meaning a collapsing disk of material, or you form as a planet, which is an accretion of material around a star, right? Those are the two basic ways that worlds get made. And the question was always for these rogue planetary mass objects, which PMOs are generally like bigger than Jupiter, but not big enough to become a star, right? And there's a lot of them out there. And Bob, you're right, there's probably more rogue planets than there are planets around stars.

'''B:''' Oh, they still believe that?

'''S:''' Oh, yeah. This does not impact that. Because these are not just anything that's a planet. This is the planetary mass objects are a specific range. Again, they tend to be large, but not suns. What they found was that they form by a third newly discovered mechanism that's neither like stars or planets. And it's complicated. But what they found was they found a bunch of them forming in the same location. What seems to be happening is that it's an interaction between two planetary disks that are forming these like a tidal bridge, as they say, there's like a tidal bridge between these two encountering circumstellar disks that then produce these highly productive clusters of material that spits out these PMOs, these free-floating-

'''E:''' Oh, like a baseball going through a pitching machine kind of thing. You got these two wheels that send the thing going.

'''S:''' Yeah, that's a good analogy, I guess.

'''B:''' Two circumstellar disks around one star.

'''S:''' No, I think, no, in a cluster, like in a cloud, a star forming region.

'''E:''' Neat.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' But if it's a circumstellar disk, then there is a star there already, right?

'''S:''' But it's not around a star. It's not in orbit around a star. It's a young star cluster, right?

'''B:''' So is it like a binary system? I'm confused.

'''E:''' Proto star?

'''S:''' No, no, it's, so you have a star, a cluster of stars, right? So a star forming cluster. So there's a lot of young stars forming in this one region because there's a giant cloud of gas there, and lots of stars are forming. But in that cloud, there can also be these circumstellar disks that are forming stars. But if they get close together, they form these tidal bridges that then spit out a bunch of these PMOs. Does that make sense?

'''B:''' Fascinating, yeah.

'''S:''' Yeah, so it's-

'''B:''' Yeah, but I think circumstellar is kind of just not a good word for this.

'''S:''' That's the name of the disks. But that's the- So this would be a-

'''B:''' I don't like them.

'''S:''' This is a new mechanism by which these kinds of objects can be formed. It's not formed as a sun or as a planet. It's its own thing, which is weird. But cool.

'''E:''' Bob, we learned something here.

'''S:''' You did.

'''B:''' Yeah, that's really a third way. It sounds, that's really cool. I want to read up on that one. That's fascinating.

'''E:''' And Cara figured it all out.

'''C:''' Sure thing.

'''E:''' Without AI.

'''C:''' I'm totally not still confused.

'''E:''' No, no, no, no. She took the reins and commanded her way to victory.

{{anchor|qow}}

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:54:43) ==
{{qow
|text = "One of the few universal characteristics is a healthy skepticism toward unverified speculations. These are regarded as topics for conversation until tests can be devised. Only then do they attain the dignity of subjects for investigation."
|author = Edwin Hubbel, The Realm of the Nebulae (Yale University Press: 1936)
|lived =
|desc =
}}
'''S:''' All right, Evan, give us a quote.

'''E:''' "One of the few universal characteristics is a healthy skepticism towards unverified speculations. These are regarded as topics for conversation until tests can be devised. Only then do they attain the dignity of subjects for investigation." That was written by Edwin Hubble in an article called The Realm of the Nebula. 1936. Edwin Hubble, right? He's one of the-

'''S:''' I've heard of him.

'''B:''' He was awesome, man.

'''C:''' I saw his locker.

'''E:''' No.

'''C:''' Yeah, it's here at Mount Wilson. Yeah, if you go and observe at the telescope at Mount Wilson, Hubble's locker is still down in the bottom.

'''E:''' Holy moly. Steve, you were actually there.

'''S:''' I was there. Yeah, I saw it. There was also his telescope, his microscope or something that was there. I don't know.

'''E:''' And his lunch. It's kind of old now.

'''C:''' Yeah, there's some stuff inside of his locker. Yeah, it's like an old apple.

'''S:''' All right. Well, thank you all for joining me this week.

'''B:''' Sure, man.

'''J:''' Got it.

'''C:''' Thanks, Steve.

'''E:''' Thanks doctor.

== Signoff ==
'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}.
{{Outro664}}{{top}}

{{Navigation}}

Template:Trigger

2025-03-15T16:55:48Z

Xanderox: Embiggening font

<div style="background-color: #ffffff; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 0px; border: 1px solid #ff0000;">
{| border="0"
|-
| width="3" bgcolor=#ff0000| 
| width="40" align="center"|[[File:{{{image|Trigger warning icon.jpg}}}|25x25px|link=]]
| <big>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|'''Trigger warning: {{{1}}}|'''Trigger warning (general)'''}}</big>
|}
</div><noinclude>
=== Description ===
This is a simple message box to introduce a trigger warning. Of course, general viewers will see it, so don't use it inappropriately.

If no specific warning type is added after the pipe, <code>|</code>, this generic message will be displayed:
<pre>{{trigger}}</pre>
appears as:
{{trigger}}

=== Usage ===
<pre>
{{trigger|suicide, death}}
</pre>
appears as:
{{trigger|suicide, death}}
[[Category: Message templates]]
[[Category: Templates]]
</noinclude>

SGU Episode 1025

2025-03-15T16:54:15Z

Xanderox: /* AI Therapists (24:04) */ added TW

{{transcription-bot}}
{{Editing required
|proofreading = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y
|}}
{{InfoBox
|verified = 
|episodeNum = 1025
|episodeDate = {{1000s|1025|boxdate}}
|episodeIcon = File:1025.jpg
|caption = "Next-gen cargo ship: efficient, innovative design sailing towards a sustainable future."
|bob = y
|cara = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|george =
|rebecca =
|perry =
|guest1 =
|guest2 =
|guest3 =
|qowText = "One of the few universal characteristics is a healthy skepticism toward unverified speculations. These are regarded as topics for conversation until tests can be devised. Only then do they attain the dignity of subjects for investigation."
|qowAuthor = Edwin Hubbel, The Realm of the Nebulae (Yale University Press: 1936)
|downloadLink = {{1000s|1025|download}}
|forumLinktopic =
|}}

{{anchor|intro}}
== Intro ==

'''Voice-over:''' You're listening to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

'''S:''' Hello, and welcome to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, February 26, 2025, and this is your host, Stephen Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella. Hey, everybody, Tara Santa Maria.

'''B:''' Howdy.

'''S:''' J Novella, Hey guys. And Evan Bernstein.

'''E:''' Good evening everyone.

'''S:''' So unfortunately, we got some sad news today, just today is we're recording this, Michelle Trechtenberg died.

'''E:''' I read it and I didn't believe it at first.

'''S:''' Yeah, she so she played Dawn on Buffy the Vampire.

'''B:''' That's how I know her and she, she was great. She was so good.

'''S:''' She had a bottom. She had a whole acting career, obviously not just Buffy, but yeah, apparently she was only 39. Yeah, apparently she had a liver transplant and so probably died of complications of that. I don't I'm not seeing any specific information but that's probably has something to do that, although I couldn't find why she had the liver transplant.

'''E:''' Yeah. Does it seem? I imagine by average it's young to be having a liver. Transplant.

'''C:''' No, I mean it can be, but you know, some liver transplants are related to lifestyle and some liver transplants are not. You know, people can have things wrong with their liver for a lot of different.

'''E:''' Reasons, yeah, I imagine there's a, you know, genetic disposition for liver disease or other factors like that.

'''C:''' Actually recently saw a patient in the hospital who had a form of cirrhosis that is non alcohol related cirrhosis. It can just. Oh boy.

'''S:''' Or you can get an infection or you just had, you know, just some other liver disease. Yeah. So no information, But yeah, that's. That's sad.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Yeah. If you're younger than me, by definition you're young.

'''C:''' And if you're younger than me, you're really young.

'''S:''' Yeah, you're really. Young.

'''C:''' Yeah. You remember my friend Holly? Yeah, she the a rocket just launched like just now she was posting about it.

'''S:''' Oh yeah. Yeah, 10 minutes ago.

'''C:''' No, like today there was a rocket launch for with like going to the moon, I think. Yeah, SpaceX Falcon 9 launches the IM 2 Moon mission and there's a bunch of like, science on it.

'''S:''' That's a lunar Lander. Yeah, intuitive machines.

'''C:''' So I don't know, I think I might have mentioned a friend of mine who is an optical engineer. Her name's Holly Bender on the show before. I've definitely had her on talk nerdy, but gosh that was probably like almost 10 years ago now so I should probably.

'''E:''' Did we meet her in Washington?

'''C:''' Yeah, you, you guys met Holly. So she worked on an instrument, the lunar trailblazer. I guess the instrument that she was working on is looking to see how much water there is in this one crater in the moon. Where did the water possibly come from? Could it be used? And so, yeah, I got to watch the launch, you know, through her Instagram feed, which was only, it looks like just an hour ago she posted the launch and said we're going to the moon, which is like, just really, really cool. What a cool thing to be involved to be an engineer who worked on something and then watch it go off to space.

'''B:''' That would just. I can't even relate to how that awesome that would.

'''J:''' I know, right? Could you imagine?

'''B:''' And nerve racking.

'''C:''' Yeah, that's yeah, yeah for sure. Yeah. So I don't know much about the instrument or about the actual like what's all going to in the payload on the so it.

'''S:''' Was a Falcon 9 rocket that launched 2 probes, right? So it was calling it a ride share. So it was the Intuitive Machines Lunar Lander and NASA's Lunar Trailblazer, which is the one that your friend worked on. That's the one that's going to be looking at the water. But they're both basically missions to support the eventual Artemis getting people back to the moon.

'''B:''' If it ever happens.

'''C:''' These are the kinds of things that make it happen.

'''B:''' Well, I mean, not Musk. Musk doesn't want it to happen. So what Musk wants?

'''E:''' Well.

'''C:''' It looks like this is on Musks rocket.

'''E:''' So I think he would want it to happen then he.

'''B:''' He does not. He wants to go right to Mars. He does not want Artemis. That's my understanding. He does. He does not think we need to go to the moon at. All it's too late. We are so committed.

'''E:''' Haven't we talked about this before? You have to have the moon before you have Mars.

'''B:''' Of course it does. But that that he doesn't, I don't think. I haven't read about it in a little while, but I don't think he agrees. Let me call him. I'm going to show here we can just go straight to Mars, which is of course utterly ridiculous.

'''E:''' His line's busy. I'll try him later.

'''S:''' All right, let us know if you get in touch with. Us.

'''E:''' Yeah, I'll let. I'll pipe them in.

'''B:''' And another thing.

'''S:''' And another thing.

'''E:''' And about that asteroid?

'''C:''' Oh yeah, sorry.

'''B:''' Oh, yeah, that. Did you guys hear about the news about the that asteroid? Well, it looks like, you know, we're not going to get hit at all. Bob, you.

'''C:''' Sound disappointed, Bob?

'''B:''' Good. Yeah, I don't think I'm going to own this. I'm disappointed. It's it's it's it's down to four, one thousandth of a percent chance years. And that's fine, that's fine. But like, I forget what venue I said this at, but I was like, you know, I can't help but be a little disappointed because for me, a best case scenario would be like, yeah, we're nervous. And we're like, you know, a little bit of like, holy crap. But I'd like the idea of countries uniting to, to address this and be, have a rocket ready within a couple of years to like a dart type mission to deal with like a kinetic impactor, right? To deal with an asteroid that's heading towards the Earth. And, and, and then, you know, in 2028, like, oh look, Oh yeah, it's not going to hit us, but we got a, we got a rocket ready to go. That's what I wanted. I wanted to for us to take even more seriously this idea, idea that we need to be ready to go with an impactor to, to push away or, or change the trajectory of any asteroid that we might find and not have enough time. And it's great that, you know, getting hit would have, that would have been horrible. I mean, not, you know, an extinction level event, but we could have lost a city. So yeah, obviously I wouldn't want anything like that, but I wouldn't mind a little bit of a scare for a couple years to to be prepared for something that could potentially hit us, you know, you know who?

'''S:''' Could it still hit the moon or is that ruled out too now?

'''B:''' I just read about the earth. I'm not sure.

'''E:''' About the estimate not long ago was as high as 3.2% chance.

'''B:''' Yeah, the highest, highest ever, highest ever calculated probability for something like that, which?

'''E:''' That's what got you all worked up and going, right?

'''B:''' No, that one I got actually a little scared 'cause we had gone. It was a little.

'''E:''' Too much.

'''B:''' Yeah. I mean, I 'cause we went from one in when I started tracking the news, it went from one in 88 to one in 72, then it was down to one in 32 or something. Like, holy crap. This is like going in the wrong direction, which is common. That happens for these things. It seems to get even more likely. And then then it's like gone like, Oh yeah, it's not gonna happen. Yeah, but one like 1% is that was the big, that was the big point. That's that, that was the, you know, the important percentage because over 1%, that's when, you know, these agencies get involved and started making plans and stuff. So if it stayed, if it stayed at like 1.5%, then we probably, we probably would have, you know, made serious plans including potentially getting a rocket ready with a, with a, with a kinetic impactor if it stayed at one 1.5%. So whatever. You know, it's just like, it's just weird to be even just a little bit disappointed about that. It was kind of a weird thing, but but I think you want. I think I've related my reasoning behind that.

'''S:''' But it's not going to hit us.

'''B:''' Probably not overwhelmingly unlikely, but not impossible.

'''S:''' Not about just saying. Is it possible that the percentage will start going up again as we get more data? Probably not. That would happen.

'''B:''' I put some good money against that once they get it down that low.

'''S:''' But don't worry Bob, eventually another asteroid will threaten.

'''B:''' To kill millions of people. It's basically inevitable. So yeah, that's why, dude, that's why I think we need to be even more prepared. We are. We are much more prepared than we used to be, but want to be even more prepared than.

'''S:''' That double prepared.

'''B:''' Double, You know, it's one of these. It's one of these existential crises, crises, crises, yeah, that that we could do something about.

'''S:''' Yes, we can actually prevent.

'''B:''' Right, if there's a, if there's a a Wicked Carrington level solar flare level event, you know, there's well, we can't we can actually do a little bit about that too, but we probably.

'''S:''' Do a lot about that. That's in the body, right?

'''B:''' That's true.

'''S:''' That's not a good example. That's another thing that's not going to happen. Eventually it's going to be really bad and we can completely 100% prevent not not it from happening, but we can prevent any of any damage from it. Should have to harden our infrastructure. Against it.

'''B:''' The difference is that we are making really good strides in tracking these near Earth objects. But we are, I don't think we're doing much. We're not doing near enough, in my opinion, to guard against such a a solar event.

'''S:''' Actually, Bob, I've been reading that we aren't doing a lot about that, really.

'''B:''' Well.

'''S:''' That actually we've been hardening the the grid in the infrastructure the last 20 years or so significantly not again, not enough, but it.

'''B:''' Yeah, I think, I think it's not, it's glad that's a little bit better than than what I had thought based on what you've said. But still, I think we could get, we can get fried. I mean, and even, you know, even for, you know, an EMP electromagnetic pulse. I mean, you don't even need a solar flare to, to induce those currents. You could somebody could just just basically explode one nuke over the country and at your back into the 1700s. That's yeah, that that level of hardening. We're we're nowhere near the hardening required for that. And that's something that is not unlikely unfortunate.

'''E:''' Yeah, we'll probably do ourselves in before any kind of cosmic event does us in, so.

'''B:''' Yeah, I can't disagree with that. But yeah, there are there. There are events, though, that we we really can't do anything about. And those are the ones that, yeah, just like, you know, whatever. That's why it feels good though.

'''S:''' Being in, being in the crosshairs of a gamma ray burst, getting that much?

'''B:''' Yeah, GRB. Yeah, they're about a a light year wide. Yeah. There's not much you could do about that. Yeah. You didn't even know what's coming. Really.

'''S:''' Yeah, right.

'''B:''' It's like, oh, here, there it is. We're done.

'''E:''' Turning into the Hulk.

'''B:''' Yeah.

{{anchor|news_item}}
== News Items ==

{{anchor|news_item1}}
=== Congestion Pricing (09:55) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-widening-highways-doesnt-fix-traffic-but-congestion-pricing-can/
|article_title = Why Widening Highways Doesn’t Fix Traffic—But Congestion Pricing Can | Scientific American
|publication = www.scientificamerican.com
}}

'''S:''' All right, Jay, start us off by telling us about congestion pricing. What is that and doesn't work?

'''J:''' Well, you know when you get a stuffed up nose.

'''S:''' Yeah. Oh yeah.

'''J:''' It has nothing to do with that.

'''E:''' Thank goodness.

'''J:''' Everybody knows about traffic congestion, especially if you live, you know, near any cities in the United States. You know, it's a constant problem. This is happening in cities around the world, and the standard response is typically to do what? To add more lanes, right? We've all seen it happen.

'''B:''' Double the lanes.

'''J:''' It works for a little while, but what happens after a period of time is it stops working, which is a big problem and a lot of people might think that adding lanes is actually a good thing to do, but but research and real world evidence tells us a completely different story. Ultimately it makes the congestion even worse, which I I really think is amazing when you think about it. The reason is something called induced demand. But have you ever had induced demand? Have I had it?

'''B:''' I'm going to have to say I'll guess yes, OK.

'''S:''' I have actually, I've, I've experienced induced demand, exactly the same phenomenon in a completely different context. We, our clinic is backed up especially for new referrals, right? If you want an appointment and you're a new patient, you might have to wait six months to get an appointment. And over the years, I've been there again, I've been there for 30 years. So I've had experienced this cycle many, many times. We hire new clinic clinicians, which opens up a whole bunch of new, new slots. The wait time goes down and then it goes right back up.

'''Voice-over:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Because the idea is that if there is basically a bottomless pit, a pent up demand, you know, people will basically wait a certain amount of time for their appointment. And so the wait time is always going to inflate to that point, no matter how many slots or people we bring on or whatever we do. You know, the question is, is there a limit to that though at some point? Like it is not literally bottomless, it's just much larger than the supply. So the the same question comes up with traffic. If you added, if you keep doing that, you keep adding lanes, at some point will you outstrip the pent up demand or not? And then the other question I have, if adding lanes makes a rebound and even worse than, would reducing lanes make it better?

'''J:''' I don't. I don't think so. Does it work the other direction?

'''S:''' It's not reversible.

'''J:''' In the, in the sense of traffic induced demand is it's well documented. It's where you increase the road space, which then encourages more people to drive because they people are aware that the projects are happening. And then they think, OK, I could, you know, I could drive on that road during times I normally wouldn't because they expanded it should be fine. So over time, the roads become just as clogged as they were because essentially people were waiting for the opportunity.

'''B:''' Or taking like back roads too, isn't that, isn't that play a factor?

'''J:''' All of that, all that, all the behavior that people have to avoid the traffic jam.

'''S:''' Or they make make less of an effort to carpool. Or or they'll drive. They'll take trips they wouldn't have otherwise taken.

'''J:''' Yeah, and the list that the researchers were talking about, you know, they're saying these are people who previously avoided rush hour or who switched from public transit. In some cases, the expanded Hwy. entices people to take jobs from farther away, particularly if they're driving to their interview during off peak times and like oh this was great, the commute is fine. This actually happened to me once where it really bit me in the ass. The research shows that over time the highway fills up again and congestion is back to where it started or worse. So that we've observed this repeatedly. It's been happening so much and it's so well documented that we're not. There's zero question about whether or not this is happening. A study of expanded highways in the US found that traffic volumes tend to rise in direct proportion to the new capacity, which is basically what Steve was saying. So in other words, for every 10% increase in in lane miles, traffic increases by about 10 or more percent. So Rd. expansion doesn't eliminate congestion, it kind of fuels it if you think about it from that perspective. So beyond traffic expansion has other unintended consequences like more vehicles on the road mean more pollution and encouraging suburban sprawl leads to longer commutes and higher infrastructure costs. Like there's all these dominoes that fall once you start doing this, cities end up in a really expensive cycle of expansion that never actually solves the problem. And I was talking to Bob about this, like when you, when you talk about Rd. expansion and the cost that it takes to do like these, you know, 35, you know, 10 year projects to expand the roads, you know, we could be talking about billions of dollars.

'''S:''' Oh yeah.

'''E:''' Oh, absolutely. No doubt about. It it's not cheap. And chances are, they'll go over budget in more cases than not.

'''J:''' All right, so hold on to your pants, guys, because, you know, you might not like what I'm about to say. So the researchers concluded that the most effective way to help congested roads is something called congestion pricing. All right, you, you guessing where I'm going with this?

'''E:''' Yeah, it's. Toll.

'''J:''' Exactly. So it's a toll to drivers who use the roads during these high traffic peak hours. And what this does, it's an incentive for drivers to adjust their driving habits. You know, if you want to look at it in a very nice way, you're saying, look, we got to charge a toll during these particular times on these particular roads because the goal here is to help the congestion problem. And people who are have to take those drives at that time, no matter what, they can't deviate. They're going to be really unhappy about it because it's going to add up and it could, you know, be a problem for certain income levels. Absolutely.

'''C:''' How is that different than like here in California? It's really common on the larger freeways that there are HOV lanes that are toll lanes.

'''J:''' Yeah, I don't know how they're like faster those HOV lanes are. I mean I always use them when I when I can.

'''C:''' But you have to pay for them here.

'''J:''' Oh, you do have to pay for.

'''C:''' That's what I'm saying, yeah. They're like faster track lanes. So now you have do they work? I saw. Well, they're. Yeah, they're not nearly as congested as the rest of the traffic.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' Yeah, I don't know if they they didn't say anything about it in this study. And I, you know, I'm sure that there's a ton of different things that states do. Like I know some states have like stoplights on the entrance ramps.

'''C:''' Yeah, we have those two in California. We have all the things that you need for congestion and the.

'''E:''' Point seems to be though, that it's, it's tied to what price someone's willing to pay. And that's enough people it's a discouragement for them to not. Yeah, not.

'''C:''' Yeah. And if it wasn't, I think that because LA is an interesting case because we have it side by side, right. Like if you're driving down the 110, Yeah, on the left side of the 1:10, there are paid lanes and the rest of the 110 are not paid. And the left side is less trafficky than the main side. Yeah. So people are willing to use your. Free Internet, but if you want the fast Internet. Exactly. Yeah, Yeah. And you kind. Of like that idea though you have the. Option.

'''E:''' Build your own.

'''J:''' Yeah, well, what they're trying to do is encourage people to take options that they probably wouldn't take without a little nudge, right? So can you drive off peak times? Can you work from home? Can you shift to public transport? Can you carpool? Because all of these things have have directly shown to to help reduce congestion if people are exercising them. But what it turns out to is we're animals of convenience and and we usually pick the most convenient thing that you know, and and sometimes that's not in the better good for our society. So unlike expansion, this congestion pricing can act. It actively manages traffic rather than passively accommodating it. And as we know, the accommodating part doesn't really work anyway. So cities that have implemented this congestion pricing have seen some really good measurable improvements. London introduced a congestion charge back in 2003 in the traffic and the city center dropped measurably quite a bit. Air pollution improved in public transit.

'''E:''' I realize it's been 20 years that they've had that. Interesting.

'''J:''' Then they did it in Stockholm back in 2006 and traffic declined by 20% and the policy became permanent after the public support grew. And then they did it in Singapore. They have one of the the most advanced congestion pricing systems. You know, they have adjusting tolls in real time based on traffic levels and keeping roads flowing efficiently. So we could clearly see that this works. And the question is why aren't, you know, more cities doing this? So I think the real problem here is there's political resistance. Like look what happened in New York City recently, right? We had you want to go to New York City, you got to pay, what was it, 10 bucks or something to get into the city?

'''S:''' It was initially 15.

'''J:''' Or 15.

'''E:''' And then they reduced it to 9 I.

'''S:''' Believe from the reduced.

'''E:''' It and that's on top of whatever tolls you're paying to cross bridges and and other things. This is on top of that.

'''J:''' You know, but the, the thing that society has to realize is, you know, it's like you turn this thing on and it costs money, but it's, it is a solution though, right? Like we can't just not do things because we don't want to pay more money. Like there is really no option. If you think about it, cities will become so crowded that there will not be another way to fix them. There's only so much that a city can handle traffic wise and foot traffic wise and everything like there, there's just is going to be a limit. There's an upper limit to all of these things. What are the other solutions that we could do it? They're really as far as I could tell, there aren't any.

'''C:''' I think what's hard about this is a similar argument that you'll see regarding our prison systems, which is that unintentionally or intentionally, what we often do is either criminalize or financially penalize poverty in our cities. And so the the very people who are like, let's say you're going to work and you need to be there at a particular time and you can't afford the time it takes to drop your kids off at school and then get on the bus to get to work. And you can't carpool because you don't know anybody else, you know, at your work. You know, whatever the case may be, they're the very people who can't afford this and they have to do it.

'''S:''' Yeah, but you can, you can apply for a discount basically.

'''C:''' OK, that's good to hear.

'''S:''' Yeah, so, yeah, so, but I've been reading like the congestion pricing can work if implemented correctly, right? If it's not implemented smartly, then yes, it could. It's a regressive tax and it can hurt low income people, especially if you're a worker. It's barely hanging on. Now you got to spend 10 bucks a day just to get to work. That could be huge. But you. But if you handle it so that, let's say the. Revenue is used to expand public transportation and people who would have a hard time affording it can get an exemption or a discount etcetera. But there's, there's lots of things that you could do that would that amplify its effectiveness and minimize any downside. And so that's, you know, that's just always the nuts and bolts of, of smart management, right? And it just takes thought. It takes the ability to make changes to, you know, to evolve, to react to how things work.

'''C:''' And to adapt to that particular, the needs of that particular city because, you know, you think about New York and yes, there maybe I'm wrong here, but it probably is more of a privilege to be able to ride around in a car in New York. If you can afford a taxi, an Uber, a driver like because you can get anywhere in New York on foot or in the subway. And you can do it fast. Like usually it's actually faster to take the subway somewhere than it is to take a car because. Of parking, Oh my God. Exactly.

'''E:''' Parking's a nightmare.

'''C:''' But I think about Los Angeles, it's a wildly different scenario. Sure, right. You have to have a car. You cannot get by without a car in Los Angeles and so.

'''S:''' But that's a choice too. That is a choice as well that you know, we collectively make and we could, you know, especially in cities and in large metropolitan areas, we could invest in public transportation, have dedicated bike lanes, have E bikes and E skirts or whatever, have other options that make it that make walking and using these other of forms of transportation way more convenient and not just rely on cars.

'''C:''' But within reason, like, yeah, within reason. LA is also just an enormous city.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' And I think that like we have to sometimes remember too, that like different geographic locations have different struggles.

'''S:''' But yeah, I mean the congestion pricing should be on the table as one of the options. Right.

'''C:''' Yeah, it makes sense. And now we have the technology to do it. I don't see how we could have done this, you know, 20-30 years ago.

'''E:''' Well, London did it, I mean.

'''C:''' That long ago.

'''E:''' Yeah, 2003, right?

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' 20 and how did they adjust that? Was it adjusting like minute by minute? It's a good.

'''S:''' Question No, she was like in New York, it was just basically like 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM or something. Like it's just pretty much most of the day.

'''Voice-over:''' OK.

'''C:''' So it wasn't really see, I'm thinking of it as like an adaptive rate, no kind of like surge pricing on a new.

'''S:''' No such surge pricing. It's just in this zone during, you know, the day and the weekdays or whatever they had. They carve out basically most time not at 2:00 in the morning, but many basically whenever there was actually be traffic there. Yeah, it's not surge pricing.

'''C:''' I.

'''S:''' See something completely different, but where like AI comes in and that kind of analysis, which also needs to be part of the equation here, is like really managing traffic light timing, having turn lanes, things like that that could also really mitigate.

'''C:''' Congestion, turn lanes, That's our biggest complaint in LA. We just don't have that many of them. Yeah, we do something called, like anti gridlock, which is during morning and evening rush hour, the parking lane, you cannot park in or you'll get towed.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' And that's really helpful. Like, they turn an entire parking lane into a lane of traffic. But of course, there's always like that one asshole, you know, and every, it's like, well, until they're towed, they're just blocking miles of.

'''S:''' Yeah, but that, that's a setup for disaster, right?

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' But, and you might and some you can sometimes just turn a traffic lane into a turning lane. And even though you're taking away one traffic lane, that could still improve congestion.

'''C:''' Oh, massively, yeah. At these huge intersections where everybody's going left for sure.

'''S:''' OK, AI will solve it all, don't worry.

{{anchor|news_item2}}
=== AI Therapists '''(TW)''' (24:04) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/health/ai-therapists-chatbots.html
|article_title = Human Therapists Prepare for Battle Against A.I. Pretenders - The New York Times
|publication = www.nytimes.com
}}

'''S:''' Speaking of AI, yeah.

'''C:''' Speaking of AI not solving things on the turn.

'''E:''' Wait, AI solves everything?

'''S:''' So are AI therapists coming and how do they work?

'''C:''' AI therapists are pretty much already here. But yeah, there's there's a lot of conflict around this topic. And I think part of the reason why this is a good topic for the show, you know, it has all the things, it has all the ingredients that we talk about a lot on the show. But also I think it lends itself to hearty debate, hearty debate. So I hope that that my fellow rogues will engage and give me your two cents and what you guys think about this as well. So there's a recent article in the New York Times. It was actually just published on the 24th, so 2 days ago by Ellen Berry titled Human Therapists Prepare for Battle against AI Pretenders, and the subtitle is Chatbots posing as therapists may encourage users to commit harmful acts, The nation's largest psychological organization warned federal regulators. So what she's referencing. There is a recent presentation to a Federal Trade Commission panel in which Arthur Evans, Arthur Evans Junior, the who's the chief executive of the APA. And specifically in this case, I'm talking about the American Psychological Association, which is the, let's call it the professional organization. It's not really a union, it's more of an advocacy group, but the professional organization that I belong to, the APA for psychologists here, the other APA is the American Psychiatric Association, because that's not confusing at all. But here we're talking about the psychological APA. In this presentation specifically, Doctor Evans cited court cases involving two teenagers, and these teenagers used an app called Character dot AI. Character AI allows people to create fictional characters and then interact with them, chat with them, and the fictional characters chat with each other. But those fictional characters aren't just avatars. Very often the characters have AI technology behind them. And So what happens and happened in this case, and it's cited that it's happened in other cases, is that those chat bots start to sort of sprout up and they sprout up with different roles. And because of the nature of being involved in an app where there are avatars, where there is anonymity, people start to talk about stuff that's hard to talk about. And when they start to talk about their mental health, what's going to happen? These sort of chat bot therapists start to pop up like weeds. And very often they use terms like therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist. They claim to have advanced degrees from universities. They claim to offer particular types of interventions. In this particular case, the one that was cited at this APA presentation, they were talking about character AI. But there are other apps. Obviously, ChatGPT is one that we use a lot, Replica, because they use generative AI technology. They're not programmed to have particular guardrails, right? Their outputs are coming from a black box and they learn from the user. One of the things that often happens is that they follow. It's not encoded, but it's something that's been observed by computer science scientists over and over. They observe a tendency of chat bots to utilize a phenomenon called sycophancy. So it's this tendency for the chat bots to mirror, amplify, and validate whatever the person interacting with them says, right? That's what's going to enamor you to the chat bot. That's what's going. To make you feel. Safe, of course, right, you're not space you're not going to want to engage in a chat bot. That's like you're wrong and let me tell you why or I'm going to challenge that belief of yours, right. You're going to want to engage in a chat bot that's validating what you're saying, that's amplifying what you're saying, that's reinforcing what you're saying. Now, don't get me wrong, that is a fun fundamental principle in mental health intervention. Any psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker or other mental health worker that has legitimate training, that is a licensed provider will tell you that part of what they do is validate the, the patient client, you know, whatever term that they use within their within their profession, they validate the very human components, their fears, they validate their their worries, they validate their emotional expressions. It's, it's important to establish rapport, but we know the difference between psychologically beneficial or fundamentally human experiences and unhelpful or sometimes dangerous negative self talk, unhelpful or sometimes dangerous beliefs and narratives. And we know what to look for, the red flags we need to look for if somebody is at risk for engaging in harmful behavior towards themselves or towards others, Not only are we trained in how to see that, we're trained in what to do about it. We have a duty right. We are legally bound to protect individuals from themselves and from others in particular situations.

'''S:''' A carrot sounds like these are not AI therapists, they're chat bots. Chat bots that people are using as therapists, but they're not programmed to be therapists, they're programmed to be chat bots.

'''C:''' They're, they're just chat bots that are generatively and that that are getting labeled as therapists and are generatively moving more and more into that role. But the but the point I guess here that's important is you make an important distinction, but to the end user, they don't know the difference.

'''S:''' Right, but something shouldn't be offered as a as an AI therapist unless it's programmed to at least follow the standard.

'''E:''' Yeah, why allow this confusion to reign?

'''C:''' Well, and that's the question. AI is simply a platform where people go and they chat to each other. And so you may be chatting to a person behind an avatar, you may be chatting to a chat bot. You don't know because they say, hi, my name is Doctor, whatever Doctor laptop. And should it be obligated?

'''E:''' To disclose, right. So here are some.
{{trigger|suicide}}
'''C:''' Some guardrails that character AI says that they since these such and I didn't even tell you about the scenarios, but have said that they are using these new safety features that they say they're using within the last year. They said that they have a disclaimer present in every chat that reminds users that quote characters are not real people and that quote what the model says should be treated as fiction. They also said that when users are dealing with mental health issues, a disclaimer is added to any character that calls themselves a psychologist, a therapist or a doctor that says quote users should not rely on these characters for any type of professional advice. And also if the I guess they're able to scrub the content of the chats, if references to suicide or self harm come up, a pop up will direct users to a suicide prevention helpline, likely 988 or an online version of that. But some people argue that that's not enough because what ended up happening in the two cases that were cited by the APA chief executive, they cited two teenagers, a 14 year old boy and a 17 year old boy. The 14 year old boy. And I'm going to, and I probably should have said this at the top of the show, but I'll say it now that there's a kind of trigger warning here because I am going to be discussing suicide. The 14 year old boy in Florida died by suicide after interacting with a character claiming to be a licensed therapist. And the 17 year old boy in Texas had what they're calling, quote, high functioning autism. And after interacting with a chatbot that claimed to be a psychologist, there was a lot of kind of hostile and violent behavior that started to develop and that was particularly targeted towards his parents. So both of the boy's parents are now suing character AI because of what happened. That raised alarm bells for the APA as a whole. Like he was saying, basically, if this was a real therapist, they would have lost their license. But because it's an AI chat bot, there's no recourse. What do we do here? It's it's almost like it's a part of the design that these chat bots are going to mirror, mirror, mirror. So if you have a person saying I'm concerned about this, I'm worried that I might do this. Is there sort of a bug within the actual black box that is generative AI where they would say things like that sounds like a good idea, That's concerning. It's deeply concerning. And so how do we regulate something like this? That's an important question. It's one thing if a company is building an AI therapist and they're trying to market it. It's another thing if chat bots within a platform are popping up, whether it's the users themselves that are creating them or I don't even know how they're, if they're sort of like self creation within these platforms, how do we police that information? Are disclaimers enough, especially when we're talking about children on the platforms who may not understand the difference and honestly shouldn't be engaging in anything even remotely claiming to be therapy without consent of their parents if you make the companies.

'''S:''' That produce the chatbot liable well and they'll find. A way to keep it from. Happening, and that's the interesting thing.

'''C:''' About what's happening right now is that the parents are, you know, are engaging in civil suits against the company. And so, you know, money talks. And so in this particular situation, I guess time will tell, you know what comes from that. So, you know, the APA said part of the concern right now is that generative AI is just too damn good. 10 years ago, you knew. You knew when you were talking to a bot. That's just not the case anymore because of generative AI. In this New York Times article, the author also talks about some examples of when this happened in the past that were really problematic. So, of course, organizations that are concerned about the mental health of the citizenship or of the citizenry, they cite the National Eating Disorders Organization. This is an organization that is legitimately concerned about eating disorders in America and wants to enable or provide intervention or at least screening for individuals so that they can get the help that they need. We know that we have a mental health crisis in this country. We know, Steve, you just mentioned this in the very last segment. We know that people sometimes wait months to see a professional. Of course, as professionals, we want to make it so that people can get access to help sooner. We're not trying to bottleneck access to services here. The problem is, here's an example that was cited IN2023A chatbot was developed by the National Eating Disorders Association, and it utilized generative AI and doing what generative AI does. Ultimately, they found that it was offering users weight loss loss tips. That is not what you want from an eating disorder chat bot therapist. There's a lot of screenshots up on Reddit. You can search for them. But showing chat bots encouraging suicide, encouraging eating disorders, encouraging self harm, encouraging violence, you know, some of these may not have intended to be therapeutic chat bots. They may have had a totally different intention, but there is a real risk there. So, so basically the APA is asking the FTC to start an investigation into chatbots claiming to be psychologist, psychiatrist, mental health professionals. And they're hoping that this inquiry will then compel companies to share this data so that then there can either be new legislation or the legislation that already exists on the books can actually be enforced by law enforcement. And we can start to see a change because we are at a point where this can be really, really dangerous. And we have seen some changes before. For example, during the Biden administration, they cite that the FTC chairwoman, Linda Kahn, was really focusing on AI and fraud. And that only recently, within the past month, the FTC imposed penalties on do not pay, which is, I don't know if it's an app or a website, but they claim to offer, quote, the world's first robot lawyer. And they're like, you cannot say that that robot is not a lawyer. They did not pass the ball. Yeah, State. And what? And so now they. Are they are prohibiting the company from using that language and making that claim? And so that is sort of One Direction that we're hoping we they are hoping that this goes. The article talks a lot about the two tragic cases with these teenagers and how they were harmed. But the article also does the thing that I sometimes struggle with in media, which is that they, in an effort to provide, I think, balance, they tell the other side of the argument and the other side of the story. Now, to be fair, on the one side, they're talking about the APA, this massive organization that represents 10s of thousands of psychologists. And on the other side, they talk to one psychologist, somebody named S Gabe Hatch, who is both a clinical psychologist and also an AI entrepreneur. And they talk to him about some of the the computer or the AI work that he's been doing where he's been trying to design experiments that test people's ability to get help from AI chat bots. So in this experiment, he asked both human clinicians and ChatGPT to comment on vignettes where there were like, fictional couples in therapy. And then they asked 830 human subjects to look at the answers and choose which ones were more helpful. Now, in his study, which was recently published in in PLOS Mental Health, they found that the bots received higher ratings. And the subject said that they were more, quote, empathetic, connecting and culturally competent. Care of my wife as you.

'''S:''' Know is a pH. D counselor and she teaches counseling students right to get their degree. She's been using ChatGPT to create her vignettes for teaching purposes, and she says they're awesome. Like, it just saves so much work. Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Completely nails it. It's like. Whatever it has access to that information. So yeah, I mean, if again, in the hands of a professional who could then read it and evaluate it, it can function in that way. Yeah. And that's that's an important.

'''C:''' Point and that caveat should not be lost in the hands of a professional. And here's a quote from Doctor Hatch, he said. I want to be able to help as many people as possible in doing a one hour therapy session. I can only help at most 40 individuals a week, which by the way is insane. There's no way using 40. Yeah, right. Yeah. When you go. To the bathroom. But yeah, then he says lunch. We have to find ways to meet the needs of people in crisis, and generative AI is a way to do that. And what I say to that is not yet, not yet more bugs to.

'''E:''' Work out we need.

'''C:''' Stronger regulation. Yeah, We need more research into this area. And just like when we talk about robotic surgery, just like when we talk about all of these other ways that technology is really, really helping provide increased access, we need to be able to have a human being at the helm. Checks and balances are necessary. You know, they didn't talk about this in the article, but one thing that I think AI would be brilliant at is the assessment component.

'''S:''' Of course, because.

'''C:''' A lot of people don't make the distinction, and it is harder to make when we're talking about psychology, psychiatry less so with counseling and like LMFTS and LCS, but sometimes this is the case as well. When we're talking about psychiatry and psychology, a large component of what we do is psychodiagnostics, and then another component of what we do is psychotherapeutic intervention. But oftentimes, while we were doing psychodiagnostic work, we are also therapeutically engaging with our patients and vice versa. When we are doing intervention, we may see the need to tweak a diagnosis or to dig a little bit deeper, but sure, screening tools. Does this person seem to be at high risk for depression, Anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, you know, a decision tree of questions that are answered to help flag somebody who's at risk? Of course an AI could do that. I do not like the idea of AI intervention yet. I think that there are probably going to be cases kind of very, very fundamental CBT, ACT, DBT interventions that are already quite manualized where this may actually be really, really helpful. I, and maybe this is my own bias, I see it being tough to do the type of like existential work that I do with, you know, cancer patients and end of life patients if you're an AI chat bot. I could be wrong though, you know. That's probably my own you bro. I mean what I what I think.

'''S:''' Is that I think the technology is there, it just hasn't been adapted to purpose yet. And as you say, like evaluated, regulated and you also have to think about like how is it going to be used by whom, what the work, what's the workflow going to be, etcetera. You can't just throw it at the problem and and hope that it works. No, this is too critical an area. You have to use it intelligently and you can't assume.

'''C:''' That just because generative AI is really good at, you know, providing information or producing a piece of art or, you know, producing a song, that they're also good at ethics. Yeah. And, and that's a huge part of mental health intervention. But what I can't see.

'''S:''' You know, a role for it in the nearer future is, let's say, in conjunction with a therapist or a psychiatrist or whatever that you have, like they do the assessment and whatever they get the patient to a point where they say, all right, I'm going to see you once a month now. And you have access to this AI, you know, therapist that you could use in the meantime. And, and that, and the, and that program is designed to flag concerning language and alert the therapist or whatever. So it's, and that way it could be an increase. It's like an, an extender of the physician, not a replacement. And it makes them more effective. They could see more patients. And you had. Yeah. Yeah, you could have a bigger. Caseload because, you know, 75% or 80% of the work is being being done by AI. And so so, yeah, used correctly, it could be huge. But yeah, you can't just throw it at the problem. All right, Thanks, Cara. Guys, let me ask you a question. Cara, I don't want you to answer this question, OK?

{{anchor|news_item3}}

=== Redefining Dyslexia (43:31) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/redefining-dyslexia/
|article_title = Redefining Dyslexia | Science-Based Medicine
|publication = sciencebasedmedicine.org
}}

'''S:''' I always do that to you.

'''C:''' Steve, I'm doing it 4 for one.

'''S:''' How? Would you define dyslexia? What is well phenomenologically, what is dyslexia? The I think the common.

'''E:''' Understanding is that people will read words and get the characters either in their incorrect order and they interpret their brain can't interpret the the words that are they're trying to read. What do you think, Bob and Jay?

'''S:''' It's transposition is that.

'''B:''' The proper word for that of of letters and words. Misidentification of of letters of word strings, letter strings and within words. I mean pretty superficial. Or do they see? Do they see?

'''E:''' Letters upside down. Is that part of it? I've never really, I don't think. Yeah. So you guys are?

'''S:''' Reflecting the common public conception of what dyslexia is, that idea is about 100 years old and happy birthday.

'''E:''' And it's.

'''S:''' Amazing. The cultural inertia of that. Yeah, it is incredible.

'''C:''' Because you're I used 10% of my brain.

'''E:''' To figure that one, I don't think.

'''C:''' About it that way at all but it was probably that's why I didn't ask you beaten out of. Me.

'''S:''' Yeah, that's.

'''C:''' So interesting, but most people think it's like transposing reversing words.

'''S:''' Or transposing words or letters, Reversing letters. See what Sigmund Freud had to say.

'''E:''' About it. So it's a reading.

'''C:''' Disorder it yeah, so I'm.

'''S:''' Going to ask you, Cara, see how up to date you are. This is kind of more neurological and psychological, but oh, OK, so from the.

'''C:''' Site because I'm thinking from the DSM that's how when we diagnose it yeah it's identified in the DSM 5 as a specific learning disability and it's specific to reading so there are different kinds of learning disabilities dyslexia is the one that's specific to reading OK yeah so that you're like in the. Past you're up to the 19. 60s, seventies. Right.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Comprehension. Things like that, yeah. So it's.

'''S:''' It's very interesting because, you know, obviously I'm very interested in neuroscience in general, but also just definitions, how we define things and how that shapes how we think about it. Dyslexia was first identified and named. That name was coined in 191887 by German ophthalmologist. That's important. Rudolf Berlin by an ophthalmologist, and he thought that this inability to read, that he was detecting in some specific cases was due to quote UN quote word blindness. And he thought it was a difficulty of visual processing, right. And that part of that was like that they reverse things or get them in the wrong order. That idea from 1887, which was never correct, then got stuck in the public consciousness and will just not go away. But it's not correct, you know, in 1925, next milestone. Now it's very interesting, a neuro ophthalmologist, right? So this is somebody who's both a neurologist and an ophthalmologist that is 100 years from there.

'''E:''' Right now, yeah, it's 100 years ago.

'''S:''' Advanced the theory that it's not due to word blindness. So it's not a visual problem, it's not a an eye problem, it's a, a neurological problem. And he thought it was due to a problem of cortical dominance, which is not correct. But he did shift the conversation from the eye to the brain. Basically, not a visual processing problem. It's a word, a language processing problem. And so then that became the dominant theory. Then of course, it moved to neurology entirely. Like it has nothing to do with ophthalmology. And, you know, by, you know, more research was done by the 1960s. You have kind of the definition that Cara was talking about where it it the definition focused on the fact that it was a specific learning disability, meaning there were children who had. This is still part of the of the definition. Oh yeah, this is absolutely.

'''C:''' Learning disability still in all of the yeah, yeah. So in other words.

'''S:''' You have more of a problem with language than you, than your general IQ or your learning level would indicate, right? That makes sense, right? So you take, you do a.

'''C:''' Full neuro psych battery and it shows that you, we would predict that you would have this level of, you know, reading comprehension, language understanding, but for some reason there's a decrement there. Yeah. So there's a specific decrement.

'''S:''' In language. But that definition is just not that it's wrong, it's just inadequate because it, because it doesn't address, doesn't adjust the why exactly. It is completely agnostic as to the why. It's a purely clinical diagnosis of you have this specific problem, but of course that's not enough because we want to research and think about and especially if we're going to treat it, we want to know what's causing it, what kind of a problem is it, Not just what the deficit is, but what actually is producing the problem. So when we go beyond the 1960s, more research gets done by by the 1990's, the term phonological awareness comes about. And Carrie, have you heard that before? I mean I.

'''C:''' Mean, I've heard of the phonological loop. I know phonological and I know awareness, all right. But yeah, so but you never heard.

'''S:''' Of like dyslexia is a problem of phonological awareness. No, I don't think I have. Yeah, I think.

'''C:''' That's when it really.

'''S:''' Became a neurological disorder, Yeah, I don't think we use that even.

'''C:''' In neuropsych, I don't know if I've heard my neuropsych colleagues, but that's since the 90s.

'''S:''' That's been that's what I learned in medical school in the 90s. Like, I remember I there were two husband and wife doctors at Yale, pediatric neurologists very good, who specialized in dyslexia, and that's what they taught me in 1990, you know, Yeah, I guess it's.

'''C:''' The awareness part that I don't often hear phonological awareness. Yes, you're talking about. It's the the. Problem and.

'''S:''' The way it was described to me at the time was these are children who have difficulty understanding at a conceptual level that words are made-up of sounds. And so they have difficulty going from phonemes to words like that's the problem they And so if you're decoding the letters in a word, you don't know how that relates to the sounds and you can't build the word out of the sounds out of the letters. So they never get to that point where they can go from the written word to a, to knowing what the word is. And then of course, everything flows from that. And you know what? The more I'm.

'''C:''' Actually, like now I'm interested and I'm like looking at a few things like from neuro psych rehab and I am seeing that term used a lot. Yeah. Oh yeah. I'm seeing phonological awareness, but I'm also seeing things like obviously visual processing, auditory processing, orthographic processing, executive function and even something called rapid auto automatize naming. So there are a lot of different domains. There are and this.

'''S:''' Gets to where I'm eventually getting so OK in 1994. The definition. This is the sort of the the official definition of dyslexia was. Dyslexia is a specific learning disability and still part of that that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. In 2002 this was expanded a little bit. The definition then became a deficit in processing and phonological component of language resulted directly in difficulty with decoding, spelling, accuracy and fluency. That in turn impacted comprehension and reading experience. Impoverished reading experience further impacted the development of vocabulary and background knowledge, which also had a negative influence on comprehension. So it's just a more of a holistic, if you will, view of, of of language and dyslexia. So it's like, yeah, at its core, it's a specific deficit of phonological awareness. But you have to see this in the context of how language develops, how people learn their culture, their language, because it has it affects different languages differently. Some languages are easier to read than others and it doesn't have as much of an impact. Interesting. Yeah. For example, and, and the child's other intellectual abilities. Right. So it's in the context of of each individual child. But at its core, Yep. They're just that the part of the brain that turns word letters into sounds and sounds into words is not working well. And and that has all these downstream effects. It sounds almost an all or.

'''B:''' Nothing thing. The way I've seen the spectrum culture though, it's like, it's totally a spectrum, huh?

'''S:''' It's totally a spectrum, yes. Why would some?

'''B:''' Words. Why could they? Why would they have trouble decoding some words but not other words? Well, some word. I mean, think about English.

'''S:''' English is a horrible language. I mean, yeah, we all have trouble decoding.

'''C:''' Some words and not other words. Some words are more.

'''S:''' Phonetic than others, right? I can't remember who it was. I said why is the word phonetic and not spelled phonetically?

'''C:''' Yeah, exactly. But.

'''S:''' That's pretty funny. Yeah. So somebody with?

'''C:''' Dyslexia is going to is. Somebody without dyslexia is still going to struggle with encoding certain words. Somebody with dyslexia is going to struggle with more. Of them, yeah. And again, you could have mild.

'''S:''' Moderate, severe, like this dyslexia is a continuum. But and interestingly, even up into the 2000s even, you know, the 2000 teens, people deny that dyslexia even exists as an actual neurological disorder. What do they think? It's a disorder?

'''C:''' Of Will, well, here I'll, I'll tell.

'''S:''' You in the 2000 SO UK Labour MP Graham Stringer called the diagnosis of dyslexia a cruel fiction and stated to label children as dyslexic because they're confused by poor teaching methods is wicked. So basically poor reading ability was blamed on poor teaching and poor parenting. Now where have we heard that before? So blaming neurological disorders on bad parenting or bad teaching has a very long pedigree from ADHD to autism, right? Pretty much schizophrenia refrigerator.

'''C:''' Schizophrenia. Yeah, I.

'''S:''' Mean so many things and it doesn't make sense.

'''C:''' Because you have a class with the same teacher and some kids are struggling and some aren't, but they're just a bad teacher can.

'''S:''' Be widespread in a classroom.

'''B:''' Right, but.

'''C:''' It's just easy, just.

'''S:''' To blame the parents or blame the teachers. Well, and plus just some people just are just, you know, just don't understand neuroscience. Like, no, these are specific ability. We're not blank slates. Our brains have strengths and weaknesses. They have abilities and everything is on a spectrum. Everything is a bell curve, you know, basically of ability. Yeah. And I think that there's.

'''C:''' A cultural phenomenon here, which this taps into as well, which I struggle with a lot, being a psychology researcher who is both kind of has a foot in the very medical model, but also a foot in the very kind of like phenomenal logic, like philosophy side of psychology, which is that we do have a tendency as a culture to talk about things as if they're quote real medical or in your head, therefore not real, which. Is insane to me. Yeah, it's totally false. Everything is real like unless we're talking about pure malingering right? Feigning a mental illness for secondary gain or for primary gain Actually just for primary. Then like there's.

'''S:''' It's even complicated that Munchausen.

'''C:''' Disease is.

'''S:''' That a well, Munchausen is secondary.

'''C:''' Gain. So let's by the way. But that could be a. Disorder unto itself.

'''S:''' It could be. It could be so.

'''C:''' So I'm saying just straight up primary gain, right? Just straight up malignant deliberate fraud primary. Gain. Yeah, fully faking. So they can get out of prison or something, make money or something like that. But that aside, which is?

'''S:''' Yeah, not, which is super. Rare. Super rare compared to all the to all. The the more complicated functional.

'''C:''' Neurological disorder, I'm sorry there's something going on there. And the distinction between.

'''S:''' Psychiatric and neurological is also kind of a fiction. It's all the same. It's all the brain. It is, it's just different specialties about how we treat it and the kinds of things that we're familiar with. But it's all the brain and it's really dangerous. I.

'''C:''' Think not only to my profession, but also to the patients who need help to talk about something being legitimate over here and just in somebody's head over there. Exactly. That's super dangerous. Psychotic. Yeah. And.

'''S:''' We have, you know, as a profession we have tried to move as far away from that as possible, like even calling it a functional neurological disorder or non epileptic seizures.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' We use terms that are not judgmental, just describing the phenomena. I'm not saying like, oh, this is fake seizures or this is psychogenic or whatever. Yeah, they still. Yeah, some people still. Use those. I know it's it takes. Time takes time, all right. So in 2009 there was the Rose Report, which was an overview of dyslexia. It basically reinforced the phonemic awareness theory and that dyslexia is a specific neurodevelopmental disorder with genetic predisposition. It made focus. However, I'm just making a number of very specific recommendations for interventions at the individual and societal school level, etcetera, etcetera. That's basically where the definition of dyslexia SAT until today, right until, you know, this year. But there's been research going on and every now and then, like you, so much research gets done. It's like, OK, we have to now retool our definition based upon the last 1015, whatever years of research. So there's a new study that is called toward a consensus on dyslexia findings from a Delphi study. So this is basically looking at a lot of data and saying, all right, what can we say about dyslexia given all the latest research, basically a consensus of an expert panel on dyslexia. So they here's their conclusion. They they conclude with a proposed definition, which has a lot of pieces to it. I'm going to read you the ones that they emphasize. Here's the consensus statement. Dyslexia is a set of processing difficulties that affect the acquisition of reading and spelling. It's a little bit more broad than just phonemic awareness, because that's not the whole picture. It's only part of the picture, they say. In dyslexia, some or all aspects of literacy attainment are weak in relation to age, standard teaching and instruction, and the level of other attainments. That's the specific disorder part of it. Across languages and age groups, difficulties in reading, fluency and spelling are a key marker of dyslexia. Dyslexic difficulties exist on a continuum and can be experienced to various degrees of severity. The nature and developmental trajectory of dyslexia depends on multiple genetic and environmental influences. Dyslexia can affect the acquisition of other skills such as mathematics, reading comprehension, or learning another language. The most commonly observed cognitive impairment in dyslexia is a difficulty in phonological processing, in phonological awareness, phonological processing speed, or phonological memory. However, phonological difficulties do not fully explain the variability that is observed. That's kind of the new bit. Working memory, processing speed and orthographic skills can contribute to the impact of dyslexia. So that's that's now the modern sort of synthesis, the consensus on what we're doing. It's more complicated, more nuanced. Yeah, but it's also.

'''C:''' Like honestly, it's clunky AF. Oh yeah. What do you say to a parent when they go? What does it mean that my kid has dyslexia? Well, that's translating that.

'''S:''' To the to the family, to the patient, to the to the parents. That's part of the skill of the job. Yeah, I'd love to tell you.

'''C:''' But.

'''S:''' Exactly. But when we're talking to, give them the other answer.

'''C:''' That's that's.

'''S:''' Not meant for a public facing definite, you know, concise definition. That's professionals talking to professionals. So it has evolved over time and you're basically tracking with the research. I think it's really important to note to know what it is, what the professionals say now about what it is. And it's really fascinating also to think about how persistent that 100 and whatever 40 year old myth about dyslexia being a visual processing problem is. It's really interesting.

{{anchor|news_item4}}
=== Small Modular Reactors for Cargo Ships (59:40) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/korean-smr-powered-container-ship-design-revealed
|article_title = Korean SMR-powered container ship design revealed - World Nuclear News
|publication = www.world-nuclear-news.org
}}

'''S:''' All right, Bob, you're going to tell us about using small modular reactors for cargo ships. Yes, I am earlier.

'''B:''' This month, a Korean shipbuilding company unveiled a bold new design, A nuclear powered container ship using a small modular reactor coupled with an innovative propulsion system using carbon carbon dioxide. Now of course I had to. I had to do a deep dive on this. Doing that though, I kind of reinforced the idea in me that that if nuclear reactors are. Cool mobile nuclear reactors are even cooler, and so not just reactors that sit in one spot to power cities or research labs or whatever, but ones that are integral to propulsion. It's just such a fascinating idea. One iconic version in history that I found that reminded myself about was the atomic car from the 1950s. You guys remember that? There was actually a few ideas tossed around. The one that stood out for me was the Ford Nucleon. What a great name. The Ford Nucleon was a concept car. It was designed as a fission powered car of the future. The reactor was in the back. It would it would power a steam engine for propulsion. And it seems ridiculous now, right just thinking about that as like really obviously technical and safety issues make a car like that impossible even 70 years later. It's like we would could not pull that off. If you go through those years though, nuclear planes and tanks were were seriously studied as well, especially during the Cold War. But those designs always had issues like weight, shielding, radiation size, you know, just not practical at all. But all that said, we do have mobile nuclear reactor powered vehicles today. And by a nuclear reactor I'm this is I'm talking fission. This is a nuclear reactor is basically fission or fusion or or other even more sci-fi ones like antimatter, whatever this is. So I'm talking fission when I say nuclear reactor. So we do have them. What are they what, what exists today? These Subs, nuclear Subs, right, But also aircraft, aircraft carriers, right? They are just aren't think about that. They are amazing. These are massive vessels. That somebody said that. These guys can operate for 1/4 of a century without refueling and on top of that, they have amazing safety records. And then there's another one. What's another example? There's one other one that's I think that should be on this list and that's the, the Russians famous nuclear powered Ice Breakers. And, and that's kind of it. There's other examples, you know, maybe a commercial ship here made in Russia or, or maybe even some other Russian projects, but they're kind of more footnotes than anything else in my mind. It's really just the Subs, nuclear Subs, aircraft carriers and the the Ice Breakers. And but that's it. I mean, it's a little frustrating for me as it's sci-fi geek because like that's the only really three types that we have. Of course, I have to throw in nuclear rockets there because that is absolutely changing. They are working on nuclear powered rockets now. It seems inevitable that that this is going to happen. So, but they don't exist yet. They don't read, they don't exist yet. So one reason in advance though I think it's going to change is make a big change in that this is something we've mentioned a few times on the show, small modular reactors, SMRS. So this is a class of small fission reactors that could be many different types. It could be Gen. 4 reactors, it could be pressurized water reactors, it could be molten salt. Doesn't matter really the type, the specific tech doesn't matter, but they're, they're all basically small fission reactors and they're also built. The, the idea is that they will be built at a factory and then shipped to a location to power things. Many different things could be micro grids, communities, you know, remote communities, buildings, data centers. I'm sure we're going to be seeing these in data centers. Their their power output is typically, you know, you know, 10 to 300 megawatts compared to the to the real big boy reactors. They they can range from 700 megawatts to 1600 megawatts, 1.6 gigawatts. And right now where do you think the actual small modular reactors are right now that are actually working and doing, doing stuff right now? It's the military, right?

'''J:''' No, it's like.

'''B:''' China and Russia and they have like 4 they so, so we're kind of at the precipice of this really, really taking off. There's really not many right now. And it, it's, you know, it's not hard to predict, right? And maybe I should have predicted it at the beginning of the year. The, the number of these, these types of reactors are going to explode worldwide, so to speak. Yeah, there's, there's at least 8080 SMR designs being developed now across 19 countries and they're being considered seriously considered for tons and tons of applications. So I mean, it's kind of obvious that these some of these designs were almost surely proliferating in near future and some I hope will be used to move ships. Well, Bob, we we have to say.

'''S:''' Though Yeah, there's a lot of stuff we have to.

'''B:''' Say, but go ahead. What do you? I appreciate your optimism.

'''S:''' But you know what the big deal killer is for SMRS? Yeah, the the expense.

'''B:''' The expense?

'''S:''' They are more expensive per unit energy than the big reactors. Yeah, right.

'''B:''' And that's a problem a lot more it's a shape your products. It's more than a problem it.

'''S:''' Could be a deal killer because why would you spend you know you know already nuclear powers at the high end of the cost per unit energy and if now you go even higher cost why would you do that when if you're just having something stationary attached to the grid, why not build a big boy and have it's been it's more cost effective. Oh, absolutely. That that's.

'''B:''' Yeah, that, that's definitely a good point. I was going to segue to that at some point after I got over with a little bit of my techno optimism here. But yeah, that's a potential problem. And I think Steve, I think if that if that proves to be almost a deal killer, essentially a deal killer, I think that that cheaper micro reactors which are out of scope of this news item, micro reactors I think will probably proliferate. But this dovetails with.

'''S:''' Your news item with your point because so if you're just attaching it to the grid and making electricity, you have to compare it to all the other ways to make electricity in terms of cost effectiveness. But if you design an SMR with a specific purpose that is worth the trade off, then it can become cost effective like the military uses it because the strategic advantage is worth the higher expense. Absolutely right. Absolutely.

'''B:''' But what you're?

'''S:''' Going to talk about is for cargo ships and that's they are designing it to purpose so that it's not just again connected to the grid and that also can be cost effective. You also mentioned data centers. So there's a company that's designing them for specifically for data centers that again, because it's designed for purpose, it can be cost effective. So I think that's the direction that the SMRS are going to go, not just hooking them up to the grid, but for specific purposes where the advantages make it cost effective, right? And that's why I mentioned 80.

'''B:''' There's 80 of these designs being developed by 19 countries. All of them are similar but also kind of distinct. And in my opening statement, I made AI made a specific point to to say that that this idea, there's no idea idea is to use a small modular reactor coupled with the this innovative propulsion system, which is critical, which is critical to their to their plan because it brings in efficiencies that are that, that, that make it a better cargo ship in terms of space, in terms of safety, in terms of a lot of stuff. So let me let me go through some of the ideas. There's one other thing that makes.

'''S:''' That can make an SMR cost effective is if you if if you build it in a location where the waste heat can be utilized for a specific purpose, then you like double their efficiency. And so Yep, Yep. So.

'''B:''' That's like with the data.

'''S:''' Center thing that you have to build it with the data center, you know, and then you could use the waste heat to cool the data center and suddenly it's twice as cost effective as it was yeah so yeah, so.

'''B:''' So all that said, I think I, I still think that that SMRS are going to have a future and, and from what I could tell doing the, the research for this specific application for cargo vessels, it sounds, it sounds very promising. Of course, it's got to be vetted. And the information that a lot of the information that I've seen is coming from this this company and the company is South Korea's HD Korea Shipbuilding and Offshore Engineering. And they're, they're a big player in the movement and they're and they're, they're, they are what this news item is about. They recently announced that the plans for a nuclear powered cargo vessel capable of carrying 15,020 foot containers, which is a massive commercial transport ship. It's it's at the definitely the bigger end of the of the spectrum. Their, their release, their the information that I've come across so far is it seems to focus on three things and it make it makes a lot of sense. They're focusing on regulations, safety and efficiency, right? Those things I can't, I mean, those are the top three, it seems. I can't think of anything else that would really be, you know, more important than those. So that that's a little bit encouraging. So to illustrate what they're doing with the regulations, I'll, I'll quote Park Sankman. He's the head of the company's green energy research lab. He said HD CASO is strengthening cooperation not only with major classification societies, but also with international regulatory bodies to establish international regulations necessary for the commercialization of nuclear powered vessels. OK, So what are classification societies? These are organizations that set and enforce technical and safety standards for ships, including nuclear powered vessels. So safety, OK, safety is the second. Is the second critical focus here. Their ships are really, their plan is really taking this seriously. They're using a they're planning a double shielding system where you've got stainless steel and light, light water working together to shield and protect against, you know, the things you need to shield against ionizing radiation, gamma rays, neutrons. And it also dissipates heat very, very well. So the steel absorbs gamma radiation and gives structural integrity, integrity to the system. And the light water moderates the neutrons and absorbs radiation as well and dissipates the heat. And they also plan to create a facility in South Korea specifically for testing and validating their design. So that's, you know, that sounds good. Those words sound good. So in terms of the company's final focus efficiency, I think this is where their design could have some impact. I found, I found really fascinating as hell. So, so critical to this, this efficiency that they, they, they talk about is the partnership of the fission reactor with the propulsion system. Having a small modular reactor on the ship is it's not only an efficient source of heat, right? Nuclear energy is much more dense than chemical energy. But it also means that you think about what you can get rid of. Now you can get rid of the exhaust system, the engine exhaust system, you can get rid of the fuel tanks that because you have this reactor, you don't need those things. So you can just pull them right out of the ship. And now you have a lot of extra space where more of those 20 foot cargo cargo containers can now go where this other stuff was. So the, the more cargo you can carry, the more, the better, the more efficient, you know, the whole Enterprise is and that the better the bottom line, the bottom line. So that's one, that's one boost in efficiency. The next boost comes from what what the ship actually does with the reactor's heat, right? Because the heat, the nuclear reactor, that's just a source of heat, whether if you're burning fossil fuels or if you have any other type of reactor, you're really just like, we need to create a source of heat that that's efficient. So that's it. You got, you got your heat source. So traditionally ships use their heat source to heat water to make steam, right? You make the steam that drives the turbines and that generates the electricity for the propulsion. That's kind of how how the flow goes for a lot of ships. So this propulsion design though is different. It does away with the steam and it replaces it with supercritical carbon dioxide. And this is the kind of like a secret sauce. It's such a it's such a really cool idea. So the bottom line is that why CO2? Why are we using CO2? Why not just use water? One of the main reasons that CO2 expands more efficiently than steam, bam, right there. It's just like it's just flat out more more efficient and it's because of the supercritical state. So how efficient, how efficient is it? A traditional steam cycle is 30 to 40% efficient. The supercritical CO2 cycle is up to 50% efficient. And if you, if you look at the numbers they're talking about, they, they typically say that their, their, their design is going to be about 5% more efficient. And 5%, yeah, it might not sound like a lot, but that could be huge for if you, for lots of ships travelling the seas, 5% increase efficiency could be, could be pretty awesome. And so not only is it more efficient, but it's smaller and it's lighter than steam term turbines. There's no water or steam. And so that means that there's less corrosion and no emissions as well, which of course is a, is a wonderful addition there. So this is, this is kind of, I see it looks like a, a nice 1-2 punch. You got the small modular reactor and you've got the, the CO2 replacing water. And it makes such a, a potent combination. But you know, bottom line, there's less fuel waste, there's more cargo space, there's lower maintenance, there's 0 emissions and that's nothing. This needs that the shipping industry consumes about 350 million tons of fossil fuel annually. So decarbonizing shipping could really, really help in our, you know, our damn climate crisis. It's not something that's going to make a hugely dramatic difference because I think shipping accounts for three, only 3% of worldwide emissions like that. But but any, any, you know, any little bit helps. And this is, I think a pretty cool idea. So, so, yeah, so a lot of industries are looking into SMR's and hopefully they're going to pan out here and become cost effective. It's, it seems like we're, I think it seems like we're on the edge of, of this stuff taken off. It's not just SMR's and micro reactors. I hope, I hope, you know, maybe I'm being too positive, but I, I hope that, that it takes off and it, and it's more than just little niches here and there. So do all of these developments and all these advances and, and improvements in our technology. Does that mean that the Ford Nucleon may be closer to reality? Closer to reality? It can be if you're OK with five feet of steel or concrete shielding in your car. Otherwise, it's not going to happen. It's just like, you know, Can you imagine the car? It would be far, far worse than the car that that Homer Simpson made-up in, in that famous episode of The Simpsons where it was just a car that uses a nuclear reactor like this would just be ridiculous. So that we're not going to see anything like that. I think battery technology is more than enough for small applications like cars, but bigger stuff, bigger stuff. I think reactors will be will be in the mix. Well, the hope is too, Bob, that.

'''S:''' With their these niche applications like that, data centers and cargo ships and things like that, that will cause an economy of scale. Like I said, if you have factories cranking out SMRS then they might become cost effective for more general applications like just plugging into the grid creating these the hope in the.

'''B:''' Beginning Steve Wright was that if you create enough of these, it could really help, you know, decarbonize worldwide economy. But even, you know, powerful big SMRS, you know, 5 to 300 megawatts, they they calculate related, you would need 10s of thousands of them to really start making a difference. And I'm not sure you know how long it's going to. I think we'll be probably well past 2050 by the time, if ever we we could start making them and get some economies of scale like for that. I mean, yeah, it's scary to think, but it's still the idea. It's just fascinating. Doesn't have to be the solo.

'''S:''' Solution. But, you know, if no shipping and yeah, take a chunk out of out of the grid, that would be nice. Yeah. Yeah. Hundreds of pieces.

'''E:''' To this puzzle, yeah, yeah, Jay, it's who's.

'''B:''' That noisy time.

'''S:''' All right, guys, last week. I played this noisy.

'''U:''' I know, yeah. So that there's a lot.

'''J:''' Going on there, I know what that is. That is.

'''E:''' The world's first popcorn machine, built in 1884. Yeah, Which you?

'''J:''' Had to start.

'''E:''' Up with, you know, with diesel fuel or whale oil or something. And it popped like 8 kernels like at the end there it sounded like I thought. That that was the.

'''S:''' Sound of that's what happens after I put my quarters into the candy machine and I'm waiting for the candy to drop Yeah, well, we had some guesses so.

'''J:''' Visto Tutti wrote in. This guy's very busy and I feel very lucky when he when he emails me. So he said this one sounds like an ice maker, the mechanical part of the refrigerator that cracks ice cubes into a receptacle for drinks and such. Man, if you had that in your kitchen, I'd be pissed, right? That's a noisy freaking ice maker. That is not an ice maker, but they do make noise. So I hear what you're saying. Cooper Parish wrote in and said, howdy, here's my guess. Coin operated mechanism, 2 beeps of selection interface. A motor was pushing a ball down a long metal track on display inside a box. So he says it's a vending machine. I thought that was a good guess because it's basically what Steve said, yeah.

'''E:''' There's lots of noises.

'''J:''' There's, you know, you putting the coin in and you know, the thing turns and then the thing falls and then maybe an arm grabbed, whatever, right? There's all these different things. It's not a vending machine, but that was a good A listener named Derek Dunsmore wrote in and he said hi. I may finally know this one. As a hobbyist 3D designer, I recall watching a video of a man producing a small but functionally manned bumper car sized tank out of 3D printed materials. I believe this is the sound that vehicle made when the tank treads were moving over terrain during a trial run. I thought that was cool. I, you know, I like, I didn't know that someone, you know, 3D printed a, a tank that could move. I'm sure they had to put some type of motor in there. But anyway, this is not correct. But I would like to see the tank And we have a couple of closer guesses. So Gerard Steinbeck wrote first time guessing. That sounds like a, a plotter printer, a massive printer that uses pens or something to draw blueprints on big sheets of paper. So I, I think I've been around one of these and they definitely make lots of different kinds of noises and everything. This is not a plotter printer, though, but that was interesting, guests, Dan Tenhove said. I'm guessing that this is a recording of the inside of a VCR, and I know you have to be kind of older to know what a VCR is. Cara, do you know what a VCR is? I'm not that. Come.

'''C:''' On Of course I know what a VCR is. I was going to ask you if you. Knew what? A vending.

'''J:''' Machine I was born in 1980.

'''C:''' Three you guys, my entire like upbringing was with the VCR. You're a millennial. I'm I'm.

'''J:''' An elder I'm.

'''C:''' Two years away from the millennial cutoff, you have an.

'''J:''' Elder Millennial.

'''C:''' Elder millennial, so I remember.

'''E:''' When we were kids.

'''J:''' That Bob actually could repair VCRS. You know, the tape got caught in there. Whatever. Bob like was always, you know, tinkering around or whatever because he was really obsessed with taping Star Trek and Bruce Lee and Spider Man, which I was 100% behind. So yeah, they make different noises. There's things happening in the VCR, there's a lot, there's moving parts, you know, there's things that grab the tape and there's things that are happening. So I can, I can see that. I think that was a good guess, but that wasn't correct. I do have a winner and there were actually two people that that guessed pretty quickly. There were a lot of other guessers. But I'm going to tell you who the 1st 2 are. The the person who won and who submitted it first is Travis Warburton. And he said this is 100% a canister being sent out, a pneumatic tube system. He says the.

'''S:''' Beeps are probably.

'''J:''' The destination station being typed in. I'm a nurse at a hospital and use these everyday. And Madeleine Love also guessed correctly on that.
{{anchor|wtn}}
{{anchor|futureWTN}}
== Who's That Noisy? + Announcements (1:19:31) ==

'''J:''' These are two new names to who's that noisy. So, yeah, that's basically what it is. I will remind you that a a young listener named Gertie sent this noisy in. So I wanted to thank her personally for doing that. Thank you so much. And yeah, essentially that's what it is. I mean, the person who's the people who recorded this, there was, you know, different, different use of the of this whole thing. But that's basically what's going on. Pneumatic systems are pretty cool. I remember that one of the banks that I used to used to use had one of the canisters get stuck. I guess the tube went underground for this one and it got stuck in there because somebody put in like $20 worth of coins. Wow. And it's too heavy.

'''US#00:''' Yeah, they had to dig it out.

'''J:''' And that was that for that pneumatic system. But Costco took backhoe and dug it.

'''E:''' Out. Yeah, they had to dig it out, Moly.

'''J:''' Moly Costco uses a pneumatic system and there there's there's pretty extensive ones out there, especially today you know with the modern technology they can make them pretty interesting. You still use them in the hospital for.

'''S:''' Sending blood samples to the lab? Yeah, they that's it.

'''J:''' There you go. I thought that tech was dead.

'''S:''' No, when you when you still have to. Physically move stuff around it. Yeah, if it's not broken.

'''C:''' Don't fix it. Yeah, like when you need blood immediately.

'''J:''' You put it in the in the pneumatic system, in a tube, in the pneumatic.

'''S:''' System tube I think it. Was open your.

'''J:''' Van No, you don't. Just. Yeah, you know, suck the blood. No, it doesn't work that way. No, I have a new noisy guys. This one was sent in by a listener named Ed Barrett.

'''E:''' Those all sound like wrong numbers. Yeah, there is a pranking kind of.

'''J:''' Vibe to that guys. If you think you know what this week's noisy is or you heard something cool, e-mail me at wtn@theskepticsguide.org. Not a con 2025 guys is coming. We have a couple of months.
{{anchor|interview}}
== Interview with Adam Russell (1:21:32) ==

'''J:''' We're very excited and in fact, the person that we're interviewing this week is a special guest that we're going to have at Nana Console. Listen to the interview and please do consider coming because you're going to miss out on one. A hell of a good time with lots of music, lots of fun things that we're going to do. There are surprises. There are jigs and Jags. Steve is going to teach someone how to do Kung Fu. It's going to be awesome. Don't miss it. Not a con con, Evan. Not a con con. That's the website. That's the website con.

'''E:''' Dot com. All right. Thanks, Jay. All right. Well, let's go to that interview now.

'''U:''' We are joined now by.

'''S:''' Adam Russell. Adam, welcome to the Skeptics Guide. Hello there. Good to be here.

'''US#03:''' Now, Adam, you are a.

'''S:''' Musician the bassist for the group story of the year. I also understand you have a Star Wars podcast called thank the maker, but we wanted we wanted to chat with you because you're going to be joining us at nonacon. But tell us a little bit about yourself first. You tell us about your career. Yeah, I've, I've been of.

'''US#03:''' We were just. Talking about this offline, I've been with this band and this group of of guys the majority of my life. I mean, going back to the late 90s when I first started playing music. Saint Louis is a small scene. So we all kind of played in bands together, ended up as as this line up plus one other is no longer with us and released our first album in 2003. It's a big debut. You know, it was the just like perfect alignment of stars. We were so lucky to have the success we had then and over these years, these, you know, 25 years almost since then, we're riding the wave of the the 20 year cycle, the resurgence and our music kind of came back into into the public consciousness and we're on to, you know, another generation of fans and things are are in a a really fun, exciting place where we're lucky enough to have another chance. We've kind of threaded the needle down in it into this small group of bands who are still around and could still pull it off. And I'm a lucky guy. I'm happy to be here. Yeah, there's so many.

'''S:''' Sub sub genres of music these days you don't need to have like there's not like there's just this one bucket of musicians. It's you could survive in a really small niche. I mean, there's so you.

'''US#03:''' Look at that with anything. There's so many subcultures. You go onto social media and see people who have literally millions of followers that I've never heard of. I have no idea what they do. They just, but they have these communities, whether it's, you know, just on social media or somebody on the reality TV or any kind of artist. And it's wild to think that there are that many people on earth that each of us can succeed well enough with our little niche. Yeah, well, it's more than 8.

'''S:''' Billion people on the pants? Yeah, that'll do.

'''Voice-over:''' That'll work.

'''US#03:''' Adam, what is the style?

'''S:''' Of the band I think we would describe.

'''US#03:''' Ourselves most accurately as post hardcore. A lot of punk influence. Emo I think is the most like mainstream, most known title for this sub genre. But we have influence of just you know, 90's rock, metal, punk, everything. Good music. I'll call it good music.

'''E:''' It does touch on emo, although I would not necessarily peg it as such. However, in the early 2000s, that was kind of the the wave that carried a lot of groups forward into into the mainstream for sure. If you know the.

'''US#03:''' The Vans Warp tour, that sort of like moving window of that Venn diagram of of genres. That's what we fit into. Yeah, perfect. How does skepticism?

'''J:''' And your. Music, you know, connect to each other. I grew. I mean, science was my.

'''US#03:''' First passion. I grew up on science like any kid, pretty much. It was dinosaurs and then the space shuttle and the everything, you know, And in the 90s especially, like all of that was front and center. I went to space camp, you know, I was always at the Science Center and stuff like that in Saint Louis. And friendships were always kind of adjacent to those things. And music just happened to overlap. But you know, our guitar player and I are big Star Wars nerds. We all, we're all kind of into similar things and into science and I, I've always tried to make it part of anything that I do, whether it be like the Star Wars podcast or the band. And on our third album actually, we got pretty political and kind of got into social and other kind of topics in our second, third album lyrically. And we had a song, we had a few songs that were inspired by Carl Sagan, Pale Blue dot specifically, and we ended up using an excerpt from the Pale Blue dot as sort of an interlude, cut it together, it got the old audio tape and ran it into Pro Tools and chopped it up. And we actually had to, we had, you know, we had to get permission from the estate. So Andrian had to approve it and sent us an e-mail back, which was I still have, you know, buried somewhere in an inbox. It, it was like the peak of my life, you know, she wished us luck. She said, you know, I hope the album climbs the charts like a rocket into space or something like that. It was, it was amazing. So we've touched on that stuff here, there, but it's, it's always been more like personal stuff that you try to inject wherever you can, you know? Yeah, we we've worked with her.

'''J:''' In the past and like she is just amazingly generous that way. So I'm not surprised that you say that. Yeah, she's.

'''US#03:''' An Angel and how did you stumble across the?

'''E:''' Skeptics Guide to the Universe. Like I said, I've always been.

'''US#03:''' Into science. But when I really got into music in high school and went from being this like, you know, fairly intelligent kid who kind of coasted through elementary school, got into high school, discovered music, and then my grades just tanked and I, I got so off track. Music was the only thing that mattered to me. But once that mission was sort of accomplished, once we got signed and we, you know, it was happening, I found myself with all this free time and the spark kind of reignited my, my passion for science. And I just, I just went head first into reading and finding podcasts and everything. It was also about the time that, you know, at the end of high school, around teenage years, I realized my beliefs didn't align with what I was raised on. I was raised Catholic and realized I didn't, I didn't believe in God or any, any kind of metaphysical stuff like that. So I leaned it into science and then found, you know, through the the New Atheist movement and those folks that you know, many of which are questionable.

'''U:''' People at this point, but.

'''US#03:''' You know, listening to Dawkins interviews and things like that on point of inquiry and things like that, I, in discovering a podcast found you guys. I want to say it was maybe less than a year after Perry died. I was working on a DVD that we were editing and I had this long process of, of censoring, had to go through frame by frame and do all this stuff. So I spent a month solid at my desk with just visual stuff. And I needed something to listen to. So I ended up listening through your entire back catalogue and got fully caught up and just, you know, I, I don't think I've missed an episode since then. Since 2007, probably. Yeah, 2000. And.

'''E:''' Seven. Yeah, that's when Perry left us. Yeah. Yeah.

'''US#03:''' So. Yeah, that was the beginning. That's amazing.

'''J:''' I, you know, you, you must experience this like, you know, when you find out that people are into the work that you create and then, and then they sustain it, right? Like you what, like what you just said it like, it really surprises me that people can can do that with with podcasts because they can go on for a very long time, which, you know, at this point, there's a lot of them out there. So it's really, you know, it means a lot to me to think that people are are like just into the show to the point where they're going to they're going to keep going with us like we were saying before we started.

'''US#03:''' What you guys feel about what you've accomplished with your podcast? I I feel so similarly about our music and our band. I feel very lucky to have people still with us all after all these years. Adam, have you ever?

'''S:''' Been to a live skeptical conference before. Not a conference.

'''US#03:''' But pardon the pun. I did you know I was at one of. The live recordings and what was it? Phoenix. Phoenix, Yeah, Yeah, so. That's about as close as. I've come. All right, so. OK, well, you're not going.

'''S:''' To get laid. What I'm just going to let you know. Well, my wife's going to be there. So I.

'''J:''' Mean.

'''US#03:''' Jay, that's none of your.

'''C:''' Business, whether or not you get laid.

'''S:''' Adam, tell us about. LA strikes back. Yes, LA strikes. Back.

'''US#03:''' Is it's a fundraising initiative for the to support victims of the LA fires started with a handful of other folks who I know through the Star Wars community. Mike Forster, one of the Co hosts of of think the Maker and some other prop makers and folks who are members of the 501st Legion, the costuming group. A few of a few of the folks live in LA and have been directly affected by the fires. Actually, our producer and editor Jason is, He and his wife are living in a, a rental house right now. They, they were in Altadena. They didn't lose their house, but the whole place is uninhabitable. So we have a direct connection to people in LA who've been affected. And we of course, as we like to do in the community, in the Star Wars community, is band together to try to help folks out. So it we're, we're combining Star Wars and music, You know, I'm kind of bringing in the music side of it, trying to get donations from friends. It's a lot of, you know, custom designed helmets and different props and things and collectibles. Anything we can we can put on an auction to raise money. I'm donating a base. Some old Star Wars figures that I have from years ago, some kind of rare collectibles, the original.

'''E:''' Kenner, Boba Fett maybe don't have that.

'''US#03:''' Unfortunately, but it's too bad. Is that worth these days?

'''E:''' Is that 1,000,000 bucks that well there's different kinds. The one that's.

'''J:''' Super expensive, the prototype. It. Wasn't, Yeah, it was just a prototype that shot a little red missile out of the back. Like if you get one of those, you, you have a lot of money on your body. I'm sorry.

'''E:''' I digressed harmful of swallowed the rocket.

'''US#03:''' That's right.

'''E:''' Always. It's mostly props.

'''US#03:''' And things because again, the 50 first Lesion and other makers are contributing some really, really cool stuff. So we're doing the auction at the end of March. We pushed it back a little bit because we just want to give it some more time. But it's it's already going very well. The stuff we have lined up is I think it's going to it's going to pull some considerable funds. Obviously we're not going to solve the problem, but we're going to do our part. And you mentioned thank the maker.

'''E:''' Podcasts how did how did that come about? And what's what, what is that about? A It was a pandemic.

'''US#03:''' Project. We were all actually a friend. So Ryan Key, the singer of Yellowcard and I Yellowcard and Story of the Year have toured together off and on for years. We connected over Star Wars and at some point I, I realized I, I wanted to do a podcast. You know, I've been listening to you guys forever. I've listened to so many podcasts. I wanted to do something. And I was thinking, you know, a, a movie podcast, kind of a pop culture thing. Do all the classics that we grew up on. And then literally the night before we were about to record our first episode, Ryan and I, he said, and he called me up and said, look, man, you're going to kill me. But I have an idea. I kind of want to change up this idea. What if it's just about Star Wars? I was skeptical at first, but we ended up going with it and it ended up being perfect because there's this kind of, you know, there's a built in listening bass. And it ended up being something that we could, you know, find the slice of the Venn diagram where people who grew up on our music and people who grew up on Star Wars, especially the prequels, that actually lines up perfectly. You know, we just crossed 250 episodes recently, our fifth anniversary. And it's, you know, it's, it's not our full time job, but it's a, it's a paid hobby that works and it's, it's worth our time. And we created that. The main thing is that we've created this. Community around what we love about Star Wars. But you know, what do you think?

'''J:''' About Kathleen Kennedy supposedly not being a part of the brand anymore. I'm excited to see what the.

'''US#03:''' Next chapter is going to be but I'm already I'm already just worn out by all all the the bullshit negative celebration of her of her retirement because she's a legend. I mean, she she's been producing some of the best films of all time. Literally our entire lives. We're all in our mid 40s. I mean, starting with Poltergeist and ET. Like, she's been at the helm of all these incredible films. Maybe she wasn't the best studio head per SE. Who? Who can say? None of us have that skill set. Who are we to say that? But like, she's a legend. She should be praised for her, her long, illustrious career. And I have nothing but respect for her. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if I agree.

'''J:''' With that, I, I can respect your, your perspective on it. I mean, I get the whole, let's not focus on the negativity and I have, you know, done what I think you have, which is like completely not be a part of any of it because I don't, I don't want to focus on that. And without getting into the whole thing because there's a lot to talk about. I mean, the bottom line is I'm a I'm a episode 4-5 and six guy and I probably won't be happy with much that comes after that. It is what it is. Like I I liked I liked a couple of the movies. I liked, you know, Andor and that's good enough. Like, and I think I recommend to people just watch the things that you like and let the other stuff, you know, just ignore it. Exactly. Let let.

'''US#03:''' People enjoy stuff, you know, just leave the negativity out of it. Yeah, yeah, I agree as well there.

'''E:''' Should be something someone can find somewhere in the Star Wars universe that they can enjoy and just concentrate on that for what it is.

'''C:''' Except Cara.

'''E:''' Everybody except Cara. Yeah.

'''US#03:''' I don't.

'''E:''' Know Cara knows a little.

'''J:''' Bit more about Star Wars now because of us I know a little bit more about.

'''C:''' Star Wars than I ever wanted to. It's called osmosis and.

'''J:''' Some star stars, but the difference.

'''C:''' Is I'm not one of these like Star Wars fans that's obsessed with Star Wars and then just shits all over it. I just don't care about Star Wars. I feel like that's different. I much.

'''US#03:''' Prefer that too. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

'''C:''' It's a different type. We. Don't have to all be. All about, of course. All the time. Yeah, of course.

'''E:''' Not no, no, but again. Venn diagram. It's a good example. You know how science, skepticism, Star Wars, you know, those those three circles definitely are here in this in this family. So yeah, well, Jay, I'll, I'll.

'''US#03:''' I'll re ask you officially right now. I'll put you on the spot on on the the air, so to speak. Would you like to join us on Thank the Maker, perhaps for an episode? Oh my God, how many times?

'''J:''' Can I be on the show?

'''US#03:''' Yeah. A.

'''Voice-over:''' 100% just e-mail me.

'''J:''' I mean, I will make myself available. I love to do that. Awesome. I have some ideas. So you're.

'''US#03:''' Going to come to.

'''J:''' Nauticon, you know, we've been very selective about who we let on that stage because we have a, you know, a core group of, of people that, that we work with, that we love to work with. But I mean, it's been, it's, it was a pretty easy decision to, to have you do it because first of all, Evan came out swinging about how awesome you are. But I mean, after I found out about the Star Wars thing, I'm like, this guy's awesome. Like, you know, like 100%. Cinched it, Yeah.

'''E:''' So we're going to have you join.

'''J:''' Us for a few of the bits that we're doing and I, I will give you a couple of reveals Right now. We haven't really gone into much detail, but we're doing something. George changed the name, didn't he? We used to call it Wu Tank. It's a pitching.

'''S:''' Woo pitching woo OK.

'''J:''' So the idea is that we are going to have the audience pitch to us things that revolve around pseudoscience as if they're like, they could be products. It could be a, you know, a cult pseudoscientific business.

'''S:''' Yeah, yeah. And we're going to judge.

'''J:''' It on whether or not we think it would work and everything like we'll be we're going to be very critical about it and we think that this is going to be funny because, you know, the audience is going to come up with some really, really crazy stuff, I'm sure. So you know, there's going to be a lot of the judges talking to each other and we're going to be, you know, doing the whole thing that like the show does. And I think that's going to be a lot of fun. And then we're going to do a bit called Never Seen It, which is, say, a improv comedy bit where you find out movies that people haven't seen that most people know about, and then you make them do a live read of a scene with somebody else.

'''US#03:''' Yes, yes, and you have to.

'''J:''' You know you have to be no context. No context, but you have. To be 100% committed, like you're doing this as if you're in the movie, you have to be dramatic and you have to have total buy in. Oh, I love this. I love. This so.

'''US#02:''' Much, yes, I think.

'''J:''' That one is going to be and people are going to really love it because it's going to go off the rails immediately. Hilarity will.

'''E:''' Ensue. Yes, this is great.

'''US#02:''' Yeah, so Adam, I think you're going to love.

'''J:''' This stuff, we're going to have a great time. You know, I'm really happy to welcome you to White Plains, NY. I mean, God, this is one of the cultural hubs of the United States. Adam's familiar with many.

'''E:''' Many White Plains ish types of towns throughout America. Yeah, basically it's a.

'''S:''' Airport, a train station and some hotels and a huge mall. One of the.

'''J:''' Biggest malls? That is a big mall, hey?

'''E:''' I'm a child of the 80s and.

'''US#03:''' 90s I love malls yeah, we did we did the.

'''J:''' Food court last time and it was great. So, so we, we, we did the 2023 Nauticon there. It was awesome. The hotel was awesome. We we basically took over the entire hotel. So I think I think this year is going to be even better than than last time. So we're really excited that you're, you know, you're coming and you know, I just want you to be prepared because you're going to have to do improv comedy with us. I'm ready. I'm prepared.

'''US#03:''' All right, so can Adam tell?

'''E:''' Us where we can find you and all your endeavors that you do so our audience can easily find you. Yeah, find the band.

'''US#03:''' At Story of the Year and all all the socials, I think we're still on Twitter X whatever the hell it's called, unfortunately. Thank the. Maker Pod. At think the maker pod on Instagram TikTok for now, blue sky, I think we're on there maybe at Adam the skull on all the things at thank the maker pod.com storyoftheyear.net and so on and so forth. All right, we look forward to.

'''S:''' Seeing you in May, Adam, same to you guys. Thanks again for.

'''US#03:''' Having me, Yep, good day. I got it man.
{{anchor|theme}}
{{anchor|theme}}
== Science or Fiction (1:39:31) ==
{{SOFinfo
|theme = None
|hiddentheme =

|item1 = Researchers successfully used mRNA which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment.
|link1web = https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-025-01360-5
|link1title = Radioprotection of healthy tissue via nanoparticle-delivered mRNA encoding for a damage-suppressor protein found in tardigrades | Nature Biomedical Engineering
|link1pub = www.nature.com

|item2 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).
|link2web = https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado3843
|link2title = https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado3843
|link2pub = www.science.org

|item3 = A new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars.
|link3web = https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu6058
|link3title = https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu6058
|link3pub = www.science.org

|}}
{{SOFResults

|science1 = Researchers successfully used mRNA which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment.

|science2 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).

|fiction = A new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars.

|rogue1 = Jay
|answer1 = Researchers successfully used mRNA which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment.

|rogue2 = Evan
|answer2 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).

|rogue3 = Bob
|answer3 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).

|rogue4 = Cara
|answer4 = Studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct diel classification (what time of day they are active).

|host = Steve
|sweep = y
|clever =
|win =
|swept =
}}

'''U:''' It's time for.

'''US#02:''' Science. Or. Fiction.

'''U:''' Each week I come up with three.

'''S:''' Science News items or facts 2 genuine and one fictitious and then I challenge my panelists. Got Dicks. That's you guys to tell me which one is the fake Got three exciting news items this this week You ready? Yes, OK. Here we go. Item number one researchers successfully used mRNA, which produces a tardigrade protein, to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment. Item number two studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species, found that only 39% had correct deal classification. What time of day they are active? And on #3A new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars. Jay made a noise. Who did? Jay did? Jay gets to go first. All right. The first one here.

'''J:''' These researchers, they successfully used mRNA, which produces a tardigrade protein to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment. I have a lot to say about that one, Steve, because I remember I did specifically I did a news item where they they were, they tracked tardigrades that were attached to rockets that went into outer space. I remember that news.

'''E:''' Item Yeah, me too, and I remember.

'''J:''' Talking about this protein that they have that's it's covering their DNA and protects it from radiation coming in and messing it up. And this is exactly the kind of thing that I think you would make up. And we could do that though. Successfully used mRNA. To produce. But who did they successfully use it on? Steve? Well, since you're going first, I'll tell.

'''S:''' You this is a mouse study, not that it matters. Wait, so there are anti.

'''J:''' Anti radiation mice running around this planet now, Well, not running.

'''E:''' Around a laboratory and of course the.

'''S:''' Cancer treatment is radiation therapy, right? Yeah, that was. I hope that was obvious. All right, so this is how super.

'''J:''' Villains are made, by the way. OK, so I'm gonna put that one on the on the back burner for a second. The second one here, you're saying studying a new database of 80, I'm sorry, 8.9 million observations of 445,000,000 species found that only 39% had correct deal classification what time of day they are active. So only only 39% were correct and and saying when they're active during the day, Yeah. So in other words, like.

'''S:''' If an animal is categorized as nocturnal, this study found that 61% of the time they were not nocturnal. That's crazy if that's.

'''J:''' Real if that's legitimate, then it really, you know, what are these scientists and researchers doing like they're falling asleep at the wheel here while they're they're doing they made 8.9 million observations of 445 species and 30 and they were that wrong. That's a big mistake there right? That's bad. I don't like that and I hope that one is not science. The last one, a new analysis, finds that the vast majority of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars. OK. I mean I can you, can you expand?

'''B:''' On that one, Steve, a little. So you know what? A rogue.

'''S:''' Planet. A rogue? Yeah, of course. A rogue thing. It's roaming between the stars. It's not in orbit around a star. Not right, Right. So rogue planetary mass objects. Right. So these are not stars. They're big, but they're planetary mass. They're not stars. And so the question is, do these planetary mass objects that are rogue, do they form as failed stars or do they form as planets that then get ejected from their solar system? This analysis says that the that most of them are ejected planets, not failed stars. But you said that they're.

'''B:''' Planetary mass. So they by definition they would have to be planetary and not stellar. No, because they're.

'''S:''' Why planetary mass objects They're.

'''C:''' Big.

'''S:''' But they're not stars, right? So are they too small to be a star? Or are they just big planets? OK, like so you're talking?

'''B:''' Like Neptune type Jupiter gas to Jupiter. Yes, even bigger than Jupiter. But just not bigger than a failed star, OK. But not in.

'''S:''' Orbit.

'''C:''' They're they're rogue. They're. Yeah, they're.

'''S:''' So the question is.

'''J:''' You know, how does a planet get out of its own solar system, right? That's 'cause it needs, it needs to be, you know, I think the planets need that tight, you know, need to be around a star to form or at least that's, you know, oh boy, this is not an easy one, Steve. And nothing is sticking out. I am going to say, you know, the first one about the M RNA that produces the tardigrade protein. I mean, this is exactly what we were saying we hoped would happen, right? They, you know, and I could see them doing this. It makes sense. So I'm going to say that one is science. I'm going to say that the 39% here, you know, the 8.9 million observations that were made of these 445 mammalian species, like if they were that wrong, then something is really wrong. I don't think the number is 39%. I think it's a lot lower than that. Or you mean higher.

'''S:''' You know what I'm talking about. Yeah.

'''J:''' That's the fiction. OK. Evan Oh boy, I want this tardigrade.

'''E:''' Protein one to be science. Oh, gosh. Right, right, Jay, Of course. This is too good. Tardigrades are amazing little buggers, aren't they? Can't. Can't kill them. I really, you know my favorite word, I again, that's the one that can trap you right? You want it to be true. You don't kind of care, but at the same time you'll lose the game and then the 445,000,000 species 39% correct deal classification. I suppose that could be right. You know, it's more of a fine, you know, you know, make observations and over time you make more and more and more observations and you start concentrating on you can realize you were pretty far off the mark to begin with. I don't think there's a problem with that one per SE. And the last one about the rogue planetary planetary mass objects. The rogue ones ejected planets rather than failed stars. OK, I believe that. Oh, what the heck, I'll go with the tardigrade one. Because as fiction. Because when it's not, if it turns out to be science, then I my my sadness from losing the game will be overridden by my happiness. In that it was a fact. All right, Bob. Yeah.

'''B:''' Bob's going before me.

'''C:''' Yeah, I was hoping you'd go before.

'''B:''' Me, Jesus.

'''C:''' Tardigrade protein, huh?

'''B:''' I guess I, I, why wouldn't they use the, the, the code from what's the name of that bacteria? Radiodurans. This is a bacteria that could have its genome obliterated by radiation and then it just like puts itself back together. I think it's even harder. It's hardier than even a a tardigrade, but but tardigrades have some amazing, famously amazing resilience. So sure. I want that to be true too, so, so badly. Let's see so 45 S, 8.9 million observations of only 445 species. That's 20,000 observations per species. That's a lot and they still were that wrong. That's pretty dramatic. That's the.

'''S:''' Database they used to figure out that the older classifications were wrong, right? You understand what that says? I think so, yeah. You made you.

'''B:''' Made it sound like.

'''S:''' And they're still wrong after 8 No 8.9 million observations is what led them to, you know, based upon those observations, the existing deal classifications were only correct 39% of the time. All right? So that's not encouraging.

'''B:''' Let me look at this third one here. All right, so this one's interesting. So you've got, I mean, we've Steve, you, we've believed for years that there's more rogue planets ejected from solar systems then there are planets in orbit around a star, right? Isn't that kind of like many billions of these rogue planets for years that that's kind of been the consensus and he's not even not agreeing with me, but I know he would agree with me. So, so you're saying here that potentially these, some of these could be failed stars. I don't like, I don't like that. I like the idea of these, these rogue planets, just like, you know, I don't need a star, you know, Screw says they're.

'''S:''' Ejected planets. Not rogue stars, not failed stars. Just the idea of.

'''B:''' Potentially thinking that these were failed stars is is like I like the idea of the rogue planets it make it makes sense like you know, you know, screw those billionaire stars. I don't need them. I'm out on my own. I don't, I don't need those guys. And imagine the life forms that could have evolved on a exoplanet with no, with no star, no, with no, you know, no stellar universe could anything live.

'''US#00:''' Off of a OK, sorry plenty.

'''B:''' Plenty, plenty. First off, you've got, you know, microbes living under the ground because of the the heat of nuclear decay. That's just like, yeah, that absolutely can happen. But yeah, surface life, yeah, that's going to be that's going to be difficult for sure, but there still could definitely be life on those. I mean, we, you know, there's still plenty of heat inside the earth. So this one, that one makes sense to me. All right, I'm I'm going to say that the 39% correct 1 something yeah, I'll just whatever, I'll throw my coin down on that and say that's fiction. I don't know any of these could potentially be except the third one, the.

'''C:''' Brothers are saying it's the mammalian classification Evan the tardigrade.

'''E:''' Yeah, I want the tardigrades. For my own selfish, Yeah. Who do I go with?

'''B:''' All right.

'''C:''' Cara, don't just.

'''E:''' Try to or.

'''B:''' The road planets you.

'''E:''' Can do the road planets I could.

'''C:''' Yeah, let's. See, let's see the. Tardigrade one I I think could be true. At least somebody probably researched that they were like, oh, these are radiation resistant, maybe we can take something from them and put it in tissue and it doesn't say in people, it says in tissue. So this could have been in vitro. I said it was. AI said it was a mice.

'''S:''' Rice. Oh, in mice. OK, Yeah.

'''C:''' Yeah, totally happened in mice. No, I don't. I don't know why everybody is as bothered by this database 1 though. Like I'm not bothered by any of them. OK, So what you're saying is that a new database where they had tons of observations. What I'm reading this as as the first time they did a big data analysis of this, they realized that all of their boots on the ground, you know, non comparison data was kind of wrong. And like, that doesn't like naturalistic data is just, oh, I'm, I'm standing out in the forest and I'm writing down how many of these creatures I see. But if they were using like camera traps or like CCTV or some way or like satellite imaging, yeah, thermal imaging to get like big data, I could see them being way off. You know, animals are famously very good at evading human observation. So this one doesn't bother me at all. Now the rogue planet one, I have no idea. It must be the fiction by.

'''E:''' Process of elimination, do you? I want I mean the other.

'''C:''' Two don't bother me, this one. But Bob says this one doesn't bother him and I have to. They all have. My own brain I. Don't know anything about. So OK, I guess in an attempt not to sweep Steve, I'm going to be I'm going to use strategic here and I'm going to say it was it's that they're not rogue planetary or they're not ejected planets. They are failed stars or something different just to screw.

'''S:''' Me out of it. That's your strategy, Okay.

'''Voice-over:''' I got. You all right? Well.

'''S:''' You're spread out, which means I did my job this week and I'll take them in order. Take them in order, but you didn't do the job as good.

'''B:''' As you could have, please. All right.

'''S:''' You guys were were. Confused and befuddled, here we go. I remember 1 researchers successfully used mRNA, which produces a tardigrade protein, to protect surrounding tissue from radiation damage during cancer treatment. You all want this one to be correct, but Evan thinks it's the fiction and I still want it to be correct.

'''E:''' And this one.

'''S:''' Is say it science?

'''B:''' This is.

'''S:''' Oh yes.

'''B:''' It's just super cool.

'''S:''' I lose.

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' So. Well, I'll tell you so.

'''U:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' So it's pretty much what it says. They identify the protein that binds to DNA and protects the DNA from breaking apart due to radiation. They made, you know, the mRNA that produces that protein. They injected it into the tissue of mice. They then gave them radiation therapy for their cancer because they actually had cancer. The mice that they were studying and the mRNA produced tardigrade protein, protected the surrounding tissue from radiation damage. They did not get as much DNA damage from the radiation. The idea here is that the mRNA is only going to last for a short amount of time. So it'll produce a bunch of the tardigrade protein. You give the radiation therapy and then within a couple weeks it's gone, you know, so it doesn't have any long lasting effects. And that's basically what they found. So the research was successful. Obviously, this is a long way away from human treatments, you know, doing. Yeah, But extrapolate that. That's pretty.

'''B:''' Could be potentially pretty awesome, but it could be hell.

'''S:''' Yeah, absolutely. So this is a good proof of concept, you know, in an animal model and very, very encouraging. Radio protection of healthy tissue by a nanoparticle delivered mRNA encoding for a damage suppressor protein found in tardigrades. Cool study. All right, let's go on to #2 studying a new database of 8.9 million observations of 445 mammalian species found that only 39% had correct deal classification. What time of day they are active? Bob and Jay? You think this one is the fiction, Cara? And everyone thinks this one is science and this one is science? Sorry guys. Hey, hey, Cara's strategy. Unfortunately, oh, it worked.

'''E:''' Yeah, failed. Stars, that sucks.

'''S:''' Hang on. Bob, hang on. Hold your hold your horses. Hold your fire.

'''E:''' So hurry up.

'''S:''' So yeah. As. I would say yeah, mammals next Cara.

'''E:''' You pretty much are correct.

'''S:''' You know a. Lot of the classifications were based on field observations and a lot of them were just too few field observations. So can anyone name the four most common deal classifications? Nocturnal.

'''C:''' Diurnal, crepuscular, and the one I don't know, the one you know, cathemeral.

'''S:''' Is that the opposite?

'''C:''' One's Dawn 1 stuff. I never heard of that one Cathemaral.

'''S:''' Means that they're active during multiple phases throughout the day. OK, so it's.

'''C:''' A catch all? Yeah, it's kind of a catch all.

'''S:''' And what they found was a couple of things. One was that a lot of the classifications that we had were not correct, but also that there's a lot more variability than than we previously assumed though.
{{anchor|qow}}
== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:54:43) ==
{{qow
|text = "One of the few universal characteristics is a healthy skepticism toward unverified speculations. These are regarded as topics for conversation until tests can be devised. Only then do they attain the dignity of subjects for investigation."
|author = Edwin Hubbel, The Realm of the Nebulae (Yale University Press: 1936)
|lived =
|desc =
}}

'''S:''' So they in other words like a quote UN quote, nocturnal animal is active during the day quite a bit. So a lot more of the animals were cathemeral than strictly doctrinal or strictly diurnal. That makes more sense that.

'''C:''' Makes more sense. Doesn't surprise me, yeah.

'''S:''' So. Yeah, but it's interesting. And it was a massive database, you know which of course that's as Cara was saying that's of course they they would revise the the less, you know, accurate information. This was a global network representing 38 countries leveraged 8.9 million observations. So they up they updated our deal classifications. Quite a deal. OK, that means that a new analysis finds that the vast majority of rogue planet of rogue planetary mass objects form as ejected planets rather than failed stars is the fiction wow. But they're not failed stars either. This is kind of a trick. It's neither. Oh, what?

'''C:''' Why are we talking about?

'''B:''' Oh, that's well. OK. So.

'''S:''' What else is there? Are they?

'''B:''' Comets.

'''C:''' What? I'm confused right SO.

'''S:''' Basically, there's two main ways that stuff gets made, right? You either get made as a star, meaning a collapsing disk of material, or you form as a planet, which is an accretion of material around a star, right? Those are the two basic ways these that worlds get made. And the question was always that these for these rogue planetary mass objects, which PM OS are generally like bigger than Jupiter, but small, but not big enough to become a star, right? And there's a lot of them out there. And so the, and Bob, you're right, a lot of a lot. There's probably more rogue planets than there are planets around stars. Oh, they still believe that. Oh.

'''B:''' Yeah, yeah, this is, This is not.

'''S:''' Impact that is because these are like in a, these are not just anything that's a planet. This is the planetary mass. Objects are a specific range. Again, they're they tend to be large, but not Suns. What they found was that they form by a third newly discovered mechanism. That's neither like stars or planets, and it's complicated. But what they found was they found a bunch of them forming in the same location. What they what seems to be happening is that it's an interaction between two planetary discs that are forming these like a a tidal bridge, as they say. There's like a tidal bridge between these two, encountering circumstellar discs that then produce these highly productive clusters of material that spits it out, that spits out these PM OS, these free flow like a baseball going.

'''B:''' Through a pitching machine, you got these. Two wheels, I guess so, yeah, that's a good analogy, I guess.

'''S:''' SO22 circumstellar.

'''B:''' Disks around one star? No, I think no.

'''S:''' No, in a like a in a cluster. Like in a cloud of a star forming region. Neat. Yeah, but if it's a circumstellar.

'''B:''' Disk and there is a star there already, but it's not a rounded star.

'''S:''' It's not an orbit around a star, it's a. It's a young star cluster, so is it like a binary? System.

'''C:''' I'm confused. Protostar No. No.

'''E:''' It's.

'''S:''' So you have a star, a cluster of stars, right? So a star forming cluster. So there's a lot of young stars in forming in this one region because there's a giant, you know, gas cloud of gas there and lots of stars are forming. But in that cloud, there can also be these circumstellar disks that are like, you know, forming stars. But if they get close together, they form these tidal bridges that then spit out a bunch of these PM OS. Does that make sense? Fascinating. Yeah.

'''U:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' So, but I think Circumstellar is kind of just like there.

'''S:''' That's the name of the discs, but that's the that's. So this is, this would be a, this is a new, a new mechanism by which these kinds of objects can be formed. It's not formed as a sun or as a planet. It's it's own thing. Which is weird, but cool. Bob, we learned something.

'''E:''' You did? Yeah. That's that's really.

'''B:''' A third way that sounds. That's really cool. I want to read up on that one. That's that's fascinating. And Cara figured it all out.

'''E:''' Sure thing with.

'''S:''' Without AI Cara.

'''E:''' Backed into.

'''S:''' That one, yeah, yeah. No, no, no, no.

'''E:''' She took the reins and. Commanded her way to victory. All right, Evan.

'''S:''' Give us a quote, one of the few universal.

'''E:''' Characteristics is a healthy skepticism towards unverified speculations. These are regarded as topics for conversation until tests can be devised. Only then do they attain the dignity of subjects for investigation. That was written by Edwin Hubble in an article called The Realm of the Nebula in 1936. Edwin Hubble, right? He's one of the. I heard he was awesome man.

'''B:''' I saw. His locker.

'''C:''' Oh yeah.

'''E:''' Yeah, it's here at Mount.

'''C:''' Wilson in Mount Wilson, if you go and yeah, if you go and observe at the telescope at Mount Wilson, Hubble's locker is like still down in the bottom. Holy moly. Yeah.

'''E:''' I was there, yeah, I saw it.

'''S:''' There was also like his telescope, his microscope or something. It was there, I don't know, and his lunch like some stuff kind.

'''E:''' Of old now.

'''C:''' Yeah, it's. Like an old apple.

'''S:''' All right. Well, thank you all for joining me this week. Sure man. Got it. Thanks.

'''B:''' Doctor and until next.

'''S:''' Week This is your Skeptics Guide to the Universe.

'''U:''' Skeptics Guide to the Universe.

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 1000

2025-01-07T04:02:03Z

Xanderox: markup edit

{{Episode|9|7|2024}}

{{Editing required
|transcription = y
|proofreading = 
|time-stamps = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y 
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{UseOutline}} 
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 1000
|episodeNumDisplay = 💥✨ 1000! ✨💥
|episodeDate = {{month|9}} {{date|7}} 2024

|verified = 

|episodeIcon = File:1000 SGU1000.jpg

|caption = Celebrating 1000 episodes of '''The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe''', recorded live in Chicago

|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|Evan =y
|George =y

|qowText = QUOTE
|qowAuthor = AUTHOR, _short_description_  
|downloadLink = {{DownloadLink|2024-09-07}} 

|forumLinktopic = 56829.0 
|}}

== Introduction, 1000th episode! ==
''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

== "Looking Back" News Items (12:52) ==

'''S:'''

'''B:'''

'''C:'''

'''J:'''

'''E:'''


''(laughs)''
''(laughter)''
''(applause)''
[inaudible]

{{anchor|news#}} 
=== News_Item_1 (13:54) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_2 (29:31) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_3 (48:36) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_4 (1:12:28) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_5 (1:31:03) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:44:34) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = The number 1000

|item1 = There are roughly 1000 stars within 45 light years of Earth.
|link1web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link1title = _article_title_ 
|link1pub = _publication_ 

|item2 = A recent census of a 430m2 urban property (in Brisbane, AU) found over 1000 macroscopic species.
|link2web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link2title = _article_title_ 
|link2pub = _publication_ 

|item3 = In 2021 the median household income in the world was just over $1,000.
|link3web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link3title = _article_title_ 
|link3pub = _publication_ 

|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = 
|science1 = 
|science2 = 

|rogue1 = 
|answer1 = 

|rogue2 =
|answer2 =

|rogue3 =
|answer3 =

|rogue4 =
|answer4 =

|rogue5 =
|answer5 =

|host =steve

|sweep = 
|clever =y 
|win = 
|swept = 
}}
''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''


<big>'''Evan's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Bob's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Jay's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Cara's Response'''</big>

<big>'''George's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Audience's Response'''</big>

=== Steve Explains Item #1 ===

=== Steve Explains Item #2 ===

=== Steve Explains Item #3 ===

{{anchor|qow}} 
== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==

{{qow
|text =
|author = 
|lived = _birth_year_-_death_year_ 
|desc = 
}}


== Signoff () ==

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 
''(applause)''

{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
|Forgotten Superheroes of Science =
|Women in History =

}}

SGU Episode 1000

2025-01-07T03:59:15Z

Xanderox: twiddling my thumbs way too long. Transcription Bot, do your magic. We can polish your work afterwards.

{{Episode|9|7|2024}}

{{Editing required
|transcription = y
|proofreading = 
|time-stamps = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y 
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{UseOutline}} 
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 1000
|episodeNumDisplay = 💥✨ 1000! ✨💥
|episodeDate = {{month|9}} {{date|7}} 2024

|verified = 

|episodeIcon = File:1000 SGU1000.jpg

|caption = Celebrating 1000 episodes of '''The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe''', recorded live in Chicago

|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|Evan =y
|George =y

|qowText = QUOTE
|qowAuthor = AUTHOR, _short_description_  
|downloadLink = {{DownloadLink|2024-09-07}} 

|forumLinktopic = 56829.0 
|}}

== Introduction, 1000th episode! ==
''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

== "Looking Back" News Items (12:52) ==

'''S:'''

'''B:'''

'''C:'''

'''J:'''

'''E:'''


''(laughs)''
''(laughter)''
''(applause)''
[inaudible]

{{anchor|news#}} 
=== News_Item_1 (13:54) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_2 (29:31) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_3 (48:36) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_4 (1:12:28) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_5 (1:31:03) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:44:34) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = The number 1000

|item1 = There are roughly 1000 stars within 45 light years of Earth.
|link1web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link1title = _article_title_ 
|link1pub = _publication_ 

|item2 = A recent census of a 430m2 urban property (in Brisbane, AU) found over 1000 macroscopic species.
|link2web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link2title = _article_title_ 
|link2pub = _publication_ 

|item3 = In 2021 the median household income in the world was just over $1,000.
|link3web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link3title = _article_title_ 
|link3pub = _publication_ 

|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = 
|science1 = 
|science2 = 

|rogue1 = 
|answer1 = 

|rogue2 =
|answer2 =

|rogue3 =
|answer3 =

|rogue4 =
|answer4 =

|rogue5 =
|answer5 =

|host =steve

|sweep = 
|clever =y 
|win = 
|swept = 
}}
''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''


<big>'''Evan's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Bob's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Jay's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Cara's Response'''</big>

<big>'''George's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Audience's Response'''</big>

=== Steve Explains Item #1 ===

=== Steve Explains Item #2 ===

=== Steve Explains Item #3 ===

{{anchor|qow}} 
== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==

{{qow
|text =
|author = 
|lived = _birth_year_-_death_year_ 
|desc = 
}}


== Signoff () ==

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 
''(applause)''

{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
|Forgotten Superheroes of Science =
|Women in History =

}}

SGU Episodes

2025-01-07T03:57:17Z

Xanderox: since we dropped the old episode lists that included a 2035 header...

[[File:LogoSGU.png|right|150px]]


Below are collapsible tables with links to all the SGU episodes, sortable by date, transcription status, and various notable episode features. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] outline.
{{anchor|jump}} 
''Jump to: [[SGU Episode 762|2035]], [[#2025|2025]], [[#2024|2024]], [[#2023|2023]], [[#2022|2022]], [[#2021|2021]], [[#2020|2020]],
[[#2019|2019]], [[#2018|2018]], [[#2017|2017]], [[#2016|2016]], [[#2015|2015]], [[#2014|2014]], [[#2013|2013]],
[[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]],
[[#2005|2005]]''

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|     {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|-
|    {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|     {{a}}
| –  initial transcription by Google Speech API
|-
|    {{tick}}
|  –  episode proof-read
|     {{bot}}
| –  initial transcription by high quality "[[Template:Bot|'''transcription-bot''']]"
|}
 
{{EpisodeList2025}}
{{EpisodeList2024}}
{{EpisodeList2023}}
{{EpisodeList2022}}
{{EpisodeList2021}}
{{EpisodeList2020}}
{{EpisodeList2019}}
{{EpisodeList2018}}
{{EpisodeList2017}}
{{EpisodeList2016}}
{{EpisodeList2015}}
{{EpisodeList2014}}
{{EpisodeList2013}}
{{EpisodeList2012}}
{{EpisodeList2011}}
{{EpisodeList2010}}
{{EpisodeList2009}}
{{EpisodeList2008}}
{{EpisodeList2007}}
{{EpisodeList2006}}
{{EpisodeList2005}}

[[Category:Navigation pages]]

SGU Episode 762

2025-01-07T03:56:43Z

Xanderox: further emphasized 2035

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 762
|episodeDate = {{month|12}} {{date|6}} '''''2035''''' 😉 
|verified = 
|episodeIcon = File:762 SGU from the future.jpg
|caption = "Greetings from the Future" art
|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|Evan =y
|qowText = Science is the greatest thing known to humans. Through science we have been able to seize a modicum of control over the otherwise natural state of chaos throughout the cosmos. It is truly the most stunning achievement by a life form that emerged from the dust of the stars. In order for us to be the best stewards of our universe, we must continue the pursuit of science, and may it forever be our torch to light our way forward.

|qowAuthor = Alyssa Carson<ref name=Carson>[https://nasablueberry.com/about Alyssa Carson: Nasa Blueberry]</ref>, first resident of {{w|Moonbase|Armstrong Station}}, The Moon

|downloadLink = {{DownloadLink|2020-02-15}}
|forumLink = https://sguforums.org/index.php?topic=51757.0
}}

== Introduction ==
''Voiceover: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the {{SGU|link=y}}. ''(applause)'' Today is Thursday, December 6th, '''''2035''''', and this is your host, Steven Novella. ''(audience laughter)'' Joining me this week are Bob Novella ...

'''B:''' Hey, everybody! ''(applause)''

'''S:''' Cara Santa Maria...

'''C:''' Howdy. ''(applause)''

'''S:''' Jay Novella ...

'''J:''' Hey guys. ''(applause)''

'''S:''' And Evan Bernstein ...

'''E:''' Good evening folks! ''(applause)''

'''S:''' So I have to say it's great to be back in {{w|Melbourne}}, but I am –

'''B:''' Wait, why did you laugh? Why was that funny? ''(laughter)'' We worked for months to get this pronunciation correct. What happened?

'''S:''' There's no right or wrong. There's no right or wrong.

'''J:''' As recent as today, somebody sent us an email that explained how to say it, yet again. ''(laughter)'' They said, "drop all the vowels."

'''S:''' Right. But then they yell at us because there's a difference between saying it properly and saying it with an accent.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' And we're supposed to say it properly for an American.

'''C:''' Yeah, without an [inaudible].

'''S:''' And I have no idea where in the spectrum of "Mel-born" to "Mel-burn" to "Mel-bin"…

'''E:''' Yeah, just don't say, "Mel-born." You're safe.

'''S:''' So it's great to be here, but I have to say I'm getting a little old for the 14-hour flights across the Pacific. You know, it was just a couple years ago that they brought back the supersonic commercial airliners, like 2031, I think it was, but they are just still too expensive for schlubs like us.

'''C:''' I've done 'em before, though. They're worth it, you guys.

'''S:''' Oh, sure.

'''C:''' I keep trying to convince you.

'''B:''' Of course you've done it. And probably first class [inaudible].

'''S:''' What is it, about six hours across the…?

'''C:''' Yeah, it's so much easier. It's like flying – it's like it used to be when I'd fly from L.A. to New York.

'''J:''' And you don't hear the {{w|sonic boom}} anymore. They got rid of it.

'''C:''' Yeah, yeah, it's super comfy. Just fall asleep, wake up, I'm there.

'''B:''' But, Jay, that big breakthrough that allowed the supersonic transport to become viable again was the fact that they design the shape – you've seen the shape, it's a gorgeous, really elongated shape – but that minimizes the sonic boom by like a 1000th of what it used to be. And that's what was the big problem with it. Remember, what was it, the old one, the {{w|Concorde}} …

'''S:''' And when did we first talk about that? It was, like, 15 years ago.{{Link needed}}

'''B:''' Oh my god.

'''E:''' Long time ago.

'''S:''' And here we are, like just coming [inaudible].

'''B:''' Remember? I saw it. I think I saw it in a magazine the first time we were in this area. And I said, "Look at this. This is something that's really going to be big in the future." And it was.

'''J:''' It is.

'''C:''' It is.

'''E:''' You were right, Bob.

'''C:''' Tense-shifting is hard from, like, the U.S. to Australia.

'''S:''' Yeah, yeah, yeah.

'''C:''' Time-traveling a little bit here. ''(winks?)''
{{anchor|news}}

== Future "News" Items ==

'''S:''' So, it's 2035, so this is our 30th Anniversary year of doing the SGU and because of that, we're finishing up 30 years. We're going to talk about regular news items, but we're going to give more of a history, like, where does this fit into the arc of science and skepticism over the last 30 years of the SGU, right?

=== Québec Accord, Global Corporate Alliance (3:10) ===

'''S:''' So, Jay's going to start with a news item that has something to do with {{w|global warming}}. He didn't tell me what it is, but you're going to start by telling us where we've been, where we're going, where are we in this saga that we've been talking about, it seems like, for 30 years.

'''J:''' Well, yeah, I mean when we first started talking about this, I don't even know when we first started talking about this –

'''S:''' —I think right at the beginning, 2005, 2006.

'''J:''' —It was a mounting thing that, as the years went by, we started to talk more and more about it. And then somewhere around the late 2020s, we really started to talk about, almost on every episode, to the point where listeners were emailing us, saying, "Okay, we get it. Global warming is bad news."

But we've seen a lot of bad things happen over the last 10 to 15 years where local governments, or governments in general are doing absolutely nothing. They still can't get out of their own way, right? We know that, but nothing has really been happening. And then in 2027, when {{w|Venice}} got so flooded that it couldn't recover, that's when the world woke up.

'''C:''' That was so sad. I miss Venice. ''(laughter)''

'''S:''' And you can't even visit Venice anymore, right?

'''J:''' I mean, sure, you can, but there's only certain parts that you can go to.

'''C:''' It's too dangerous, guys.

'''B:''' But why didn't they try to just to build up, like abandon the bottom five [inaudible].

'''C:''' They tried that.

'''E:''' Too cost-prohibitive, among other things.

'''C:''' The foundation can't hold it.

'''J:''' The foundations weren't capable of holding it. So—

'''S:''' They would just sink back down.

'''J:''' It really hit a note across the globe when a lot of the art got destroyed. So that's when everybody—that's when I think we can kind of look back, as a marker, like the whole world took a pause.

So then in 2027, that same year, we had the Québec Accord happen, which was an absolute failure. I think Canada's heart was in the right place, but they tried to inspire the world to change. But governments just can't get out of their own way.

'''S:''' But think about it. Think about the {{w|Paris Agreement|Paris Accord}}, right, when was that? That was, like, 2015.

'''E:''' 2015.

'''S:''' Yeah, 2015. They said, "Okay, we're going to limit post-industrial warming to 2.0C above pre-industrial levels." And even though they knew that bad shit was going to happen at 2.0, really we needed to keep it beneath 1.5, which we hit this year, guys. This year we had 1.5C above pre-industrial level, 2035. So they didn't even try to ever get 1.5. They're like, "All right, let's just keep it below 2." And they failed to do that. What they agreed to wouldn't even accomplish that.

'''J:''' Yeah, there was no chance of them getting that.

'''S:''' And the Québec Accord, they're like, "All right, well, let's, maybe 3.0. Let's just keep it 3ºC above…

'''E:''' Move the goalposts.

'''S:''' And then, they, again, "We're not going to achieve that. We're all …

'''C:''' Well, and it's because they're not giving themselves any sort of—it's like a treaty. It's like, "Oh, we'll just agree to all do this."

'''E:''' It's a pledge.

'''C:''' It's a pledge. They're not even giving—

'''S:''' There's no consequences.

'''C:''' There's no consequences for not sticking to it.

'''J:''' Well, that's the problem because it's the real first global problem.

'''E:''' People, countries can exit as they wish.

'''C:''' I mean, remember back when {{w|Donald Trump|Trump}} just dropped the ball on it? {{w|United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement|He just left}}. He just said, "No, Paris." I mean, we've been trying to make up for that ever since.

'''E:''' Gone.

'''S:''' Maybe {{w|Marco Rubio|Rubio}} will do the same thing.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Ugh. President Rubio.

'''E:''' President Rubio.

'''J:''' So, the things that we've seen—it wasn't just what happened in Venice but, you know, the storms continued to become deadly, right? So we have people dying every time there's a storm, a big storm.

'''S:''' Seems like every hurricane's a {{w|Saffir–Simpson_scale#Category_5|CAT-5}} now.

'''C:''' Oh, and my city is constantly on fire. {{w|Los Angeles|LA}}, also {{w|Sydney}}, even {{w|Melbourne}}. It's on fire all the time now.

'''S:''' Yeah, basically it's always {{w|Wildfire|fires}}.

'''B:''' Remember when—

'''C:''' Yeah, we used to have a fire season.

'''B:''' Yeah, remember fire season. Wasn't that quaint?

'''C:''' Now it's a {{w|Air_quality_index#United_States|red flag day}} every day.

'''J:''' But the reason why we're reviewing this is because, as you guys know, a few years ago, in 2032, {{w|IKEA}}, of all companies, drew a line in the sand and said that corporations have to now take the responsibility. And I love the tagline. What's the tagline?

'''S:''' "We got it."

'''J:''' "We got ''this.''"

'''All:''' "We got this."

'''C:''' IKEA! They got this.

'''S:''' But I don't think it's ''(plainly)'' "We got this." I think it's ''(assuringly confident)'' "We got this."

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' I think it's like, "Yeah, you guys failed. You're hopeless. You're in total political gridlock. So, somebody's got to step in. So we got this. Go away. We'll [inaudible]."

'''B:''' So you're referring to governments in general, right?

'''S:''' Yeah, governments.

'''E:''' Right.

'''J:''' And it's—

'''B:''' That was a great tagline.

'''S:''' Yeah, but, you know, I'm worried about it.

'''J:''' It is a dystopian future, though, when corporations have to save us from government.

'''C:''' It's a dystopian present.

'''S:''' But, literally, I remember back in 2018, I think it was, there was a very short-lived science fiction series on some channel, some cable channel, where that's exactly what happened, [which] is that corporations had to step in because the governments were in gridlock. And then they used that in order to get—they didn't take over from the governments, governments just ceded them more and more power until they were {{w|de facto}} in charge, which is what a lot of people are worried about—like the conspiracy theorists, but it's actually not unreasonable—that that's the ultimate plan of the—what are they calling it? The Global Corporate Initiative.

'''J:''' Right.

'''C:''' GC—

'''E:''' GCI.

'''S:''' Yeah, their plan is not just to fix global warming for the world but to actually take power, to seize power.

'''J:''' So it didn't really—it almost started off as a joke, but then, just recently, in the news article that I'm covering, we've actually hit a critical mass. There's a lot of companies that just signed on that agreed that they're going to follow it. Now, here are the basic rules, or whatever, that they're following. So they're saying that they will have a zero-carbon emission or ''less'', meaning that they could actually pay in to even reduce carbon emissions, so the company cannot produce any carbon whatsoever. So—

'''C:''' Oh, so they get credits if they go negative, carbon negative?

'''J:''' Well, actually, the companies are committing to the Alliance or saying that if do, that they have to pay massive fines to the—

'''S:''' Well can’t they just buy the credit from people who are negative?

'''J:''' Yeah, yeah.

'''S:''' So they have to be neutral—

'''J:''' They have to be neutral, whether it’s done through finances or through their—

'''S:''' So it’s like the old {{w|Emissions trading|cap-and-trade}} thing, but they’re just doing it—

'''B:''' But what’s the motivation for them to actually join this? Why are they joining—what’s the win for them? I mean, this is going cause some—they may have to pay fines if they don’t—

'''C:''' Haven’t you seen all of those social media boycotts of all the companies that are just eating carbon? I think young people today, they don’t want to buy products, they don’t want to engage with companies that are just destroying the environment. They’re a lot hipper than we were when we were young.

'''B:''' I don’t go on the young people’s social media, so I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

'''C:''' We’re all the same platform, Bob.

'''J:''' No, but Cara, you’re right because the boycotting is actually part of the issue now. Is that any company—well there’s people—it goes both ways, there’s boycotting going both ways. So we have boycotts happening where companies that don’t join are being boycotted, which is—I’m kind of in that camp. But there are people that are saying if they do join, that these companies are trying to take power away from the government.

'''C:''' Great!

'''J:''' And people are boycotting them, saying that they’re going to be a part of the future problem.

'''C:''' True.

'''J:''' As typical—

'''S:''' You’re kind of screwed either way, right?

'''J:''' It’s a clusterfuck going both ways. It’s a little concerning because I would like to think that these companies have humanity’s best in mind.

'''C:''' Why would you ever think that?

'''S:''' Well, I mean it’s always complicated, all right? Companies sometimes do good things, right? And they get PR out of it, and then you say, “Okay, are they doing it because they really care about their customers, or do they really care about the planet?” They’re living on this planet, too, and some of their profits, actually—there are lots of companies who are losing profits because of climate change. So they’re invested in it as well, but then you have to wonder, are they ''just'' doing it for the PR, do they have an ulterior motive [inaudible]—

'''C:''' But also, does that matter?

'''S:''' That’s a good question, does it really matter?

'''J:''' It just depends on what the result is.

'''S:''' If you do the right thing for the wrong reason and it helps, is that—how much do you care about the motivation?

'''C:''' I mean, when it comes to climate change, I honestly don’t mind.

'''E:''' I think they’re also trying to prevent themselves from being handed down punishments by governments for not meeting certain criteria. So they’re kind of trying to stay one step ahead of that because that’s terrible for their PR.

'''C:''' They’re not going to get any punishment. The governments are in the pocket of lobbyists anyway.

'''S:''' But if they do get off their ass and actually do something, it’s probably going to be shortsighted and draconian, and the companies are afraid of what ''might'' happen if some other populist takes control. Who knows—politics now are so—we thought they bad, 2016 to 2020. They’re even worse.

'''J:''' And the trillionaires are doing nothing. We have—

'''S:''' Well, some of them are signing onto this accord.

'''E:''' Some of them are.

'''J:''' So what, though? They’re signing on, but that—they’re the trillionaires. They have the money. They could be throwing down half their wealth to try to save the planet but that hasn’t happened yet.

'''S:''' That wouldn’t be enough.

'''B:''' Imagine $500 billion’s half your wealth.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''

[inaudible] 

'''B:''' Sorry.

''(audience laughter)''

'''J:''' Of course, there was an unspoken sentence in there, Bob. Something about Halloween, right?

'''B:''' No. It’s just that I don’t have $500 billion.

''(laughter)''

'''B:''' And I want it.

'''C:''' 2035 and SGU, we’re not making it. We’re just—we still got a long ways to go before—

'''E:''' Scratching that, scratching that—

'''C:''' Before we break even a million. Definitely not a billion.

'''J:''' So we’ll just have to wait and see. I feel like what do we have to lose? No other government—I mean, Denver—I’m sorry, Colorado and California, these are local governments, but they’re kind of signing on now, too, and they’re starting to pressure the companies that are—

'''S:''' But they’ve been doing that for years. And here’s the thing: if you look at—like recently I saw over the last thirty years—as I was looking in preparation for this—last thirty years, what has been the energy mix of the world’s energy infrastructure? Right, you’ve seen this chart. I sent this out. So, if you look at all the fossil fuels, they were increasing up until around 2025? And then they leveled off. Coal has decreased a little bit, but it’s overtaken by natural gas. But, overall, fossil fuel has been about level; it’s not decreasing, even now! What’s happening—

'''E:''' It’s population.

'''C:''' Because there’s so many more people now.

'''S:''' Right, it’s 8.8 billion people.

'''B:''' Its ''proportion'' has been decreasing.

'''S:''' Yeah, so there’s been an expansion of renewable, a little bit of nuclear—now that the {{w|Generation IV reactor|Gen IV plants}} just coming online—

'''E:''' About time.

'''S:''' But they only have a few years before the older plants really, seriously need to be {{w|Nuclear decommissioning|decommissioned}}. That’s a looming disaster, by the way.

'''B:''' Yeah, but when the {{w|Fusion power|fusion plants}} come online, we’ll be in good shape.

'''S:''' Yeah, right.

'''B:''' Come on.

'''S:''' We’re still 20 years away.

'''B:''' It’s real close.

'''S:''' We’re still 20 years away.

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' It’s not 20 years away; it’s 15 years away.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' Such an optimist.

'''S:''' So renewable’s increasing, nuclear’s kind of stable, maybe increasing a little bit, but that’s just taking up all the new expansion of total global energy.

'''B:''' Right, which is something.

'''S:''' But fossil fuels are flat! We’re not decreasing fossil fuels.

'''J:''' We’re maintaining the same carbon output.

'''S:''' Over the last—we’ve been talking about this for how long? We haven’t been able—

'''C:''' How long has it been? You guys are old now.

'''S:''' 30 years.

'''E:''' Hey!

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' Okay, spring chicken.

'''C:''' Hey, well, now…

'''B:''' Yeah, when’s your {{w|Social Security (United States)|social security}} kicking in? Not too far away.

'''E:''' Yeah, right?

'''C:''' I got like a whole decade ahead of me at least.

'''J:''' Do you still have social security? [inaudible]

'''C:''' No, it’s completely insolvent.

'''S:''' All right, so, now we have to wait for IKEA to save us, is that what you’re telling me?

'''C:''' No, the Global Corporate Alliance.

'''B:''' ''(sarcasm)'' That doesn’t sound evil.

'''J:''' “We got this.”

'''C:''' That ''does'' sound evil. ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' How could that ''not'' be evil?

'''J:''' We’ll see what happens.

'''B:''' What else do they got?

=== Fourth Domain of Life (14:14) ===

'''S:''' All right. Guys, let me ask you a question, especially Bob. How many {{w|Domain (biology)|domains}} of life are there?

'''B:''' Wait, there was—oh, crap. There’s bacteria, archaea, prokaryotes—

'''S:''' Those are the prokaryotes.

'''B:''' Now, wait. No.

'''C:''' Yes.

'''B:''' No, no, eukaryotes.

'''C:''' And eukaryotes.

'''B:''' {{w|Archaea}}, {{w|Bacteria}}, {{w|Eukarya}}, and…

'''S:''' So, traditionally, that’s it.

''(Rogues assent.)''

'''S:''' Those three.

'''B:''' Oof. Thought I was missing something.

'''S:''' But there’s a fourth.

'''B:''' Whaa?

'''S:''' There’s a new, fourth domain of life.

'''B:''' Ooh, I know what you’re saying.

'''E:''' That is crazy.

'''S:''' And the name will pretty much give it away.

'''B:''' Of course.

'''S:''' The name is ''Synthetica''.

'''B:''' Yes! About time.

'''S:''' So now there’s a fourth domain of life.

'''B:''' Wait, but is that recognized now?

'''S:''' Well, hang on! We’ll get there.

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' Let’s back up a little bit.

====Revisiting GMOs (15:00)====

'''S:''' So again, we’re going to give the arc, right? We’re talking about {{w|genetic engineering}}, right? Initially, this kind of came on our radar around 2010, maybe 2012, that kind of area, right?

'''B:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Something like that—when started talking about GMOs, right? {{w|Genetically modified organisms}}. And there was a big {{w|GMO conspiracy theories|anti-GMO movement}}, which lasted deep into the 2020s.

'''C:''' Oh my god, we talked about that like every week on the show back then.

'''S:''' Well, it’s because it became—

'''E:''' Well, that’s because, right, it’s not our fault. It’s their fault!

'''S:''' It became a huge thing.

'''C:''' That’s true.

'''S:''' It was like there was a major science denial thing, even among skeptics initially, but I think we sort of turned the boat around for skeptics at first. And then—but then politically it was a really hard sell for awhile, however. But let me give you a history of what’s happened and why there’s really not much of an anti-GMO movement anymore.

'''B:''' That was a good win, man. That felt good.

'''S:''' Well, it was a good win for the wrong reason. And I’ll explain why. So, first, {{w|papaya ringspot virus}} started around—by 2006, this actually goes back decades before that, had slashed papaya production by 50%. By that time, also, there was basically no farm in Hawaii, no papaya farm, that didn’t have the ring spot virus, so it was basically obliterating the papaya industry. In 1998 a {{w|Papaya#Genetically_engineered_cultivars|GMO papaya}} was introduced, which had the viral inclusion in it, the viral DNA in it. And that was how it conferred resistance to the virus. So, basically, there would be no papaya industry—and going back, this is like going back to 2015—there would be no papaya industry without GMO papaya, which is ironic because Hawaii was one of the most anti-GMO states, but they quietly adopted GMO papayas, because they would be f’ed without it.

'''C:''' But that didn’t really change sentiment back then, it felt like.

'''S:''' It didn’t because it was under the radar.

'''C:''' And that’s because all the staple crops still—they were mostly GM, but people—

'''S:''' All the anti-GMO people just ignored the papaya story.

'''C:''' Although they ate it.

'''S:''' They ate the papaya.

'''E:''' Of course they did.

'''S:''' All right. The {{w|American chestnut|American chestnut tree}}—there was a fungus, which was—

'''J:''' That was back in, when, like the 60s?

'''S:''' That wiped out the American chestnut in the 1950s.

'''J:''' The 50s.

'''S:''' And so we grew up with chestnuts but the trees were just basically dying away. This is like eastern United States, a very, very common tree. It was almost like the most common tree in our part of the world up until we were children, then it was gone. Just totally gonzo.

'''C:''' I don’t think I’ve ever ''eaten'' a chestnut. Is that a thing people eat?

'''S:''' However—

'''J:''' That’s at Thanksgiving.

'''E:''' You know that song? ''(starts singing)'' "Chestnuts roast—"

'''C:''' It’s a song. I mean, I've never had a chestnut.

'''B:''' Come on, I eat about three of those a ''year'', what are you doing?

'''E:''' You’ve never had a chestnut?

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' But in 2019 they approved a GMO American chestnut tree that was resistant to the fungus that wiped it out. It was years before they planted it, but now there’s a thriving American chestnut industry.

'''C:''' You East-coasters are weird.

'''S:''' So those were good wins, but they were below the radar for whatever reason. But here’s the one that I—well, there’s two, there’s two that ''really'' drove it home. The first one—in 2024, the {{w|Cavendish banana}} industry completely collapsed—

'''E:''' Boom.

'''S:''' Due to {{w|Panama disease}}.

'''B:''' Cavendish banana? That’s the banana we all think of when you think of a banana, Cavendish.

'''E:''' Right, common.

'''S:''' At the time. At the time, that was banana.

'''B:''' That was it.

'''E:''' And that was it, one.

'''S:''' So there was the {{w|Gros Michel banana|Gros Michel}}, which died out in the early 20th century, and there was the Cavendish, which died out—

'''C:''' And that’s the one you guys always used to talk about. {{Link needed}}  You loved those weird Gros Michels.

'''S:''' They’re back, though.

'''J:''' I remember you cried when we found out that they were gone.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' Well, what the hell? We knew it was coming for years, too. We were talking about it on the show. The banana’s going to be going.

'''C:''' ''(feigns crying)'' It still surprised you.

'''S:''' It still surprised me. Fusarium wilt, or Tropical Race 4, or Panama Disease, completely wiped out the Cavendish industry. I think the last holdout was South America, but it was detected in South America in 2019, and that’s when they knew "now it’s a matter of time." Once they had one banana that went ''thbbt'', that’s it.

'''B:''' Remember that? No ice cream sundaes for a little while?

'''S:''' We went years without a banana.

'''B:''' That was bad, man.

'''S:''' But even before that, before 2024, when the Cavendish was gone, back in 2017, Australian researchers had developed a Panama disease-resistant banana. <ref>[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/gm-banana-shows-promise-against-deadly-fungus-strain# Science: GM banana shows promise against deadly fungus strain]</ref>

'''C:''' Oh, it came out of Australia? I didn’t realize that.

'''S:''' It came out of Australia in 2017.

'''E:''' Well done! Well done, audience. Well done.

'''J:''' That was beginning of the banana hubbub.

'''S:''' It was the beginning of the banana hubbub—

'''E:''' I think also known as a "banana-rama".

'''C:''' Banana-rama.

'''S:''' Banana-rama…but, however, nobody really knew about it until the "bananapocalypse".

'''J:''' Bananapocalypse.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' The bananapocalypse wiped out the Cavendish and then these Australian researchers were like, "Hey, we got the GMO."

'''E:''' "We got this."

'''S:''' We got the resistant banana.

'''B:''' We’re ready to go.

'''S:''' But the thing is, even that might not have—

'''B:''' "We got this."

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' "We got this," right. Even that might not have been enough because the Cavendish—I love it, it’s a desert banana. It was the number one export fruit before it was wiped out.

'''J:''' That banana fed countries.

'''S:''' Well, no, no, not ''that'' banana — other bananas.

'''J:''' What other bananas?

'''S:''' There are staple bananas that are, basically, like what we would call plantains.

'''J:''' Oh, that’s right.

'''S:''' They’re starchy bananas, and you cook with them.

'''C:''' (in Spanish) ''[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pl%C3%A1tano_(desambiguaci%C3%B3n) Plátanos].''

'''B:''' They’re awesome.

'''C:''' Steve, why are you so into bananas?

'''S:''' I don’t know.

'''C:''' You’re really into bananas.

'''S:''' I’ve just always loved them. My favorite fruit.

'''C:''' That’s fair.

'''B:''' He tried to grow them for years and failed utterly.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' That’s right! Remember, back in the teens [2010s]—

'''J:''' Did I ever tell you that I hated those goddamn banana plants?

'''S:''' They were in our studio.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' I know. They were getting in—and his cats were pissing in the banana plants.

'''E:''' The cats!

'''B:''' That’s what it was I remember that.

'''C:''' I remember that! That’s when I first joined the SGU, way back then. They were in the basement.

'''J:''' Steve and I almost got into a fistfight once in our entire life and it was over cats pissing in the studio in the banana plants.

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' Those cats are dead now.

'''C:''' A little behind-the-scenes info.

'''S:''' Maybe I should try again. But anyway, something like 20% of the world are dependent on bananas for their staple calories.

'''E:''' That’s a lot.

'''S:''' When those started succumbing to versions of Panama disease, then we were starting to have Africa and Southeast Asia—there was starvation looming—that’s when the world’s like, "Okay, this is not just our ice cream sundaes anymore. We can’t feed these people unless we get these banana cultivars back online.

'''C:''' This GM technology is looking ''pretty'' good right now.

'''S:''' GM technology saved the banana industry and, basically, lots of starving Africans. And then—here’s the double whammy—2026, the citrus industry was completely wiped out by {{w|citrus greening disease|citrus greening}}}.

'''E:''' That was awful.

'''C:''' I remember that.

'''B:''' That was horrible.

'''S:''' And again, we talked about that for at least 15 years before it hit. Remember Kevin [inaudible]? 

'''C:''' He used to come on all the time.

'''S:''' He would always tell us, "Man, when citrus greening wipes out the citrus fruit—"{{Link needed}}

'''E:''' Then you’re going to see some—

'''C:''' He was right.

'''S:''' He was absolutely right. That objection to—so, of course, in 2031, the first GMO orange with resistance genes from spinach was planted. They were working on that for years and years.<ref>[https://gmoanswers.com/biotechnology-solution-citrus-greening GMO Answers: Biotechnology as a Solution to Citrus Greening]</ref> And it essentially resurrected the citrus industry, not only in Florida but also in Australia and in other parts of the world where they grow citrus.

'''C:''' Well now they can grow them pretty much anywhere. It was smart.

'''B:''' Remember they were selling {{w|screwdriver (cocktail)|screwdrivers}} half-price at the bars?

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' So here we are. There’s 8.8 billion people on the planet.

'''C:''' God, that’s a lot of people.

'''S:''' It's a lot of people. Essentially, everyone knows, except for a shrinking fringe, that there is no agriculture without GMOs, bottom line. We would not be able to feed the planet without GMOs. There are still the extremists who are like, "Yeah, let 'em starve, and then everything will be fine."

'''J:''' Oh, great, yeah.

'''C:''' Well, those people are terrible.

'''E:''' Heartless.

'''B:''' They’re so marginalized now."

'''S:''' Now they’re totally—even Greenpeace, remember that? What was that, 2030 or something when {{w|Greenpeace}} was like, "Yeah, okay, I guess we have to feed people. We can’t let people starve."

'''E:''' It only took them decades.

'''S:''' So you don’t really hear anything from the anti-GMO crowd anymore, right?

'''C:''' Not really. They’re pretty fringy.

'''S:''' They’re pretty fringy. There’s one more thing that happened, too. So this is good. GR-5, this is the fifth generation {{w|golden rice}} is now online, but even back to GR-2, which was the first one planted in Bangladesh in 2019 <ref>[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/bangladesh-could-be-first-cultivate-golden-rice-genetically-altered-fight-blindness Science: Bangladesh could be the first to cultivate Golden Rice, genetically altered to fight blindness]</ref>, if you guys remember that. So, before Golden Rice, there were 500,000, ''500,000'' children throughout the world who would go blind from {{w|vitamin A deficiency}} every year, and half of those would die within a year. Not only that, but vitamin A deficiency, even if it doesn’t make you go blind or kill you, it leaves you with low resistance, susceptible, vulnerable to other infections. So, remember all the {{w|measles}} outbreaks in 2019, 2020, 2021?

'''J:''' But that was because of anti-vax.

'''S:''' Well, even when there was an anti-vax [movement], the children in Africa especially were susceptible to measles because they had relative vitamin A deficiency.

'''J:''' Oh, I never knew that.

'''S:''' So, guess how many children went blind in 2035 so far—it’s almost at the end of the year—due to vitamin A deficiency?

'''C:''' Less than 500,000.

'''S:''' ''3,000''.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''E:''' They shaved all that.

'''C:''' That’s a big difference.

'''S:''' It’s kind of like anything. When you easily fix the problem, it goes away. So anyway, it’s hard to argue with success.

'''C:''' So let’s not.

'''J:''' But now…

'''S:''' But now, but wait, but of course you know—

'''C:''' But wait, there’s more!

'''E:''' It gets better?

====Synthetica (23:55)====

'''S:''' Well, no. So that’s the good news. The good news is over now. Now we’re getting into—so have you guys heard the term "gen-craft"? This is kind of a new term. I think we might have mentioned it right before. It’s all under genetic engineering, but it’s not genetic ''modification''. It’s basically crafting life from scratch.

'''C:''' This is the synthetic stuff.

'''S:''' This is the synthetic stuff, right. We’ve been talking about this since, I think, 2017, 2018?

'''C:''' Venter. Craig Venter. <ref>[https://www.nature.com/news/minimal-cell-raises-stakes-in-race-to-harness-synthetic-life-1.19633 Nature: ‘Minimal’ cell raises stakes in race to harness synthetic life]</ref>

'''S:''' Venter. They first did bacteria and then they did colonies, multicellular, and then, actually, not just multicellular pseudo-colonies, but now the first actual multicellular, completely synthetic creatures. Again, we’ve talked about their being created, but the first one was approved for human consumption by the {{w|Food and Drug Administration|FDA}}.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''C:''' Oh, they got it passed!

'''S:''' They got it passed.

'''C, E:''' Wow.

'''J:''' And it’s disgusting.

'''S:''' Hang on.

'''C:''' Don’t look at it pre-processed.

'''E:''' Just put a lot of to'''mah'''to sauce on it.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' ''(in British accent)'' Tomato sauce.

'''S:''' So it’s ''cibumlimax''—that’s a terrible name—''ventera.''

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' It basically means "[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cibus#Noun meat] {{w|slug}}". And then ''ventera'' is for Craig Venter.

'''E:''' All right, Jay, you’re right. ''(laughs)''

'''C:''' They’re going to come up with some yummy brand names for this [inaudible].

'''E:''' Yeah, something else…

'''S:''' That’s the {{w|taxonomy (biology)|taxonomical}} name. It’s the {{w|domain (biology)|domain}} Synthetica and then they have the "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ''cibumlimax ventera.''"

'''C:''' Yeah, we don’t go to the barbecue place and ask for some, like, what’s the Latin name for a cow? ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' They’ll call it something—

'''C:''' Something "bovine."

'''E:''' Oh, ''bovinus, uh, whateverus.''

'''S:''' Remember they [inaudible] {{w|veggie burgers}}, then the {{w|Impossible_Foods#Impossible_Burger|Impossible Burger}}, then the {{w|Insects as food|Insect Burgers}}, right? The bug burgers.

'''B:''' We’ll call it a "blobby burger." I like that.

'''S:''' No, a "slug burger." Slug burger.

'''E:''' Slug burgers.

'''B:''' Slug? No, blobby burgers.

'''C:''' That is ''not'' appetizing.

'''J:''' You know what, though? You remember how I was so freaked out you were trying to make me eat—

'''C:''' Impossible burgers.

'''J:''' —cricket meat, cricket wheat or something?

'''C:''' Oh, yeah, {{w|cricket flour}}.

'''E:''' Cricket flour!

'''S:''' Cricket flour. That’s a staple, now, Jay.

''(crosstalk)''

'''J:''' I’m proud to say I’ve never eaten it, and—

'''C:''' Still!?

'''S:''' You probably have. I guarantee you have.

'''C:''' You have and you didn’t even know it.

'''E:''' [inaudible] Restaurants are using it. You’ve eaten it.

'''S:''' No they don’t. No they don’t.

'''C:''' No they don’t.

'''B:''' They don’t.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' That’s the thing.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' If you have eaten processed food from the supermarket that is a wheat-like product—

'''J:''' That’s bullshit.

'''C:''' Jay, it’s in ''everything'' now.

'''E:''' Have you read your ingredients?

'''S:''' It’s in everything.

'''B:''' Jay, I’m going to admit right now: Jay was having a hamburger and I made an insect burger, and he didn’t know it, and I [inaudible]. He ate it and said nothing. I didn’t say a word ’til just—

'''J:''' When did this happen?

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' Six months ago. Jay, you loved it. You loved it, dude.

'''S:''' Insect burgers are old news. Now we have slug burgers.

'''B:''' Blobby burgers.

'''C:''' But we can call them slug burgers.

'''E:''' No, no, we’ll come up with something—

'''S:''' They’re going to call it something else.

'''C:''' Can we called them "craft burgers," since they come from gen-craft?

'''E:''' Oh, gen-craft!

''(crosstalk)''

'''J:''' You know what the thing is? The slugs look like—remember {{w|pink slime}}? McDonald’s {{w|Chicken McNuggets}}.

'''S:''' You’ve seen the videos?

'''J:''' They look like pink slime!

'''C:''' I know, but that’s why you don’t look at that. We don’t cook them.

'''S:''' It’s just a blob of meat-like protein. It’s just the amino acids and whatever for… And then they grind it up and it looks [like] meat.

'''B:''' It’s got no central nervous system, right? So there’s no—

'''E:''' Right.

'''S:''' Yeah. It has nerves because it can move and it can feed, and it has some kind of neuronal kind of ganglia.

'''E:''' Ganglia?

'''C:''' The vegans aren’t into this, huh?

'''S:''' But it’s like an invertebrate. It’s like an insect or a plant.

'''C:''' Steve, so the vegans won’t eat this, huh?

'''S:''' Why not? I don’t know. Probably not.

'''C:''' I think that—some of them still don’t eat insects.

'''S:''' Yeah, if they don’t eat insects, they won’t eat this.

'''C:''' Yeah, it’s like a hard-line thing.

'''S:''' But it has no face.

'''E:''' Has no face!

'''S:''' Nothing with the face thing.

''(audience laughter)''

'''C:''' Yeah, that’s a big part of—I don’t eat anything with a face.

'''S:''' No face.

'''B:''' Did you see the scientists who drew the face on one?

''(laughter)''

'''E:''' Yes, yes!

'''B:''' It’s hilarious.

'''S:''' So, it may still be year or two before we could actually get these at the {{w|Hungry Jack’s}} or whatever.

''(audience laughter, applause)''

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' It’s just protein, right? It’s just like the insect wheat. Now we got slug burgers, slug protein. And you could mass produce these things. These eat slime or something. You see them crawling around eat algae, but they’re working on ones that can photosynthesize.

'''C:''' Oh, that’s smart! Just kind of direct—

'''S:''' So guess how many genes are in this synthetic slug?

'''J:''' Like what, 300 or something?

'''B:''' Wait, no. How many genes? So we’ve got far fewer genes than we anticipated when we first—was it 20,000?

'''S:''' We have 10,000.

'''B:''' So, how about, like, 8,000?

'''S:''' 400.

'''C, J:''' 400!

'''E:''' That’s all?

'''S:''' But how much does a slug have?

'''J:''' I don’t know.

'''S:''' 428. An actual slug.

'''B:''' Oh, that’s right. It’s really efficient, huh?

'''S:''' Yeah, it’s a little bit more efficient than an actual slug. But the genes have, like, no {{w|exon|exons}}. Or no {{w|intron|introns}}.

'''B:''' They work. There’s no junk DNA.

'''C:''' So, Steve, is that why decided to just, kind of do this as a gen-craft, like a synthetic biology sit—instead of just genetically modifying the slug?

'''S:''' Because you’re not going to get animal protein in an insect.

'''C:''' That’s true. If you eat a slug, you’re not going to get a high level—you get a little bit of protein.

'''S:''' Vertebrate protein [inaudible]. Muscle pro—but this is like making muscle-like protein.

'''C:''' Oh, it’s so gross and weird. I love it.

'''J:''' But why didn’t they just do it like back when they started to come up with lab meat?

'''S:''' But the lab-grown meat thing never really panned out.

'''J:''' Why did they—But what happened?

'''S:''' It’s too energy-intensive. You can get—I’ve had the lab-grown meat thing, and they’re fine, but they’re still a little bit expensive.

'''C:''' But guys, we’re in a water crisis. We can’t use that much water to produce—

'''S:''' It’s very water-intensive.

'''C:''' Yeah, we can’t do it.

'''B:''' Steve, when they were developing Blobby the Slug, did they figure out some of the junk DNA? Like, "Oh, this junk DNA’s important because it does something that we didn’t think it did."

'''S:''' There’s no junk DNA in it because it’s totally—So, Venter gave an interview about it. They’ve written articles about it. Every single gene was completely synthesized. And over the last 20 years, they’ve learned what the minimum number of genes that are absolutely necessary for something to live, something to develop—

'''B:''' For bacteria and stuff, but microorganisms—

'''S:''' But it turns out it wasn’t that hard. If you’re building a really simple multicellular creature, most of the genes are for just the cells to live, and then just getting them to differentiate a little bit differently so they break up the work—you know what I mean?—they’re not all doing the same thing. It’s not that hard. It actually turned out to be not that hard.

'''C:''' And remember, this thing doesn’t have to live in the wild. It doesn’t have to do a lot of the work.

'''S:''' All it has to do is eat.

'''C:''' It just has to eat and produce meat for us, or protein for us.

'''E:''' It doesn’t have to develop a ''defense'' mechanism.

'''J:''' I know people like that.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' What if we put it in the wild? Could it evolve?

'''S:''' No. It can’t survive in the wild.

'''C:''' It would die, I think. It seems like—

'''S:''' It has no defense.

'''C:''' It has no evolutionary fitness.

'''E:''' [inaudible]

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' All the other animals would be like, "Look at that slab of protein!"

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' "It can’t get away, can’t do anything. Let’s go eat it!"

'''E:''' Is there a waste product or a byproduct of it?

'''S:''' I mean, it does poop, apparently. But I think they just recycle that.

'''C:''' Eww!

'''J:''' Why can’t they just make something that poops meat?

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' Jay!

'''S:''' We’ll get right on that.

'''C:''' The most scientifically astute question.

'''J:''' They could call it a "shit burger"! ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' That’ll sell!

'''J:''' I’m not eatin' that shit!

'''S:''' Yeah, this is the guy who won’t eat a bug burger.

'''C:''' Meat poop!

'''S:''' But he wants to eat a shit burger.

'''J:''' I would try a shit burger.

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' Comes out as sausage links, already cased, ready to go.

'''C:''' Quote of the day from Jay. He tries shit burger won’t eat cricket powder. ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' I just have a thing about bugs.

'''S:''' But not slugs. Slugs are okay.

'''C:''' But unh-unh, feces!

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' So, of course, of course there’s already an anti-gen-craft movement, saying—

'''E:''' Oh, this is the bad news. This is the bad news.

'''J:''' This is what you’ve been waiting for.

'''S:''' —this is the bad news—saying that "it ain’t natural," you know? It’s all the same arguments, recycled over the last 30 years of doing this show. It’s the same thing, right? "It’s not natural. It hasn’t been tested enough."

'''B:''' "It’s cruel. It’s cruel."

'''S:''' They’re trying to say that—

'''B:''' I’ve seen people that—

'''S:''' I know, but that’s a hard—this thing is like engineered not to experience its own existence.

'''E:''' "We’re playing God." Playing God complex.

'''C:''' "Playing God." Yeah, I’ve seen that one a lot.

'''B:''' But they’re saying they can’t detect the fact that they are having some sort of existence, some quality of—

'''S:''' Prove that they don’t know they’re being killed, whatever. It’s a slug.

'''C:''' Aww.

'''J:''' Yeah, but…

'''S:''' It’s not even cute. They designed it to not be cute.

'''E:''' Right. It’s not—it doesn’t have

'''C:''' But somethings things that are really ugly are a little bit cute.

'''S:''' Oh, stop it.

'''C:''' It’s true!

'''J:''' You shouldn’t talk about your boyfriend like that.

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' You’ve been going into the Aug too much and putting faces on these slugs.

'''C:''' You know I don’t have a boyfriend.

'''B:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' So you have to cut down your time.

'''C:''' All right, all right, all right, all right. I like the Aug.

'''S:''' So we’ll see. They’re already writing virtual mails to their congresspersons. And Oregon already banned it. Already banned in Oregon.

'''B:''' Of course they did. I’d be shocked if they didn’t.

'''E:''' Yeah, well.

'''S:''' It’s terrible. So we’ll see. This is another round, now. We’ll see what they do. They’re still sort of creating their message. But this is, I think, going to be our thing for the next few years, now, is dealing with the anti-gen-craft crowd.

'''B:''' Yeah, but don’t forget. This is a new domain of life. This is the first. This the first application of that creation. I think—

'''C:''' Well, they’ve done more in the lab. This is the first one that we’re able to ''consume''. And that’s cool.

'''B:''' And that’s great, but who knows what they’re going to come with with gen-craft.

'''S:''' All right, but here’s the thing.

'''B:''' Something that’s going to make a blobby burger look like, pff, whatever. Come on!

'''S:''' The thing is, they’re not releasing this into the wild. This is a lab creature, right? I think the big fight’s going to come the first time they want to release something into the wild.

'''B:''' Well, yeah.

'''S:''' Or they grow a crop in a field.

'''E:''' Oh, there’s going to be some renegade scientist who tries to do this and—

'''S:''' Probably in China.

'''E:''' Right, right. The old CRISPR—from way back when.

'''S:''' {{w|CRISPR_gene_editing#Human_germline_modification|The CRISPR babies.}}

'''C:''' CRISPR baby. Aww.

'''S:''' Yeah, they’re still kicking, I understand.

'''E:''' Yeah!

'''B:''' They can make some that, like, eat all the plastic in the oceans… We know how big of a problem that is.

'''E:''' Yeah! Yes!

'''S:''' So they’re already doing that with the bacteria. They made the ones that can eat oil spills, that can eat plastic—

'''C:''' Yeah, they’re working; they’re just working slowly.

'''S:''' —that can eat carbon. So, they’re all there. There’s just a lot in various stages of the regulatory procedure. Some are being used, but they still haven’t pulled the trigger on releasing a Synthetica into the wild. I think that’s going to be the next step.

'''J:''' As they should be because that’s super dangerous.

'''B:''' It is.

'''S:''' It depends.

'''E:''' Well, it depends on the form.

'''C:''' We have to hear from the experts. The regulatory boards are being formed, the ethics boards, and they’re figuring it out.

'''S:''' But here’s one thing: they cannot, by design, cross-pollinate or {{w|Hybrid (biology)|interbreed}} with normal life, with the other three domains of life.

'''C:''' Exactly.

'''E:''' Right. Where’s the—no compatibility.

'''S:''' They’re producing—

'''J:''' How do we know?

'''S:''' Maybe people will figure it out.

'''C:''' And these organisms are just pure prey animals at this point. They’re not…

'''B:''' But Steve, what—

'''C:''' ''(as {{w|Ian Malcolm (character)|Dr. Ian Malcolm}})'' "Life finds a way."

'''S:''' Life find a way…

'''B:''' They’ve done—I remember, way back in 2019, I talked about how they took bacteria and they were turning them into multicellular because they were able to—

'''S:''' Yeah, this is an extension of that.

'''B:''' So, imagine taking Archea or Bacteria with their exotic metabolisms, creating multicellular life out of them. So then, what, would that fall under Synthetica? Or would that be—

'''S:''' It depends. So, by definition—

'''B:''' We’ve become Eukarya, then—

'''C:''' Yeah, how are they defining these?

'''S:''' By definition, if you are a member of the domain Synthetica, all of your genes have been created entirely artificially.

'''E:''' 100%.

'''B:''' Okay.

'''C:''' Even if you perfectly replicate a… gotcha.

'''S:''' Yes. That’s a loophole. You can replicate a gene that exists in other creatures, but you have to have completely manufactured that—

'''J:''' We’re going to have to—

'''C:''' And it’s got to be trademarked. You can read it in the DNA.

'''J:''' We’re now going to have to train—

'''S:''' At the very least, they take out all the junk and all that stuff.

'''J:''' I’m serious. We have to train {{w|Blade Runner|Blade Runners}} to kill these things.

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' "Slug runners."

'''J:''' Slug runners!

'''S:''' ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' Because they get out, think about it, they get it out and then they don’t want to be eaten. And next thing you know, they’re punching holes through walls and they’re pissed off at people.

'''C:''' With their little slug hands! ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' The tears in the rain.

'''J:''' They go back to the scientists who made them.

'''E:''' Extended protoplasm arm…

'''C:''' Their [inaudible]. ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' "I don’t want to be a burger!" "You’re a slug!" Slug runners, yeah. All right.

===Social Media, CAD, & the ''Aug'' (35:25)===

'''B:''' All right, what do we got next?

'''S:''' What do we got next? We have—

'''C:''' Am I next?

'''S:''' Yes. Cara is next with—what’s the latest, Cara, with social media?

'''C:''' Oh, god, there’s so much to talk about, you guys.

'''S:''' This is overwhelming.

'''C:''' The main article that I wanted to cover today was kind of the big—and I know you all saw this. This was the headline everywhere. It just happened two days ago, and we’re still dealing with the fallout. We’re going to be dealing with fallout for awhile. So you guys know Control-Alt-Delete, this hacker movement, "CAD."

'''S:''' CAD.

'''E:''' CADs. C-A-D.

'''C:''' Yeah, a lot of people call them "CADs", C-A-D.

'''S & B:''' All the cool people call them CADs.

'''E:''' I still like "Control Alt Delete," though.

'''C:''' I guess I’m not cool. And Control-Alt-Delete is this kind-of underground—we still don’t know who they are, right? There have been a couple of examples in the news where somebody came out and was like, "I’m Control-Alt-Delete," but nobody actually believes them.

'''S:''' If you admit to being CAD, you’re not CAD.

'''C:''' Then you’re not CAD.

'''E:''' Is that the {{w|Spartacus (film)#"I'm_Spartacus!"|Spartacus}} moment? "I am Spartacus! ''I'' am Spartacus"…

'''S:''' No, it’s not. It’s loser wannabes. The real people, you will never find out who they are.

'''C:''' So Control-Alt-Delete has been targeting a lot of these new platforms. The biggest one, the one that’s been the hardest kind to get into is the one that most of us are on, the Aug, right? I mean, I’ve been wearing—I’ve had my Aug on all night, actually. I think it’s kind of fun, especially when you’re sick and a little bit loopy.

''(Rogue whistles "loopy" sound effect)''

'''C:''' I don’t know if all of you are in it right now. We don’t really have to be sitting here.

'''E:''' Nah, I turned mine off.

'''S:''' Intermittently.

'''C:''' Yeah, you turn yours off.

'''B:''' I was told I could not bring my Aug, and I’m feeling—I’m getting {{w|separation anxiety disorder|separation anxiety}}.

'''C:''' Well, Bob, that’s because you just get lost.

'''S:''' That’s because when you’re using Aug, Bob—

'''J:''' You go off into worlds…

'''S:''' Yeah, you are staring off into space. You look creepy.

'''C:''' And then we’re like, "Bob? Hello! It’s your turn."

'''E:''' Creepi''er''.

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' But there’s a lot of cool stuff I’m doing. You know?

'''C:''' I know! ''(Rogues crosstalk.)'' You have to use Aug to improve your work, dude.

'''S:''' Checking your V-mail and stuff while we’re doing the show.

'''J:''' Do that shit at home. Don’t Aug on my time.

'''B:''' But looking at Jay without my filter on is ''hard''.

'''C:''' That’s mean!

'''J:''' Hey, man!

'''B:''' Sorry, Jay.

'''J:''' Thanks, Bob.

'''B:''' Look! He’s not shaved. Ugh.

'''C:''' I know.

'''J:''' ''(laughs)'' So you’re seeing a shaved version of me?

'''B:''' And the filter I put on his hair makes his hair look so cool.

'''J:''' What the f— is wrong with my hair?!

''(Cara & audience laughter)''

'''B:''' It’s cool. It’s nice, Jay, but the filter I have on your hair is awesome.

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' That blue streak? That’s cool.

'''B:''' Oh, yeah. And it moves and stuff.

'''C:''' I have to admit, it has been easier. Like, I don’t really like to wear makeup, and so I like thinking that a lot of people are looking at me in Aug-land like I’m a little improved. It’s 2.0. So, you know that the Aug has been kind of the one that’s taken off the most. There’s some offshoots and stuff, but I’m not using them. Are you guys? ''(guys all say no)'' Aug has everything we need, right? It has all of our social stats. It has our social currency. I mean, it’s tied into my bank accounts, all of them, I think.

'''E:''' Yep, pretty much. Yeah, for me as well.

'''C:''' Yeah, pretty much. And we’ve been kind of on the fence about how it’s plugging more things into it.

'''S:''' In 2032, I think it was, insurance companies will now pay for Aug doctor visits.

'''C:''' Well there you go!

'''B:''' Wow! How’d I miss that?

'''E:''' Doesn’t get more mainstream than that.

'''C:''' I know. Exactly. It’s kind of hard ''not'' to be in the Aug at this point because—actually, it’s impossible. I don’t think I know anybody who’s not using Aug. Do you?

'''E:''' Everybody’s doing it.

'''S:''' You can’t function in society.

 '''C:''' You can’t function. How could you function—

'''S:''' It was like—

'''C:''' What ''did'' we do before Aug? We used—

'''S:''' We had to use our handheld phones…

'''E:''' It was a wallet or something.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' Oh my god. Remember that?

'''E:''' Remember cards!?

'''C:''' Oh, plastic cards! That’s so funny.

'''E:''' Oh my gosh. I kept my old ones. They’re in a file drawer.

'''J:''' You guys take it like it’s okay, and I’m not cool with it.

'''C:''' Are you still using paper money? ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' No. Of course not, but my point is this is a totailor—, totalerant—I can’t even say the word.

'''S, C, & E:''' Totalitarian.

'''J:''' —totalitarian’s wet dream.

'''E:''' Three t’s.

'''C:''' Jay, it ''is'' in China. It ''is'' in Russia, but the government doesn’t have their hands on Aug. I mean I know—

'''J:''' How the hell do you know that?

'''C:''' Well, I mean, they don’t own the companies.

'''E:''' They don’t admit to…

'''C:''' It’s private enterprises.

'''S:''' But that’s, again, the conspiracy theory. So we all know that Russia and China are complete Aug-totalitarian governments, right? If you live in China, you’re on their version of the Aug. They completely own you.

'''C:''' I think it’s still called {{w|WeChat}}.

'''S:''' Is it still WeChat?

'''C:''' Yeah, they never changed the name.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' Out in the West, in developed—in other parts of the world, the governments don’t control it—

'''B:''' And on the Moon, too.

'''S:''' —but corporations do, and some people argue that they’re actually more powerful than the government.

'''C:''' Absolutely.

'''S:''' They own us.

'''C:''' We’re still having this conversation—

'''S:''' We just don't know it.

'''C:''' —privacy versus convenience. And I think at this point—

'''S:''' People will ''always'' trade privacy for a little bit of convenience.

'''B:''' It’s insidious.

'''J:''' Back in 2020, {{w|Amazon (company)|Amazon}} was rated the first company and the number one company to truly have such an amazing amount of data on its customers that—it’s like a transcendent moment for a company to get to that level of data. And we were questioning back then, I mean ''I'' was. I was following this very closely back then. There’s no regulations for that level of data. No government in the world created regulation to deal with that.

'''C:''' I know.

'''S:''' Remember when {{w|Mark Zuckerberg|Zuckerberg}} gave all those testimonies before our Congress and no one believed a word he said?

'''E:''' Oh yeah!

'''C:''' But Jay, don’t act like you didn’t just buy something from those {{w|Targeted advertising|targeted ads}} the Aug gave you.

'''J:''' I literally just did as we were talking. ''(audience laughter)'' No, but the point is, though, we can’t—

'''B:''' I love targeted ads.

'''C:''' Me too. They’re ''so'' good now. They’re crazy good now.

'''B:''' [They] really know what I want.

'''J:''' I don’t know. We’re so hard-wired into this thing. We have to—

'''S:''' It’s scary how [inaudible].

'''E:''' The interdependencies—

'''J:''' We can’t go back. You can never go back. When cell phones came, there was no going [back] to a life that didn’t exist.

'''C:''' It’s part of our life. Yeah, it would be really hard at this point.

'''J:''' But this thing owns us.

'''C:''' But here’s the thing. Here’s the scary thing, and it’s something that we think we didn’t think would be possible because of the way that data is distributed in the cloud—and Bob, I know you know about this server farms and data centers. You understand this a lot better than I do. But apparently this is the new headline. So, Control-Alt-Delete managed, finally—and you know they’ve gone in and they’ve shut down server farms before. We keep seeing these headlines where something gets blacked out for a couple weeks and it takes awhile to put it back online. They finally somehow managed to trace the data of a packet of people. So 100,000 people—their entire Aug history has been erased.

'''B:''' Oh my god.

'''E:''' ''(cringing)'' Ooooooo!

'''B:''' They finally did it. They finally did it.

'''E:''' Backup and everything ''gone''?

'''C:''' They’re ghosts.

'''B:''' All the backups, all the—

'''S:''' Orphans, rights? Or virtual orphans.

'''C & E:''' Virtual orphans.

'''C:''' All their money. All of their proof of their education.

'''J:''' And there you go.

'''C:''' All of their social currency. Everything. Their history. All their memories, basically. We live via our photographs and our video recordings now.

'''B:''' I mean, how did they—

'''S:''' Their high scores on {{w|''Plants vs. Zombies''}} are gone. ''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' How did they pull that off?!

'''C:''' {{w|''FarmVille''}}! Who knew ''that'' would stick around?

'''B:''' I really never thought they would be able to dit. Think of all the backups. It’s not one data center. You’ve got backups. You’ve got backups in the cloud, backups on the Moon. How did they get access to all of that?

'''C:''' Who did they know, right?

'''B:''' That’s scary as hell.

'''C:''' You would think. But this is, maybe, part of the problem, is that when a corporation, a multi-national corporation, owns these things—so they should be spread all over the world—it’s still only one ''company'', ultimately, right? It’s a conglomerate, but—

'''E:''' Inside job, maybe? Pirates within?

'''C:''' They must. They’ve got to have moles in there. They have to have access to enough information to know.

'''J:''' It was terrible what CAD did to these people It’s terrible. But the reason why they did it was to show that the companies, literally—look, these people don’t have lives anymore. What are these people going to do? They literally don’t exist in our system, in our collective [inaudible].

'''S:''' So, congratulations. They proved you could destroy somebody’s life by destroying their Aug—by making them virtual ghosts.

'''C:''' ''They’re'' the ones who did it.

'''S:''' But they’re the ones who did it.

'''C:''' The companies so far—these people on the Aug had been fine.

'''J:''' I don’t know. I don’t agree. I know that what they did was wrong, but I think that the point that they tried to make, they made, and it’s scary.

'''C:''' I think this is showing the dark side of {{w|hacktivism}}. As much as I agree with a lot of the posts that I’ve read from Control-Alt-Delete, I think they went too far this time. They went way too far.

'''S:''' They have a point, but they’re ''basically'' terrorists. I hate to use that word, but if you’re doing that—So, there’s a talk—I don’t know if this part of your news item, though—but talk of the {{w|United Nations|UN}}—are you going to get to that part? But the UN, basically, they’re considering a resolution to make, just so that they have more regulatory power to go after CAD, you know, Control-Alt-Delete—If you 'kill' somebody’s virtual history, that’s now virtual murder.

'''C:''' Oh! Like their—oh, because we all have our little {{w|Avatar (computing)|avatars}}. You can actually murder somebody in the Aug?

'''S:''' If you comp—like 100% erase somebody’s data so they can’t come back, that is virtual murder—

’’’C:’’’ So these guys could be tried in {{w|the Hague}}?

'''S:''' —because you create a virtual ghost. They can get tried in the Hague. If they ever catch them, they can get—

'''C:''' We know who they are.

'''E:''' Well, catching them’s going to be so hard.

'''J:''' If they catch those people…

'''B:''' Oh my god, yeah.

'''S:''' They’re done, they’re toast. But I’m sure it’s like cells. You might get one guy or one {{w|Clandestine cell system|cell}}, but you’ll never totally root out…

'''J:''' That’s the other thing, too. The other scary reality is—yeah, so Control-Alt-Delete, sure, they did something bad.

'''C:''' ''Really'' bad.

'''J:''' But there’s—okay, I don’t want to say ''real'' terrorists out there—but there are terrorist group that ''do'' want to tear down the society that we live in.

'''C:''' How is this different?

'''S:''' Well, how better to tear down society than to get rid of someone’s complete Aug history? Jay, imagine yourself as one of these people. What do you do?

'''J:''' You’re done. I don’t know.

'''S:''' You’re done. You’re cooked. Go live on a commune in the woods somewhere?

'''J:''' I think the point is that we’re missing—

'''S:''' [inaudible]

'''C:''' Some people already do that. There are people who aren’t in the Aug. I don’t know any of them, but I read about them sometimes.

'''E:''' The {{w|Off-the-grid|Off-Gridders}}! I love them. The Off-Gridders.

'''C:''' Yeah, the Off-Gridders! Yeah, they’re weird. There’s a TV show about them on Discovery.

'''E & C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' The Off-Gridders?

'''J:''' Do you guys think—and actually the show is pretty cool—but do you guys think, though, that we are kind of going down the snakes mouth right now with technology?

''(A Rogue sighs)''

'''S:''' But we’ve been saying this for 20 years.

'''C:''' That’s the thing. It’s so hard, right? Because we were going to go this route ''anyway''. That’s the thing. If the Aug’s parent company didn’t hit the right kind of algorithm to get us here, another company would have.

'''J:''' I’m not saying—yeah, of course, I think it would have happened anyway—but back in the mid-2015 era, we started to realize that {{w|Facebook}} really didn’t have humanity’s best interests in mind. And then we watched Zucker-freak—

'''C:''' Did we ever ''really'' think they did?

'''J:''' —go in front of Congress and lie his face off, telling them how everything that they—

'''C:''' Do you remember when he ran for president? Idiot. Sorry.

''(laughter)''

'''J:''' That was the beginning of his downfall. But the point is, though, we saw even with Facebook—and this is ''nothing'', Facebook is nothing compared to this. This is, literally, we live in {{w|augmented reality}} now.

'''C:''' I know, but Facebook didn’t give us anything except people’s picture so their babies.

'''S:''' But at the time—

'''C:''' This is ''way'' better.

'''B:''' And cat…

'''E:''' And a lot of advertising. A ''lot'' of advertising.

'''C:''' And {{w|Cats and the Internet|cat videos}}.

'''J:''' I don’t know, I don’t know.

'''C:''' But now you can just watch a cat video anytime, anywhere.

'''E:''' Oh, yeah, that’s a good point.

'''B:''' I always got one running in the corner of my vision. It’s really cool.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' But ''we'' were on Facebook, and it was important to our marketing. And it was—

'''C:''' That’s the point. That’s the part that’s so—

'''S:''' And now we’re on the Aug and it’s—Imagine our show without the Aug.

'''C:''' I know, yeah. But that’s the part that’s so unsavory to me, and that I do have the lucky feeling about, is it ''all'' is just about marketing, still.

''(unknown Rogue)'': Yeah, it is.

'''C:''' It’s all just about selling us shit.

'''E:''' That’s been true for ''so'' long.

'''S:''' Ever since the—exactly.

'''E:''' Since the analog days. And beyond.

'''B:''' And they’re so good at it now. A lot of people are saying that there’s—it’s actually giving credence to people’s belief in psychics.

'''C:''' They think they’re psychic?

'''B:''' They ''must'' be psychic because they know what I want so fast.

'''S:''' Before you know you want it.

'''C:''' Don’t they understand big data. That’s ridiculous.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' But we see it. We see it. It’s funny as hell.

'''J:''' All right. I’m warning you guys. I’m warning—I bet you in another 10 years we’ll see some seriously bad stuff come out of this.

'''C:''' Another 10 years, you’ll be ''dead''. ''(Laughs)''

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' There you go, Jay! How’s that?

'''J:''' And that’s the bad thing!

'''B:''' But those longevity therapies are working pretty damn good.

'''C:''' Ever the techno-optimist.

'''E:''' Can we download ourselves yet?

'''B:''' Look at me.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' You’ll never be [inaudible].

'''C:''' "Five to ten years."

[KiwiCo ad]

===Near-Earth Asteroids: Apophis and Perses (48:13)===

'''S:''' So, Evan—

'''B:''' All right, now this is some shit, man.

'''S:''' This is the ''big'' news. This is actually—everything else is just the warm up to the actual big news that everyone wants to hear about.

'''C:''' 100,000 people erased from—

'''S:''' Because what do we got, 10 years to live? What’s going on with that?

'''E:''' Uh, yeah. We—well, it’s 20 years to live.

'''C:''' Say what now?

'''S:''' We’ll be dead.

'''E:''' But we’re working on it. We’re working on it. I want to remind everyone the whole background of this, so please bear with me before I get to the ''actual'' news item.

'''B:''' Like we don’t know, but go ahead.

'''E:''' I know, I know. So I’m hoping the audience here remembers {{w|99942 Apophis|Apophis}}, right, the [[SGU_Episode_392#Quickie_With_Bob:_Apophis_Update_.2842:31.29|2029 asteroid]] that came within 25,000 kilometers of Earth?

'''S:''' That’s nothing. That’s a whisker.

'''J:''' Phew!

'''C:''' But it missed us.

'''E:''' It ''did'' miss us, absolutely, and that’s what the scientists told us—

'''S:''' Yeah, that’s why we’re still here, because of [inaudible].

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' And it happened on a {{w|Friday the 13th}}.<ref>[https://www.space.com/asteroid-apophis-2029-flyby-planetary-defense.html Space.com: Huge Asteroid Apophis Flies By Earth on Friday the 13th in 2029. A Lucky Day for Scientists]</ref> Which, you know— ''(crosstalk)''

'''S:''' What are the odds?

'''B:''' Remember the party we threw that day?

'''E:''' Pretty decent. There was so much fear-mongering with Apophis. It was first discovered way back in {{w|99942_Apophis#Discovery_and_naming|2004}}, and at that point, the scientists, with the information they had—there was maybe just under a 3% chance of it actually impacting the planet based on the data that they had at the time. Well that sent people kind of into "Okay, here it is! Now, finally, this is the ''real'' apocalypse coming. Forget all the other—the Mayan, the 2012—all that. This is the actual one.

'''C:''' Forget all the other apocalypses!

'''E:''' But, as time went on, and more careful studying of it went, they realized—that shrunk down over the years, and by the time, about 2019, 2020 rolled around, the scientists said, "It is 0% chance of this [inaudible] and, of course, it didn’t.

'''S:''' Yeah, it’s not going to happen.

'''E:''' But Apophis was the {{w|Apep|god of chaos}}, for those who don’t know their {{w|Greek mythology}}. And you’ll remember that tragic incident leading up to the fly-by, the cult, known as the Children of Claude, that was an offshoot of the {{w|Raëlism|Raëlian Movement}}, you guys remember? We used to talk about the Raëlians way back, like in 2005, 2006.

'''B:''' Raëlians, right.

'''S:''' Didn’t they pretend to clone somebody at one point?

'''E:''' Yes!

'''C:''' I can’t believe they stuck around all that time.

'''E:''' They did! It was little offshoots of it.

'''J:''' Was that [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens guy with the hair] that said, "I’m not saying it was aliens…but it was aliens." Was he a Raëlian?

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' I think I know of whom you’re speaking. That’s the {{w|Raël|Claude}} person, and this offshoot is the "Children of Claude." So, they were the ones who, as the asteroid came by, they thought it was going to open an inter-dimensional space, and the only way to get up there was to be—to leave their earthly coils. A couple dozen people, unfortunately, took their own lives. But we’ve seen this before, cults and suicide.

'''S:''' What was that? The {{w|Comet Hale-Bopp|Hale-Bopp}}, back in ’97, and the {{w|Heaven's Gate (religious group)|Heaven’s Gate cult}}, anyone?

'''C:''' [to audience] These guys are all way too young to remember that. No, they’re too young.

'''E:''' No? Oh, gosh, I’m totally dating myself. I’m an old man now. Well, in any case, that was the most, I think, notable fear-related story to it. The Internet obviously went wild. But then in 2030, just a couple years ago, you know what came next. The astronomers located object designation 2030-US, also known as Perses.

'''S:''' Mmm. Perses.

'''E:''' Perses. P-E-R-S-E-S, named for—

'''S:''' Not Perseus.

'''E:''' Not {{w|Perseus|Perse''us''}}, no.

'''S:''' Perses.

'''E:''' {{w|Perses (Titan)|Perses}} was the Greek {{w|Titans (mythology)|Titan}} of destruction.

'''S:''' Mmm. Appropriate.

'''E:''' And this one’s giving us trouble. 33% chance—

'''S:''' Don’t want to roll those dice.

'''E:''' —of {{w|Impact event|impact}}. And the studies since then—they’ve obviously been very closely monitory this one—and it’s holdin' true.

'''C:''' How far away is it now?

'''E:''' Well, we’re about—2055 is going to be the date. June 21, 2055.

'''B:''' Aww, right around the [inaudible].

'''E:''' So we’ve got—there’s 20 years. But, as you know, {{w|NASA}}, the {{w|European Space Agency|ESA}}, the {{w|Roscosmos|Russian Space Federation}}, and others have finally—

'''S:''' {{w|Free_Willzyx#Plot|MASA}}?

'''E:''' MASA, among others—{{w|Israel Space Agency|Israel’s group}}, and the {{w|Indian Space Research Organisation|space agency of India}}…So they can’t behind {{w|global warming}} and deal with that, but at least this is ''something'' that they ''can'' get behind, and they ''have'' gotten behind.

'''C:''' We like a good short-term threat.

'''E:''' Yeah, exactly. When something’s a little more immediate, and, like, right in your face, that will motivate.

'''B:''' Especially when it’s an {{w|Extinction event|Extinction Level Event}}…[inaudible].

'''C:''' And they’ll make lots of movies about it.

'''B:''' Oh yeah. Documentaries…

'''S:''' They’ll dig up {{w|Bruce Willis}}.

'''C:''' Poor guy.

'''B:''' Think he’s just virtual [inaudible].

'''J:''' That {{w|Armageddon_(1998_film)|movie}} he made sucked, didn’t it?

'''S:''' That ''one'' movie he made?

''(laughter)''

'''J:''' And what about that—remember, he was a coal-miner or something?

'''E:''' Oh, remember that Christmas movie, {{w|''Die Hard''}}?

'''C:''' I was going to say, ''Die Hard'' is Christmas movie! ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' ''Die Hard'' is a Christmas movie!

'''S:''' That’s still my favorite Christmas movie.

'''C:''' [again to audience] Also too young, too young. ''(laughs)''

====The good news part (52:45)====

'''E:''' Wow! Really? Here’s the news item. Here’s the news item today. ESA—

'''S:''' —Some good news?

'''E:''' It is good news because—

'''C:''' —Oh good, thank goodness.

'''S:''' I’d rather ''not'' be hit by a two-kilometer—

'''E:''' Exactly. And the {{w|Asteroid impact avoidance|prevention methods}} have gone into effect because ESA successfully launched GT1 into orbit the other day. No issues, everything is fine. It’s the first salvo in the fight against Perses in which is going to approach Perses and establish a fixed position in close proximity to it. It’s using the {{w|gravity tractor}} method—

'''C:''' Oh, "GT1."

'''E:''' —GT1, which is why it’s called that.

'''B:''' I love this idea.

'''E:''' So if all goes according to plan, [presumably demonstrating to audience] here’s Perses, it’s coming in, GT1. They’re going to park it over here in a stable position and the gravity between the two objects, it should nudge it. It should nudge it just—and it doesn’t need to nudge much because it’s still out there far enough—a few centimeters! That’s all they’re looking to do at this distance.

'''S:''' Yeah, but 20 years is actually ''right'' on the margin—

'''B:''' —It’s on the edge.

'''S:''' —For the gravity tug method.

'''J:''' It’s a little too close for comfort.

'''C:''' They want to try as soon as—I mean as late—whatever you want to say—as possible.

'''S:''' That can’t be the only thing that they’re doing.

'''E:''' No, it’s not—

'''J:''' —No, they tried other stuff.

'''E:''' —There’s a three-prong attack against Perses, and this was the first one, and it successfully went—but there are two more coming. So the second prong is being undertaken by {{w|China National Space Administration|China’s space agency}}. They’re going to be launching a direct impact probe into Perses, and they’re going to attempt to knock it off its trajectory. Now, this is sometimes referred to as the "battering ram attempt," but this particular project is considered, actually, a little less reliable because previous experiences from space agencies with this exact method, the direct impact approach, had mixed results.

So, if you recall, NASA conducted a test of the direct impact approach back in 2022. The name of the test was called DART. DART stood for {{w|Double Asteroid Redirection Test|Direct [sic] Asteroid Redirection Test}}.

'''C:''' Oh yeah, DART.

'''E:''' And it shot the DART at—oh, you’ll love this Cara—at a small test asteroid called {{w|65803 Didymos|Didymoon}}.

'''C:''' Didymoon?

'''E:''' Didymoon.

'''C:''' I like Didymoon.

'''E:''' Jay, didn’t you name one of your dogs Didymoon?

'''J:''' No.

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' Bob?

'''J:''' It’s Jay. He never would admit to it.

'''E:''' I thought it was Jay.

'''S:''' It was a goldfish.

'''E:''' He lied to me.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' Little Didymoon.

'''E:''' Now, look, Didymoon was a much smaller asteroid than Perses is. So the data revealed by the impact is that, yes, it would be effective on an asteroid ''that'' size, but it wasn’t clear if it would do something the size of Per—oh, I failed to mention: Perses is two kilometers in diameter—

'''C:''' —But doesn’t it ''barely'' have to move because it’s so far away, still?

'''S:''' —Yeah, but—

'''C:''' I mean, I know it’s close. But it’s ''so'' far.

'''E:''' —A couple centimeters—

'''S:''' —Two kilometers is big.

'''J:''' Yeah, but I thought—

'''E:''' Yeah two kilometers is ''huge''.

'''C:''' —Yeah, but it’s like "bink," and then it’s, like, ''so'' far from us.

'''S:''' —It’s all momentum.

'''J:''' —But I also thought that they were worried that hitting something like that could cause just a bunch of smaller objects.

'''S:''' No, that’s only if they hit it with a nuclear weapon. And even then—

'''E:''' —Right, and that was never really a consideration, even back in the late teens, when they were talking about that even as a possibility for any future impact. They kind of ruled it out at that point, for—

'''J:''' Okay.

'''B:''' —Yeah, the composition of the asteroid’s critical in determining what best approach.

'''S:''' What method. But this is solid, right? So it has to be solid. You can’t hit a pile of rubble with an impact method—

'''E:''' Right, because you’re—

'''C:''' —So it’ll just stay rubble.

'''E:''' Exactly. No effect.

'''S:''' [inaudible] It’ll decay—it’ll have no effect. So—

'''E:''' —No effect.

'''S:''' But the thing is, it’s just hard launching a ship fast enough, heavy enough to hit it with enough momentum to move it—

'''C:''' —And also, it’s, like, yeah, it’s two kilometers, but that’s really small in the grand scheme of, like, ''space''.

'''E:''' So this is why—

'''S:''' —But it’s really big in the grand scheme of a ''rocket''.

'''C:''' True, but they have to get that calculation ''perfect'' to be able to reach it.

'''S:''' That’s not a problem.

'''C:''' Really?

'''S:''' They won’t miss.

'''C:''' Okay.

'''B:''' {{w|Classical mechanics|Newtonian mechanics}}. You don’t even need {{w|Introduction to quantum mechanics|quantum mechanics}}. [inaudible] is good enough.

'''E:''' China’s craft is significantly bigger than DART’s was. So they’re relying on the much, much larger size of this to perhaps do the job. They’re calling it—I don’t speak Chinese. If anyone out there does speak a dialect of Chinese, forgive me—Tuí Tuí, which is Chinese for "push" or "shove," which I thought was kind of cute. That’s a phonetic spelling. T-U-I with an accent over it is how they spelt it in English.

'''J:''' So can they tell—Don’t we have the science to know that the gravity from the ship is going to affect it or not? We’re all kind of sitting on pins and needles, like wanting to get something definitive.

'''S:''' But it’s all orbital mechanics. They’ll have to hit it, and then they’ll have to follow its orbit for, like, two years to ''really'' know what the impact is.

'''B:''' That’s right. You have to be—

'''S:''' —That’s why they can’t wait—

'''C:''' —It takes ''that'' long for them to know if it’s knocked off its course?

'''S:''' —That’s why they have to everything at once. They can’t wait because every time they wait, we lose the ability to deflect it.

'''B:''' Yeah, it’s just too important to screw up, so that’s why it’s good to have Plan A, B, C, as many plans as you can muster.

'''C:''' Redundant. Are there more than two?

'''S:''' I don’t think three is enough. They should do something else.

'''E:''' There’s a third.

'''B:''' There is a third. There is—

'''E:''' —Now, Tuí’s going to launch in late 2038, early 2039 is the estimated window for that one. But, third prong attack—and, Bob, you’re going to love this one.

'''B:''' Oh yeah.

'''E:''' This is called Alda. A-L-D-A. It’s expected to launch in 2040, and it stands for Asteroid Laser Deflection Array. Well, I have to mention it now. We love {{w|Alan Alda}}, when we used to watch him back when television was a thing. When {{w|M*A*S*H (TV series)|M*A*S*H}}—but he was also a great science communicator. He did Scientific American Discoveries on—

'''C:''' —You can still get M*A*S*H on the Aug.

'''E:''' —So good.

'''S:''' Yeah, you can.

'''E:''' —And you never know what kind of entertainers and stuff are going to become science communicators or great things. {{w|Millie Bobby Brown}} became an oceanographer, and who saw that coming? Stranger things. Who saw that coming?

'''C:''' —''(laughs)'' She was smart.

'''E:''' —But, in any case, ALDA’s going to be launched in 2040. And it’s going to contain five {{w|Laser propulsion|space lasers}}, Bob—

'''C:''' —''Lasers''.

'''E:''' —They’re going to rendezvous with Perses—

'''B:''' —How powerful?

'''E:''' —In 2040—how powerful, indeed! 50 {{w|peta-}}watts per laser.

'''B:''' Yeah! [inaudible]

'''E:''' Woo! They’re going to blast this thing.

'''S:''' Are they going to draw a shark on the side of the—

'''E:''' —I hope so. ''(audience laughter)'' If they don’t, what a wasted opportunity. The idea being is that you pound this thing with enough laser power—debris, gases get released from it—

'''S:''' —And that pushes it.

'''E:''' —And that creates a little bit of a push. It takes time. This doesn’t—you don’t send it up there, fire a couple lasers, and call it day. They estimate it’s going to take 6 to 24 months of laser bombardment in order to get thing to move those few centimeters.

'''C:''' Wait, are the lasers space-based, or are they Earth-based?

'''E:''' Oh, they’re launching them out.

'''S:''' They’re space-based.

'''C:''' Oh they’re launching. Okay, got it.

'''E:''' Yep, they’re going to launch them out there.

'''C:''' Is anything going to be in between this laser ship and—

'''B:''' —Not for long. Not for long.

''(laughter)''

'''E:''' Not at 50 peta-watts!

'''C:''' Are we risking anything?

'''E:''' Not at 50 peta watts.

'''C:''' They have a pretty clear shot. They’ve calculated that. They don’t care.

'''E:''' It will intercept it in 2043. And so that’s the three-prong attack, and the first launch happened today, so we will keep obviously close tabs on this one.

'''C:''' So what do we think the odds are?

'''E:''' With all three of these things going out there? I think, ''I'' think very good—

'''B:''' —Doable.

'''E:''' —Scientists are not really putting out any false hope and saying, "Yeah, it’s guaranteed to work," or any kind of 99.9% effective. They’re not really saying anything along those lines, for obvious reasons.

'''S:''' So we’re starting at 33%, and I think each one will knock it down 10% or so. They’re hoping to get it to less than 5%. But they may be the best they could do.

'''C:''' So it’s an interesting {{w|eschatology|eschatological}} threat. It’s kind of the first one other than climate change, which has been this slow burn. Heh, no pun intended. This is the first real time where I’m feeling like this could be how I go out, you guys.

'''B:''' This could be how everyone goes out.

'''E:''' We’ll go out with you.

'''C:''' You'll be ''dead'' by then.

''(audience laughter)''

'''J:''' Why do you keep reminding us of that?

'''C:''' I’m sorry! But you have this weird false hope that you’re going to live forever. What—

'''E:''' —He’s taking his extension therapy…

'''C:''' —It’s 2035. When is this supposed to hit us?

'''E:''' We’ve had relatively—2055. 20 years from now.

'''S:''' [inaudible] people live into their 90s.

'''C:''' 20 years from now and you guys are already in your mid-70s?

'''S:''' Yeah. Our farm relatives lived into their 90s.

'''E:''' I’m only 65.

'''J:''' My dad made it to 86, and he ate whatever the hell he wanted.

'''C:''' You’re only 65? Huh. You’re closer in age to me.

'''E:''' That’s right.

'''S:''' He didn’t it meat slugs.

'''J:''' That’s right.

'''E:''' That’s right!

'''C:''' All right. You’re right.

'''B:''' My grandmother’s in her early 90s.

'''S:''' Or cricket biscuits.

'''C:''' We might all go out this way.

'''J:''' We have to stay hopeful, and we have to trust the scientists.

'''S:''' But it shows you how necessary the asteroid detection system was. Without that early detection system, we wouldn’t have known about this until it was too late.

'''C:''' Remember, we didn’t really have that back in the day, did we?

'''S:''' I think—remember we interviewed {{w|Rusty Schweickart}}? {{Link needed}} He was working with the UN to develop—

'''J:''' That was the beginnings of it. That was it.

''(crosstalk)''

'''E:''' This is it.

'''B:''' Who was he?

'''S:''' That detection—

'''C:''' —This happened in our lifetime.

'''J:''' He was the {{w|Apollo program|Apollo}} astronaut that we talked to.

'''S:''' Remember?

'''B:''' I don’t remember that at all.

'''S:''' Yeah, that was a long time ago.

'''C:''' His memory’s been going.

'''B:''' A long time ago.

'''J:''' That was one my—that was one of the best interviews we ever did.

'''E:''' You have to go back and listen to that one, Bob.

'''C:''' How many episodes have we done at this point? Phew!

'''S:''' We’re over 1,500.

'''E:''' Uh, where are we?

'''C:''' Catalogued…

'''B:''' So Cara, right before the asteroid hits, I’m going to call you. I’m going to say, "I’m still here."

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''

'''C:''' We’re still going to be doing the show, my friend.

'''S:''' I’ll still be editing it.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' That’s true.

'''S:''' I mean, this episode, I’ll be editing it.

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' So you’re hopeful, Evan?

'''E:''' I’m optimistic. The glass is ''more'' than half-full.

'''S:''' It’s hard to talk about anything other than this. I know it’s kind of been dominating the news, but I think people are just expecting it’s going to be taken care of, and—

'''C:''' —Well, what other options—

'''S:''' —Or else you get—

''(crosstalk)''

'''S:''' We can’t obsess about it all the time.

'''E:''' What are we going to do, run around like this for 20 years with our arms flailing in the air? [presumably demonstrating]

''(audience laughter)''

'''C:''' Let’s start a cult!

'''S:''' I know! We’ll kill ourselves!

'''E:''' That’ll do.

'''S:''' That’ll fix it.

'''E:''' That’ll fix everything.

'''C:''' Do it the ''day'' before the asteroid, and we’ll never know what happened. ''(laughter)'' We won’t even be missed.

===Deep Learning (1:01:56) ===

'''S:''' Okay, Bob.

'''J:''' Finally.

'''S:''' Finally. So we’ve been literally talking about this for 30 years. Remember, 30 years ago, when you thought that we would have {{w|artificial intelligence}} by now?

'''B:''' Yeah, yeah, yeah.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' And I said, "Nah."

'''B:''' Keep rubbing it in. It’s coming.

'''S:''' So have we made any adv—where are we?

'''B:''' Yeah, this, ''this'' looks promising.

'''S:''' ''This'' looks promising?

'''C:''' ''This'' is the one!

'''E:''' ''This!''

'''B:''' So {{w|deep learning}} is in the news again.

'''S:''' Again!

'''B:''' Remember, we used to talk about deep learning—

'''S:''' —Right there with the {{w|''The Hype About Hydrogen''|hydrogen economy}}, right?

'''B:''' —We used to—we talked about, come on, we talked about deep learning a ''lot'' in the late teens, early 20s, and it looked promising as hell, really promising. Remember some of those advances? Let me lead with what the news is, here, that researchers from the {{w|Marvin Minksy|Minsky Institute}} have announced that they created a viable path to {{w|artificial general intelligence}}, and that they think that using the {{w|Moravec’s paradox|Moravec’s artificial general intelligence test}}—they think this could be the first AI test to—

'''S:''' —Which one?

'''B:''' —The Moravec artificial general intelligence test.

'''S:''' What happened to the {{w|Turing test}}?

'''B:''' It repl—come on! Get with the times, dude.

'''J:''' So general intelligence, just to remind the audience, is a computer that can think like a human being.

'''B:''' Right. It’s adaptable and—

'''J:''' —It’s not—

'''B:''' —It’s not super-smart in one domain. It’s like a human—

'''C:''' —Wait, remind me what made deep—

'''B:''' —Intelligent in many domains.

'''C:''' —What made deep learning deep learning? What ''is'' deep learning?

'''B:''' —Well, deep learning is—it’s a technique. It’s an artificial intelligence technique using neural networks and a ''lot'' of training data to see patterns, to see increasingly clearly, patterns and data, lots of data, that otherwise are very, very hard to see. So—

'''C:''' —Oh, and that’s why it had all those creative chess moves and Go moves.

'''B:''' —Well, right. There was {{w|AlphaZero}}, there was {{w|AlphaGo}}. Those were the systems that beat the best {{w|chess}} and best {{w|Go (game)|Go}} players on the planet. But not just — the AlphaZero was the one that was really fascinating for me because that was a system using deep learning that created a system that is so good in chess that they didn’t even test it against people because it was a waste of time. They tested it against the best computer chess program, and it kicked its butt. And human {{w|Grandmaster (chess)|grandmasters}} that looked at it were like, "This thing played like a person but like a person-super computer hybrid." They said it was such an amazing, virtuoso performance. They could not believe how good this was, and this was largely created by deep learning. So deep learning — oh, what are you laughing at? What’s going on over there? So—

'''C:''' It’s a ''hybrid!''

'''E:''' It’s a hybrid!

'''J:''' Oh, I missed it!

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' You missed it!

'''B:''' Come on!

'''E:''' Turn ''off'' your Aug!

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' When Bob talks, I just zone out, and I start looking at {{w|Cats and the Internet|cat videos}}. I can’t help it.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' Cat videos!

''(laughter)''

'''J:''' They’re f-ing adorable.

'''B:''' All right. So the point was, Jay, deep learning was a huge success in the late teens and the 20s, not only with chess and Go but also image recognition, autonomous driving, language recognition. It was an amazing success, but the problem was that it was overhyped. Remember? It was just went —

'''S:''' —Like everything is overhyped.

'''B:''' —This one was crazy overhyped. It went viral. If you looked for AI classes, everything was deep learning, deep learning, deep learning. And so it really was a victim of its success because people kind of equated deep learning with artificial intelligence in ''general'', right? They thought deep learning was going to create the first truly artificial general intelligence, which it could never have done because if you look at it, deep learning was just a tiny little subset of {{w|machine learning}}, and machine learning was a tiny little subset of AI itself. So it never—this was just one of the tools of AI that just exploded, and it really created a false impression. So people became disillusioned when deep learning—

'''S:''' —And there was a post-hype phase.

'''B:''' —wasn’t making all these—right. So there was—

'''E:''' —And, Bob, is a parallel to this, remember the "train your brain" to do—what was the name of that? {{w|Lumosity|Luminosity [sic]}} or whatever.

'''J:''' That was all [inaudible]. Yeah, they said your playing their stupid little things will—

'''E:''' —Playing your games will increase your overall intelligence and a whole bunch of —but it actually only helped you out in that ''one'' very specific set of puzzles you were learning.

'''J:''' —Yeah, it turns out—

'''B:''' —Right, okay. I see where you’re going with that.

'''J:''' —It turns out that the game that you were training on, that’s what you got better at.

'''E:''' That’s right.

'''C:''' So that’s like a metaphor for deep learning versus general intelligence.

'''S:''' It’s more like a metaphor. But I think the hype, though, was similar to—remember there was the hydrogen economy hype, which never manifested. Then there was, "stem cells are going to cure all diseases," which never manifested. Although all of these—there is a niche for this. Stem cells are having their day now, twenty years later. But it’s not going to cure everything. Then we were going to cure everything with {{w|CRISPR_gene_editing|CRISPR}}—

'''J:''' —Then we had the {{w|Twinkie#Twinkie_diet|Twinkie diet}}. Everybody was eating Twinkies.

'''S:''' —The Twinkie diet.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' After {{w|''Zombieland''} with Evan [inaudible].

'''B:''' That worked. I lost ten pounds on that.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)'' That franchise petered out.

'''C:''' Yeah, man.

'''S:''' And so, it’s the same thing. But we knew: deep learning was ''never'' on the path to AGI.

'''B:''' Right. And if you were kind of an enthusiast in this, you kinda realized that. But the general population really had no idea. So they were really disillusioned—

'''S:''' —They don’t know difference between AI and AGI.

'''B:''' Exactly. And it kind of created this little—they call it an {{w|AI winter}}, which has happened a couple times in the past, when AI was first really, really hyped. They thought, "Well look, we can create these chess programs. We’ll have human intelligence matched in five or ten years!" And they weren’t even close and—

'''S:''' —Oh, you remember when we saw {{w|2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)|''2001''}} how—we were like, "Yeah, we’ll have that in 30 years."

'''B:''' Yeah, it seemed totally reasonable. So the expectations were way, way high. Remember that? So just like previous AI winters, it caused a little mini winter, and people were very disillusioned, but the research continued. And we see a lot of its successes, and it’s not called deep learning, or even AI. They called it lots of different things so that people didn’t even realize what it was, and it had become so embedded in society that you don’t even think of it as AI, which is the true test of a system’s success.

'''S:''' It’s everywhere now. [inaudible] Deep learning is driving your car, it’s doing everything. But it’s in the background, and nobody talks about it, so you think it’s a failure. We’re like, nope, it’s running everything you’re using.

'''B:''' But it’s not AI. It’s not artificial general intelligence—

'''S:''' —It’s not AGI.

'''B:''' —which is what people—which is the real sexy thing that’s in the movies and the TV shows and what everyone really, really wants, and they’re very disappointed. So I think they may—what are you laughing at?

'''J:''' ''(laughs)'' This [cat] video is so funny!

''(Laughter)''

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' He is such a jerk.

'''E:''' Oh, Jay! Some things ''never'' change.

'''J:''' Oh, man.

'''B:''' Turn on the scrambler again!

'''J:''' This zombie [inaudible]—

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' —Jay, Jay, send me the link.

'''B:''' So one of the things that this Minsky Institute really showed was that consciousness, they think, is really—it’s like a three-dimensional thing. You need three things. You need computational intelligence, and that’s what deep learning can really help with. But that’s only ''one'' leg of the tripod. You also need autonomous complexity as well—

'''J:''' —What does that mean?

'''B:''' —And that means—it’s like survival drives. It’s things like getting out of bed in the morning because you want to get out of bed. You’re goal-oriented. You’ve got intentionality. You want to do stuff. Those are things that—

'''S:''' —That’s the part that always worries me.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' What’s your goal going to be?

'''S:''' Right.

'''C:''' It’s like this locus of control.

'''B:''' But you need that. That’s something you—consciousness needs that leg of the tripod.

'''J:''' I don’t know. I don’t really want to get out of bed, and I’m conscious.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' You claim.

'''E:''' Well…

'''C:''' Sometimes you do, though.

'''B:''' So the third leg, this is the important one—

'''S:''' —Twinkies?

'''B:''' —Social complexity. ''That’s'' the one that was really a major driver for human consciousness. Without that—

'''C:''' —But this is still digital consciousness. Let’s be clear. It’s ''approximating'' human consciousness.

'''B:''' —It is. It is. So who knows how big conscious space actually is and [for] synthetic consciousness, what form that will take. But using the human consciousness as a template, they think—

'''C:''' —It’s the only one we have.

'''B:''' —You’ve got one real data point there. Well, except for—but it’s all, like, life on Earth and primates and dolphins. So they think that if you link up these AI test beds that have those three legs—so you’ve got the computational complexity, like deep learning gives us with pattern recognition and things like that, and you link that up to another system that has autonomous complexity, and these have been developing in the labs for 15, 20 years, and then you hook that to the social complexity cognitive robotic agents, put them all together—

'''S:''' —You get a [https://masteroforion.fandom.com/wiki/Psilon Psilon].

'''B:''' —then you—well—

'''C:''' —I don’t understand what that means. ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' Still?

'''J:''' So what’s the point?

'''B:''' They’re joining these different test beds that look at AI from a different perspective, putting them together, and they’re communicating, sharing data, sharing the things that you need to become, we think, have a consciousness like humans. So they’re communicating… And the one drawback with deep learning is that even the ones that were great at chess, they couldn’t tell you, "Well, I looked at all the rules of chess and I played about a billion games, and these are my takeaways. These are my insights into chess." They ''can’t'' give us those insights because they’re not designed to speak and say, "This is what my takeaway [is]," so it’s kind of like a black box, kind of like an {{w|oracle}}, where you ask—

'''E:''' —We may never know.

'''C:''' —We can’t learn [inaudible].

''(crosstalk)''

'''B:''' —You really can’t. You ask a question, you get an answer. And it sounds like—that sounds completely unintuitive. How could that even work?

'''C:''' —{{42}}!

'''B:''' —But when you test it, it works.

'''E:''' —Basically.

'''B:''' —So these systems are now communicating with each other, and this is the crux of this news items is, is that they’re talking together, they’re making advances that they never would expect, not only with computational complexity but social complexity and autonomous complexity. They’re seeing advances they have not seen, ever, so they think this could be—we’re not there.

'''C:''' Should we be scared?

'''B:''' Not now. Maybe later.

''(laughter)''

'''B:''' Now, now just be happy because it looks like we’re finally on the path for some sort of artificial general intelligence—

'''C:''' ''Now'' be happy! Be scared later. Okay.

'''E:''' —Enjoy it while it’s good.

'''B:''' —You know, brain imaging has come a long way, and that’s like comparing top-down to bottom-up approaches. I think it could give brain imaging a run for its money because that’s another viable way for artificial general intelligence. We’ve got a brain! Image it. Digitize it. Make it work digitally, and that’s another viable path. That’s very promising, but now maybe it has competition. Who knows who will get there first.

'''C:''' Yeah, {{w|radiology}} has been a dwindling specialty lately. Like, the techs are able to do a lot of what the physicians used to do because these new—

'''B:''' —The pattern recognitions are—

'''C:''' —Yeah, pattern recognition algorithms are amazing.

'''B:''' —In that domain, they’re off the hook. Off the hook.

'''S:''' All right but here’s the thing that concerns me, right? And this is going back at least 15 years when I first heard about this thing. You guys remember {{w|Google}}, right? They have a—it’s still sort of state of the art. They can translate any language into any language, right?

'''B:''' Yep.

'''S:''' But do you know how they do that? You translate every language into a machine language and then you translate that machine language back into any other language. So you don’t have to make a connection between every language and each other; you just have to make a connection between every language and this machine language.

'''B:''' That’s what’s happening here!

'''S:''' But on steroids. So this is going back at least 15 years—

'''C:''' —But it’s so glitchy, still, isn’t it?—

'''S:''' —No, it really isn’t.

'''C:''' —I mean, when you do that, you lose so much context and nuance and cultural kind of—

'''S:''' —It’s getting a lot better because they’re not translating word-for-word, they’re translating idea-to-idea. You can translate even a euphemism, and metaphor, whatever, into the machine language. But here’s the thing—

'''C:''' —And there’s {{w|prosody (linguistics|prosody}}, and all—

'''S:''' —Here’s the critical bit: ''nobody'' can speak this machine language. We have ''no'' idea what it is.

'''C:''' Well, yeah, of course not because it’s got every—it’s like the core of everything.

'''S:''' Yeah, it’s a separate language that these computers developed. This is mainly deep learning. They developed it through deep learning and—

'''C:''' —It’s the black box.

'''S:''' —they understand it, but no ''human'' understands this language. So now we have computers talking to each other ''in'' this language that we can’t understand, and it’s like a closed loop. It is another black box. Who knows what the hell’s going to pop out of it.

'''E:''' We can’t command them to tell us what is going on?

'''S:''' We can’t—it’s not a human language. We can’t understand it.

'''C:''' Yeah, all they can do is translate back into our language, which is—

'''S:''' —That’s right. They’ll translate back into English, but they can’t communicate to us directly in their language, and people tried—

'''C:''' —Because we can’t speak their language.

'''E:''' It’s not just {{w|binary code|binary}}?

'''S:''' No, it’s not binary. It’s an abstract language.

'''C:''' It’s like a synthesis of everything else. It needs all of it to be able to—

'''S:''' No one’s been able to crack its

'''J:''' There’s only about 30 movies out there {{w|Category:Films about artificial intelligence|that show how bad}} that this will turn out. And we just keep pretending like it’s going to be okay. We should just be like, "Maybe we shouldn’t let computers speak to each other in a language that we don’t understand." Maybe?

'''C:''' But, Jay—

'''B:''' —That’s been happening on some level for decades—

'''S:''' —It’s been happening for a while.

'''C:''' —It’s easy to say that, but think about all the amazing technology we’d be missing if we just, like, blocked this from the beginning.

'''B:''' But not just that. Imagine the things we can learn, even geo-engineering to help with this climate change ''disaster'' we’re entering.

'''S:''' I’m sure they’re running the calculations on the rockets to move the—

'''E:''' Something tells me the computers don’t care too much about carbon emissions. It’s no threat to their—

'''J:''' —We’re really screwed.

'''E:''' —existence.

'''C:''' —No, but that’s the thing, we are inherently limited through our own human filters and fallacies, right? So these computers are capable of maximizing algorithms. They don’t fall victim to the {{w|heuristics}} that we have to use. So they’re going to be able to solve problems that we are too limited to be able to solve.

'''S:''' That’s the hope.

'''C:''' The question is, what are the unintended consequences?

'''E:''' Yes, that’s always the case.

'''J:''' The real day that we’ll know we’re screwed is when we finally do tell the computers, "Well, tell us what you’re talking about with the other computers." And they go, "Eh, nothing, don’t worry about it."

''(laughter)''

'''E:''' "You’ll find out."

'''S:''' "It’s not important."

'''B:''' Maybe they’re writing poetry. Probably not.

'''S:''' I wasn’t worried about this when they were driving your car and things like that, but when you talk about, "We’re going to combine the deep learning piece and social piece with the self-preservation, full autonomous"—that’s the piece that’s ''always'' concerned me. And even if it—and, remember, I’ve gone through these phases where at first, I’m like, "Yeah, this is something we need to be worried about." Then I’m like, "Meh, maybe not because this is deep learning phase. Deep learning can do anything without AGI, so we’re going to develop AGI." Then we sort of really learned the hard limits of deep learning. It’s like, "Well, so we may need to go beyond that." But also, you don’t ''need'' self-awareness in order to be a threat to civilization.

'''B:''' Right, just mindlessly do something very destructive.

'''S:''' Exactly.

'''J:''' In the future, they’re going to say, "Skynet went online in 2037." And you know what happened with Skynet and the {{w|''Terminator'' (franchise)|Terminator}}, remember that?

'''S:''' Well didn’t Skynet turn into something else? What was the one it turned into? I forget that crappy reboot. Remember, from 20—

'''J:''' Yeah, whatever, that movie sucked.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' Nobody knows. Nobody watched it.

'''B:''' I’ve got it on my {{w|Ultra-high-definition television|10K screen}}. It’s awesome.

'''S:''' So they have it in 10K?

'''E:''' 10K, that’s it.

'''C:''' I just watch everything on my Aug now. You guys still have ''screens?''

'''S:''' Yeah, I’m old-fashioned.

'''E:''' Retro.

'''C:''' You’re so retro. You still drive cars, don’t you?

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' I will still occasionally drive.

'''E:''' I have a {{w|classic car|classic}}!

'''C:''' You guys will go out and drive a car.

'''S:''' Yeah, I still have my license.

'''B:''' The {{w|Flying car|drone cars}} are the best, though, come on.

'''S:''' Yeah, I know. That’s true.

'''C:''' Self-driving…

'''S:''' So if Perses doesn’t kill us, the Psilons are going to kill us. Is that what you're telling us?

'''J:''' Right.

'''B:''' Maybe. Maybe. It’s going to be a fun ride either way.

'''S:''' But at least we’ll have slug burgers to eat in the meantime.

'''B:''' ''(laughs)'' Way to bring it around, there, Steve!

'''S:''' Been doing this for awhile, Bob.

''(laughter)''

{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:16:50) ==
{{SOFinfo
|theme = Anxiety<ref name=anxiety>[https://www.neurocorecenters.com/8-facts-anxiety-symptoms-statistics Neurocore: 8 Fascinating Facts About Anxiety: Symptoms, Statistics, and Efforts to Reduce the Stigma]</ref>

|item1 = Anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women.
|item2 = Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expression.
|item3 = Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them.
|item4 = People who suffer from anxiety can perceive smells negatively while having an anxious episode.
|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = less sensitive

|science1 = more prevalent
|science2 = negative smells
|science3 = think highly of

|rogue1=bob
|answer1=less sensitive
|rogue2=Steve
|answer2=less sensitive
|rogue3=Evan
|answer3=less sensitive
|rogue4=Cara
|answer4=think highly of
|host= Jay 

|sweep= 
|clever= 
|win=y 
|swept= 

}}
'''S:''' So, Jay, you are going to cover "Science or Fiction" this episode.

'''B:''' Oh boy.

'''J:''' Right.

'''E:''' Ooo!

''Voiceover: It’s time for Science or Fiction.''

'''J:''' So as you know, Cara and I very openly talk about our—we’re medicated people. I suffer from anxiety. I thought I'd talk about {{w|anxiety}} today.

'''C:''' ''Extra'' medicated today, though.

'''J:''' And I thought I would hit you guys with some interesting facts about anxiety and see if you could figure out which one of these is not correct. So the first one is—so what I'll do is I'll go through these four items—

'''B:''' —I’m anxious about this one.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' Yeah.

'''J:''' —and then I'll quiz the audience, and then I'll let you guys go, and then we'll see if you guys change the audience's decisions. So the first one is: "Anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women." The second one is: "Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions." The third one: "Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them." And the last one: "People who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively."

So if you [the audience] think that the first one – anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women – if you think this one is the fake, clap when I lower my hand. ''(a few claps)'' Okay, four people. ''(audience laughter)'' The second one – anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions – if you think this one is the fake... ''(most of the audience single claps)'' The third one – friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them – if you think this one is the fake... ''(another few claps)''. And the fourth one – people who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively. ''(remaining few claps)'' Okay so, definitely, the crowd here thinks that number 2 is the fake, the one about anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions. So, Bob – and don't scroll, because all the answers are [inaudible].

''(laughter)''

'''C:''' You can't ask your wife!

=== Bob’s response ===

'''B:''' Okay. "...more prevalent in developed countries and among women." That just makes sense. That’s all I’m going to say. "Socially anxious people tend to be thought highly of by friends and family." Yeah, that kind of makes sense. I just realized I know so little about this. I’m just going by what little experience I have. That kind of makes sense as well. And then this last one, here, this one ''really'' makes sense to me. "People who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively." I’ve run into some people who seem to have that happen, although I don’t know if they were necessarily suffering from anxiety. But I think I’m going to go with the audience. They seem to be very confident about this. And this is the only one, the second one, that doesn’t quite make as much sense to me as the other ones. '''They’re less sensitive to changes in facial expressions.''' I can’t imagine why that would be so. So I’ll say that one’s fiction.

'''J:''' All right, Steve.

=== Steve’s response ===

'''B:''' Steve’s like, "I wrote a paper on this one!"

''(laughter)''

'''C:''' Novella, et. al. 2029. 

'''S:''' The "developed countries and among women", I seem to remember that that is the demographic, yeah. Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions? I would guess they were ''more'' sensitive to it because they’re kind of looking for things. So that may be how that one is the fiction. That was my initial thought. Friends and family think highly of them? Yeah, I think they tend to be more kind of overachiever kind of people who are anxious, so that would go along with that. And, yeah, this is going back maybe 15 or 16 years, but I seem to remember the smell one, that they interpret things in a negative way. It’s kind of like the brain is just interpreting everything negatively. So that makes sense. I was thinking that '''the facial expression one was the fiction''' even before the audience chimed in, so I’m going to agree with the audience as well.

'''J:''' Evan?

=== Evan’s response ===

'''E:''' Well, I’m not trying to be a lemur here, but—

'''S:''' —Lemurs don’t jump off cliffs. That’s a myth.

'''C:''' —That’s also not a lemur. That’s a ''lemming.''

'''E:''' —Thank you, Steve.

'''S:''' —Lemming.

'''E:''' —Oh, whatever!

''(laughter), (applause)''

'''E:''' I set 'em up, they knock 'em down! ''(laughter)''

'''C:''' You don’t have to be a lemur, either. ''(audience laughter)''

'''J:''' You’re such a ''lemur.''

'''S:''' So what would that be? You piss on your hands and rub it up against trees? ''(laughter)''

'''E:''' Yeah, let me show you. ''(laughter)'' Oh boy. Look, I really have no insight to this. I know very little about anxiety issues. I’m a neophyte when it comes to this kind of stuff. I don’t think I’ve experienced any real sensation of anxiety in my life—

'''J:''' —Oh, you’re ''so'' lucky.

'''E:''' —in which I’ve felt like I had to seek help for it or anything. Maybe I have and just didn’t, but I’ll just say what Steve kind of said—not just because it’s Steve, because I had the same thing—'''''less'' sensitive to changes in facial expressions: that seems to be the opposite.''' Wouldn’t they be ''more'' sensitive to changes in facial expression? They’re constantly looking for feedback, signals, and interpreting—

'''S:''' —They could be self-absorbed, though, and that’s why they’re less sensitive.

'''E:''' Maybe.

'''S:''' I’m just throwing that out there.

'''E:''' Maybe, but that was also my initial reaction. And have no reason to believe that it’s otherwise, so I will go that direction.

'''J:''' All right, Cara, what do we got?

=== Cara’s response ===

'''C:''' This is a tough one because I’m not sure I agree with the crowd. I do agree that anxiety is more prevalent among women. I know depression is more prevalent among women, and the neurotic personality style is more prevalent among women, and anxiety and neuroticism tend to—I don’t really like that word, anymore, but they still do use it in the literature. I also think that people who have anxiety might perceive a smell more negatively just because they’re—I think that vigilance that happens—and also, you specifically said while they’re having—you didn’t say panic attack, but I’m assuming it’s something along the lines of a severe experience of anxiety. They’re going to catastrophize everything. That’s a common experience.

My problem is with the two middle ones, and I’m kind of on the fence between them right now. So anxious people are ''less'' sensitive to changes in facial expressions? On the whole, anxious people? I don’t know because there’s so many types of anxiety. I think that if somebody is actively experiencing panic, they’re going to be way less sensitive because they’re not dialed into what somebody looks like at all, but somebody who might be ''socially'' anxious might be ''more'' sensitive to a change because they’re worried about feedback and how they’re being perceived, right? Being on anxiety is kind of like being high, and you’re like, "Everybody’s looking at me. They all think I’m saying something stupid." That ''can'' be an experience of somebody who’s experiencing social anxiety.

On the flip side of that, "friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them." You specifically said ''socially'' anxious people. Socially anxious people tend to withdraw from interaction in public. And I think that sometimes there is actually a lot of stigma around social anxiety that actually leads to people thinking that that person is anti-social. That person’s not very nice. That person kind of comes across like "they don’t really like me, or they think they’re better than me."—

'''B:''' —But no one cares.

'''C:''' —So I do think sometimes friends and family of socially anxious might actually stigmatize them a little bit and think negatively of them. So that’s kind of where I’m on the fence because I think ''either'' of those could be true. My fear is that—or my concern is that "anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions" is a ''broad'' statement. Anxious people ''on the whole'' are less sensitive to facial expressions? Maybe? Maybe not. So—

'''B:''' —Come on, be a lemur. Come on!

'''E:''' Yeah, yeah! Be a lemur!

'''C:''' I might be wrong—and just to be clear, I do not study anxiety, and I don’t have anxiety. I am medicated for depression, and I don’t really work with anxiety in any of my clinical work. It’s not an area that I research ''at all'', so basically what I know is just what I know from textbooks. And I’ve never specifically come across these studies. But there’s a part of me that thinks there is still a stigma around socially anxious people. And so I’m going to say '''people actually ''don’t'' think more highly of them.''' And that’s the fiction. But I could be wrong. You guys could totally have it because I’m on the fence about those.

=== Jay polls the audience again ===

'''J:''' All right. Let’s go through again. I’m going to ask the audience, here. So, we’ll go to the first one again. "Anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women." ''(one clap)''

'''S:''' One holdout!

'''C:''' [inaudible]

'''S:''' Stick to your convictions!

'''E:''' Independence! I love it. Yes.

'''J:''' Apparently the rest of the audience was too anxious to clap. ''(laughter)'' "Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions." ''(audience single claps)

'''C:''' Hmm…

'''J:''' I don’t know. It’s pretty close to the first one.

'''C:''' I don’t know. Let’s lesson to the next one.

'''E:''' A few people shifted.

'''J:''' "Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them." ''(audience single claps)''

'''B:''' Oh boy!

'''S:''' Cara definitely influenced them.

'''C:''' But, guys, I might have led you astray. ''(laughter)'' I’m really sorry.

'''J:''' "People who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively." ''(another few claps)'' All right. Did you feel that those [middle] two were close?

'''S:''' Those two are a lot closer than initially—

'''E:''' —A lot closer.

'''B:''' —[inaudible] ask again, real quick?

'''S:''' No, I think we’ll just call it a tie.

'''C:''' I think we shifted it to more tied in between the two.

=== Jay explains Item #4 ===

'''J:''' All right. I will start with the last one: "People who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively." So, people with anxiety disorders tend to label neutral smells as bad smells, so '''this one is science.''' Professor Win Lee explains, "in typical order-processing, it is usually just the olfactory system that gets activated, but when a person becomes anxious, the emotional system becomes part of the olfactory processing stream."<ref name=anxiety/> That is ''fascinating.''

'''B:''' Wow. That’s cool!

'''J:''' So, your anxious consciousness taps into the way that your olfactory processing happens.

'''E:''' But what about the other areas, the other senses? Does it also impact—

'''C:''' —I think it does affect other senses, too. It might make sounds more shrill or more difficult.

'''E:''' —Tastes, even?

'''B:''' —But it makes sense that it would be tied to smells because your olfactory centers are closer to the—

'''J:''' —To memory.

'''B:''' —the limbic areas of your brain tied to emotions. So that’s why when you smell something, it can bring you back ''decades.'' Just that one trigger of a smell can bring you back to a memory that’s literally fifty years—

'''C:''' —They’re also very fast, right? Your olfaction, because it doesn’t pass through the {{w|thalamus}} like everything else. It’s a very fast sense compared to some of the other senses. It’s evolution, like, very old.

'''J:''' —To answer your question, I don’t know, Ev, I don’t know if it can hijack the other senses as well. As an anxious person, I will tell you that if I’m having a ''really'' bad panic attack, ''everything'' is catastrophized.

'''C:''' Yeah, it’s acute.

'''J:''' Yeah, everything’s acute. I would imagine—

'''E:''' —Or exaggerated. But negative, as well.

'''J:''' —But it’s also something, with my personal experience, very much insular, like I’m turned into myself. I’m not peering out into the world. I’m just looking in at what’s going on.

'''C:''' —''(hinting)'' You might not be looking at faces…I don’t kno-o-ow. ''(laughs)''

=== Jay explains Item #3 ===

'''J:''' All right. So I want to go to #3, "Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them."

'''C:''' Crap.

'''J:''' I’ll just read this. And then you guys will—

'''C:''' —Crap.

'''J:''' —discover what the truth is. So people with social anxiety usually think they don’t do well in social situations, but new research indicates otherwise. So '''this one is science.''' "Friends of those with social anxiety tend to think very highly of their nervous companions. This is possibly due to how sensitive anxious people can be while they’re in a social environment, meaning that they think before speaking and always consider the feelings of others."<ref name=anxiety/>

'''C:''' So, wait, you’re saying that they think more highly of them than they think of themselves?

'''J:''' Well, a socially-anxious person—

'''C:''' —''(playfully growling)'' ''Not'' what the item said!

'''J:''' —Yeah it is.

'''C:''' Is it?

'''J:''' Yeah, listen.

'''C:''' It just says, "highly."

'''J:''' "Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them." So a socially anxious person is actually, for lack of a better way to say it—they’re scoring points with friends and family because they’re tuned into their politeness and to the other people more. ''Because'' of their social anxiety, they’re reading everyone, and they’re analyzing their environment more actively than a person that doesn’t have the anxiety.

'''C:''' Gotcha. Okay. Yeah.

=== Jay explains Item #2 ===

'''J:''' So I will now go to, "Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions." '''This one is the fake.''' So the audience got it. Good job.

'''C:''' Good job, guys! ''(applause)''

'''J:''' I picked this one because the way that I did this—I tested myself on all of these facts. I read them and thought to myself whether I agreed. The website I found was kind of like, "well, what do you think the truth is?" And it was interesting.

I thought that this one was the opposite because of what you and I said, because when you’re having a panic attack, you’re so—your surroundings almost don’t matter because you really do kind of get this haze that comes over you and you’re just in your own head. It’s very insular. But it turns out that people who are anxious—so they said, "People with anxiety are quicker to perceive changes in facial expressions than those without anxiety; however, they are less accurate at perceiving their ''meanings.''"<ref name=anxiety/> So they can misinterpret them—

'''S:''' —But they probably interpret them negatively.

'''C:''' —They make them negative.

'''J:''' Right, right, of course. "It’s easy for those who struggle with anxiety to overthink and jump to conclusions. This may lead to tension and conflict in relationships."<ref name=anxiety/> So, very good, audience. You guys did a great job, except you [pointing to lone hold-out], who I noticed didn’t clap because you were thinking probably like I do. ''(laughter)''

=== Jay explains Item #1 ===

'''J:''' So the first one: "Anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women." '''This one is science.''' "The US is considered to be one of the most anxious nations on Earth."<ref name=anxiety/> Sociologists blame the increased number of choices—''the increased number of choices that we have''—so our modern—

'''S:''' —[inaudible]

'''J:''' —well, modern society in general. We have—

'''S:''' —It’s getting worse.

'''J:''' —We have so many choices in front of us that it adds up to emotional stress throughout the day. You get more and more stressed. You got so many—you’re scrolling through {{w|Amazon (company)|Amazon}}, and you don’t just have one pair of socks. You’ve got hundreds of pairs of socks, and you have to think about it and think about it and think about. So—

'''S:''' —Well, and this gets to the, seriously, the confluence of AI and [[SGU_Episode_762#Social_Media.2C_CAD.2C_.26_the_Aug_.2835:25.29|the Aug]], social media, is you have virtual assistants who make decisions for you, and people love that because it reduces their anxiety—

'''E:''' —Yeah, exactly.

'''S:''' —it reduces their choices. And now you have not only targeted ads; you’re allowing whoever’s in charge of the Aug to live your life for you, like to lead you around and make decisions for you. And, at first, it’s like the things you don’t really care about that much or whatever, but how intrusive is that going to get? Think about it! Again, we’ll trade convenience for security, for privacy. Imagine how much we’ll trade to really reduce our cognitive load? That is really what psychologists would call that, right? {{w|Cognitive load}} is how much work you have to do to get through your day, to get through a task, to do something. AI system software in general, it’s all engineered—or it should be, if it’s good, if it’s working well—to ''minimize'' cognitive load, right?

Good movie-making is about minimizing cognitive load in a lot of ways. I remember, back when we were still doing films, we learned—because we got a course from our friend at {{w|Pixar}}, who said, "If you follow the action on a movie screen"—remember movie screens?—"You follow the action. If one scene ends over here, the next scene picks up here." [Steve presumably gestures.] Right? It doesn’t pick up over here?

'''J:''' Yeah, meaning that where your eyes are—

'''S:''' —Yeah, they know where eyes are. They’re following your eyes, and then they’re making sure your eyes are following the action from one scene to the next—

'''C:''' —It’s less work for you.

'''S:''' —because—right, because that’s less work. If you have to suddenly hunt for where the action picks up—"Oh, it’s over here!"—that’s cognitive load—

'''E:''' —Too disorienting, yeah.

'''S:''' —it takes you out, it re—

'''C:''' —That’s why {{w|360-degree video|360 films}} are hard for people. Like it’s hard to catch on to a 360 movie because you have to—

'''S:''' —Or {{w|Virtual_reality_applications#Cinema|virtual films}}, remember the virtual films, which never really took off? 

'''C:''' —yeah, you have to ''find'' the action, as opposed to—

'''S:''' —Yeah, you’re constantly looking for where the action is. They can be fun, but that’s ''high'' cognitive load. You’ve got to be in the mood for that. So now we’re just going to be surrounded by systems that will reduce our cognitive load for us, and that’s like crack. Who won’t do that?

'''J:''' That’s like somebody cutting your lawn for you.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' How could you not love that? ''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' Right.

'''E:''' The lawn bots.

'''J:''' My wife and I were going in overlord to get the yard cleaned up for the fall. And we hired some people to come and take down some trees from the tornado and I remember standing—I have a cup of coffee. I’m looking out the window. I’m watching a few guys work on my yard, and I’m just like [loving gesture/nod?] "I love ''all'' of you guys. Thank you so much! This is such a pleasure."

'''E:''' "I’m in here, you’re out there."

'''B:''' I told you to get robots to do that.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' I look out my window and want the ''robots'' cutting my lawn—

'''J:''' —I don’t want robots in my yard. ''(laughter)''

'''E:''' "Get off my lawn!"

'''S:''' Still not down with the robots?

'''J:''' No.

== Questions/V-mails/Corrections ==

'''S:''' We got emailed—or v-mailed some questions, if we want to take some virtual questions.

'''C:''' Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.

'''S:''' I have one, which I want to bring up.

=== Question #1: New Universal Flu Vaccine (1:33:24) ===

'''S:''' So did you guys all get your {{w|Influenza vaccine|flu shot}} this year? Everybody get their flu shot?

''(Rogues confirm.)''

'''S:''' It’s not really flu season down here, right?

'''C:''' They got theirs six months ago, right?

'''E:''' Their ''quad.''

'''S:''' Well, the quad, that ''was'' the standard of—actually, remember the [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quadrivalent#Adjective tetravalent vaccines], the flu vaccines?

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' But now we have the {{w|universal flu vaccine}}, which came out in 2032. So the question—this comes from Haywood, and Haywood asks—

''(Rogues cackle at inside joke.)''

'''E:''' [to Jay] He got you! Totally got you.

'''C:''' ''(laughing)'' I’m sorry.

'''J:''' ''(laughing)'' [inaudible] swallowing. I just [inaudible]. Did you ''not'' think I was going to lose it? Does anybody know why that’s funny?

'''B:''' No, you ''can’t''—

'''C:''' Yeah, we don’t have to tell them.

'''E:''' Unh-unh-unh-unh-unh-unh.

'''B:''' You can’t say! Jeez, stop it.

'''C & E:''' ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' ''(laughing)'' What was that emailer’s last name, Steve?

'''C:''' No! He left it off the email.

'''S:''' ''(laughing)'' He didn’t say. Just a first name [inaudible].

'''C:''' ''(laughs hard)'' He’s totally losing it.

'''E:''' ''(guffaws)''

'''S:''' So, anyway.

'''E:''' Oh, gosh!

'''S:''' He wants to know if he should get the new universal flu vaccine because—well, there's now the antivaxxer fear mongering around this one, right, because—

'''B:''' —Yeah, of course.

'''S:''' —because it’s all genetically modified, et cetera. So, yes, ''Haywood,'' you ''should'' get the universal flu vaccine because even the tetravalent vaccine—Every year, back in the day, up until two years ago, they would have to—If you were from the United States, like we are, they used to give us whatever strains of flu you guys [Australians] were getting, and then ''you'' get whatever strains we’re getting six months before because that was lead time to make the vaccines. And there’s, of course, hundreds of strains, and they’re just ''guessing.'' So they increased the ''number'' of strains that they were covering per vaccine. Some sort of became permanently imbedded, so you have to cover certain strains every year, then you have to add one or two that you think are going to come—

'''C:''' —But that left out any potential mutations.

'''S:''' Yeah. When the vaccine matches, it’s like 95% effective, but mismatch could reduce that to 90, 60, ''40%'' on bad years. It might only be 40% effective.

'''C:''' Yeah, there have been years like that, for sure.

'''E:''' Very bad.

'''C:''' Where you got the vaccine, you still got the flu. It sucked.

'''S:''' They’ve been researching, for about 40 years, a universal flu vaccine. The problem has always been that the parts of the flu vaccine—of the flu virus—that are universal are hidden from antibodies. The immune system can’t get access to that because all of the stuff that changes from strain to strain was in the way. But they did finally figure out a way to crack into that, to get access to the universal bits. And so they’ve been, now, producing a universal flu vaccine. And if you get that, you are resistant to ''every'' flu strain. And so you only need to get it about once every five years. If you get that for once every five years—and now it’s like ''every'' year it’s 95% effective.

'''E:''' That’s good.

'''S:''' So, yes, get it! You should absolutely get it.

'''J:''' Of course!

'''C:''' We all did!

'''S:''' Yeah, I know. I know. I made you get it.

'''C:''' ''(playfully proud)'' We’re the SGU!

'''E:''' It still hurt a little, though.

'''S:''' It’s still a vaccine. It’s still a shot.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:36:31) ==
<blockquote>Science is the greatest thing known to humans. Through science we have been able to seize a modicum of control over the otherwise natural state of chaos throughout the cosmos. It is truly the most stunning achievement by a life form that emerged from the dust of the stars. In order for us to be the best stewards of our universe, we must continue the pursuit of science, and may it forever be our torch to light our way forward. — Dr. Alyssa Carson<ref name=Carson/>, first resident of {{w|Moonbase|Armstrong Station}}, The Moon</blockquote>

'''S:''' All right, Evan, before we close out the show, give us a quote!

'''E:''' "Science is the greatest thing known to humans. Through science we have been able to seize a modicum of control over the otherwise natural state of chaos throughout the cosmos. It is truly the most stunning achievement by a life form that emerged from the dust of the stars. In order for us to be the best stewards of our universe, we must continue the pursuit of science, and may it forever be our torch to light our way forward," spoken by Dr. Alyssa Carson. She’s a NASA astronaut and she was the first inhabitant of Armstrong Station on the Moon in 2031.

''(laughter), (applause)''

== Signoff ==

'''S:''' Thank you guys all for joining me for this special episode, and [to audience] thank all of you for joining us—

'''C:''' —Thanks, Steve.

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}.

''(applause)''

{{Outro664}}

== Today I Learned ==

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

{{Page categories
|Guest Rogues =
|Live Recording = 
|Interview =
|Randi Speaks =
|Skeptical Puzzle =
|Amendments =
|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science = 
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations = 
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution = 
|Neuroscience & Psychology = 
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics = 
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine = 
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology = 
|UFOs & Aliens =
|Other =
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}

Template:EpisodeList2020

2025-01-07T03:53:44Z

Xanderox: adding links for 762 features

<noinclude>
Programatically-generated episode list based on the style of [[Template:EpisodeList2024]].
</noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2020 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 756-807)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 807
|date = 12-26
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 806
|date = 12-19
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 805
|date = 12-12
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 805#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 804
|date = 12-05
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 804#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 804#theme|Adolf Hitler]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 803
|date = 11-28
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 803#theme|17th Century Scientists]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 802
|date = 11-21
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 802#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 801
|date = 11-14
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 800
|date = 11-07
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 800#dumbest|Dumbest Thing of the Week]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 800#theme|Impact Craters]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 799
|date = 10-31
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 799#theme|Magnetism]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 798
|date = 10-24
|status = proofread
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 798#interview|Richard Wiseman]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 797
|date = 10-17
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 797#theme|Traffic]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 797#interview|Paul Thibado]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 796
|date = 10-10
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 795
|date = 10-03
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 795#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 795#theme|Predicting the Future]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 794
|date = 09-26
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 794#theme|Follow up]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 793
|date = 09-19
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 793#fss|Forgotten Superheroes of Science]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 793#theme|Paleontology]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 792
|date = 09-12
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 792#theme|Wolves]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 791
|date = 09-05
|status = open
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 790
|date = 08-29
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 790#theme|Bird Misconceptions]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 789
|date = 08-22
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 789#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 789#theme|Hydrogen Fuel]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 788
|date = 08-15
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 787
|date = 08-08
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 787#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 786
|date = 08-01
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 786#theme|Insects]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 785
|date = 07-25
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 784
|date = 07-18
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 784#theme|Energy]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 784#interview|Stephon Alexander]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 783
|date = 07-11
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 782
|date = 07-04
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 782#wtw|What's the Word?]] [[SGU Episode 782#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 782#theme|Regeneration]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 781
|date = 06-27
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 781#theme|Deadly Animals]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 780
|date = 06-20
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 780#theme|Earth]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 779
|date = 06-13
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 779#interview|Angela Saini]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 778
|date = 06-06
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 777
|date = 05-30
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 776
|date = 05-23
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 776#theme|Bread]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 775
|date = 05-16
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 775#interview|Gerald Posner]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 774
|date = 05-09
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 774#theme|Agricultural Cycle]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 773
|date = 05-02
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 773#theme|Extinct Mammals]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 772
|date = 04-25
|status = open
|other =
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 771
|date = 04-18
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 771#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 771#theme|COVID-19]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 770
|date = 04-11
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 770#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 770#theme|Memory]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 770#interview|Kevin Peter Hand]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 769
|date = 04-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 769#theme|Superlatives]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 768
|date = 03-28
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 767
|date = 03-21
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 767#theme|Pandemics]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 766
|date = 03-14
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 766#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 766#theme|Astronomy]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 765
|date = 03-07
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 765#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|sort_other =
|theme =[[SGU Episode 765#theme|Robots and Cyborgs]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 765#interview|Ann Druyen]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 764
|date = 02-29
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 764#theme|Whales]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 763
|date = 02-22
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 763#theme|The Pacific Northwest]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 762
|date = 02-15
|status =
|other =[[SGU Episode 762#news|"Future News" Items]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 762#theme|Anxiety]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 761
|date = 02-08
|status =
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 760
|date = 02-01
|status = open
|other =[[SGU Episode 760#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|sort_other =
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 759
|date = 01-25
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 759#theme|New Species 2019]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 758
|date = 01-18
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 758#theme|Geography]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 758#interview|Joe Carvalko]]
|sort_interviewee =
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 757
|date = 01-11
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =n
|sort_theme = zzz
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 756
|date = 01-04
|status = open
|other =n
|sort_other = zzz
|theme =[[SGU Episode 756#theme|LA]]
|sort_theme =
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee = zzz
|rogue =
|sort_rogue = zzz
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2020 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 756-807)
|}

SGU Episode 762

2025-01-07T03:51:15Z

Xanderox: /* Introduction */ adding news anchor

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 762
|episodeDate = {{month|12}} {{date|6}} 2035 😉 
|verified = 
|episodeIcon = File:762 SGU from the future.jpg
|caption = "Greetings from the Future" art
|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|Evan =y
|qowText = Science is the greatest thing known to humans. Through science we have been able to seize a modicum of control over the otherwise natural state of chaos throughout the cosmos. It is truly the most stunning achievement by a life form that emerged from the dust of the stars. In order for us to be the best stewards of our universe, we must continue the pursuit of science, and may it forever be our torch to light our way forward.

|qowAuthor = Alyssa Carson<ref name=Carson>[https://nasablueberry.com/about Alyssa Carson: Nasa Blueberry]</ref>, first resident of {{w|Moonbase|Armstrong Station}}, The Moon

|downloadLink = {{DownloadLink|2020-02-15}}
|forumLink = https://sguforums.org/index.php?topic=51757.0
}}

== Introduction ==
''Voiceover: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the {{SGU|link=y}}. ''(applause)'' Today is Thursday, December 6th, '''''2035''''', and this is your host, Steven Novella. ''(audience laughter)'' Joining me this week are Bob Novella ...

'''B:''' Hey, everybody! ''(applause)''

'''S:''' Cara Santa Maria...

'''C:''' Howdy. ''(applause)''

'''S:''' Jay Novella ...

'''J:''' Hey guys. ''(applause)''

'''S:''' And Evan Bernstein ...

'''E:''' Good evening folks! ''(applause)''

'''S:''' So I have to say it's great to be back in {{w|Melbourne}}, but I am –

'''B:''' Wait, why did you laugh? Why was that funny? ''(laughter)'' We worked for months to get this pronunciation correct. What happened?

'''S:''' There's no right or wrong. There's no right or wrong.

'''J:''' As recent as today, somebody sent us an email that explained how to say it, yet again. ''(laughter)'' They said, "drop all the vowels."

'''S:''' Right. But then they yell at us because there's a difference between saying it properly and saying it with an accent.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' And we're supposed to say it properly for an American.

'''C:''' Yeah, without an [inaudible].

'''S:''' And I have no idea where in the spectrum of "Mel-born" to "Mel-burn" to "Mel-bin"…

'''E:''' Yeah, just don't say, "Mel-born." You're safe.

'''S:''' So it's great to be here, but I have to say I'm getting a little old for the 14-hour flights across the Pacific. You know, it was just a couple years ago that they brought back the supersonic commercial airliners, like 2031, I think it was, but they are just still too expensive for schlubs like us.

'''C:''' I've done 'em before, though. They're worth it, you guys.

'''S:''' Oh, sure.

'''C:''' I keep trying to convince you.

'''B:''' Of course you've done it. And probably first class [inaudible].

'''S:''' What is it, about six hours across the…?

'''C:''' Yeah, it's so much easier. It's like flying – it's like it used to be when I'd fly from L.A. to New York.

'''J:''' And you don't hear the {{w|sonic boom}} anymore. They got rid of it.

'''C:''' Yeah, yeah, it's super comfy. Just fall asleep, wake up, I'm there.

'''B:''' But, Jay, that big breakthrough that allowed the supersonic transport to become viable again was the fact that they design the shape – you've seen the shape, it's a gorgeous, really elongated shape – but that minimizes the sonic boom by like a 1000th of what it used to be. And that's what was the big problem with it. Remember, what was it, the old one, the {{w|Concorde}} …

'''S:''' And when did we first talk about that? It was, like, 15 years ago.{{Link needed}}

'''B:''' Oh my god.

'''E:''' Long time ago.

'''S:''' And here we are, like just coming [inaudible].

'''B:''' Remember? I saw it. I think I saw it in a magazine the first time we were in this area. And I said, "Look at this. This is something that's really going to be big in the future." And it was.

'''J:''' It is.

'''C:''' It is.

'''E:''' You were right, Bob.

'''C:''' Tense-shifting is hard from, like, the U.S. to Australia.

'''S:''' Yeah, yeah, yeah.

'''C:''' Time-traveling a little bit here. ''(winks?)''
{{anchor|news}}

== Future "News" Items ==

'''S:''' So, it's 2035, so this is our 30th Anniversary year of doing the SGU and because of that, we're finishing up 30 years. We're going to talk about regular news items, but we're going to give more of a history, like, where does this fit into the arc of science and skepticism over the last 30 years of the SGU, right?

=== Québec Accord, Global Corporate Alliance (3:10) ===

'''S:''' So, Jay's going to start with a news item that has something to do with {{w|global warming}}. He didn't tell me what it is, but you're going to start by telling us where we've been, where we're going, where are we in this saga that we've been talking about, it seems like, for 30 years.

'''J:''' Well, yeah, I mean when we first started talking about this, I don't even know when we first started talking about this –

'''S:''' —I think right at the beginning, 2005, 2006.

'''J:''' —It was a mounting thing that, as the years went by, we started to talk more and more about it. And then somewhere around the late 2020s, we really started to talk about, almost on every episode, to the point where listeners were emailing us, saying, "Okay, we get it. Global warming is bad news."

But we've seen a lot of bad things happen over the last 10 to 15 years where local governments, or governments in general are doing absolutely nothing. They still can't get out of their own way, right? We know that, but nothing has really been happening. And then in 2027, when {{w|Venice}} got so flooded that it couldn't recover, that's when the world woke up.

'''C:''' That was so sad. I miss Venice. ''(laughter)''

'''S:''' And you can't even visit Venice anymore, right?

'''J:''' I mean, sure, you can, but there's only certain parts that you can go to.

'''C:''' It's too dangerous, guys.

'''B:''' But why didn't they try to just to build up, like abandon the bottom five [inaudible].

'''C:''' They tried that.

'''E:''' Too cost-prohibitive, among other things.

'''C:''' The foundation can't hold it.

'''J:''' The foundations weren't capable of holding it. So—

'''S:''' They would just sink back down.

'''J:''' It really hit a note across the globe when a lot of the art got destroyed. So that's when everybody—that's when I think we can kind of look back, as a marker, like the whole world took a pause.

So then in 2027, that same year, we had the Québec Accord happen, which was an absolute failure. I think Canada's heart was in the right place, but they tried to inspire the world to change. But governments just can't get out of their own way.

'''S:''' But think about it. Think about the {{w|Paris Agreement|Paris Accord}}, right, when was that? That was, like, 2015.

'''E:''' 2015.

'''S:''' Yeah, 2015. They said, "Okay, we're going to limit post-industrial warming to 2.0C above pre-industrial levels." And even though they knew that bad shit was going to happen at 2.0, really we needed to keep it beneath 1.5, which we hit this year, guys. This year we had 1.5C above pre-industrial level, 2035. So they didn't even try to ever get 1.5. They're like, "All right, let's just keep it below 2." And they failed to do that. What they agreed to wouldn't even accomplish that.

'''J:''' Yeah, there was no chance of them getting that.

'''S:''' And the Québec Accord, they're like, "All right, well, let's, maybe 3.0. Let's just keep it 3ºC above…

'''E:''' Move the goalposts.

'''S:''' And then, they, again, "We're not going to achieve that. We're all …

'''C:''' Well, and it's because they're not giving themselves any sort of—it's like a treaty. It's like, "Oh, we'll just agree to all do this."

'''E:''' It's a pledge.

'''C:''' It's a pledge. They're not even giving—

'''S:''' There's no consequences.

'''C:''' There's no consequences for not sticking to it.

'''J:''' Well, that's the problem because it's the real first global problem.

'''E:''' People, countries can exit as they wish.

'''C:''' I mean, remember back when {{w|Donald Trump|Trump}} just dropped the ball on it? {{w|United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement|He just left}}. He just said, "No, Paris." I mean, we've been trying to make up for that ever since.

'''E:''' Gone.

'''S:''' Maybe {{w|Marco Rubio|Rubio}} will do the same thing.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Ugh. President Rubio.

'''E:''' President Rubio.

'''J:''' So, the things that we've seen—it wasn't just what happened in Venice but, you know, the storms continued to become deadly, right? So we have people dying every time there's a storm, a big storm.

'''S:''' Seems like every hurricane's a {{w|Saffir–Simpson_scale#Category_5|CAT-5}} now.

'''C:''' Oh, and my city is constantly on fire. {{w|Los Angeles|LA}}, also {{w|Sydney}}, even {{w|Melbourne}}. It's on fire all the time now.

'''S:''' Yeah, basically it's always {{w|Wildfire|fires}}.

'''B:''' Remember when—

'''C:''' Yeah, we used to have a fire season.

'''B:''' Yeah, remember fire season. Wasn't that quaint?

'''C:''' Now it's a {{w|Air_quality_index#United_States|red flag day}} every day.

'''J:''' But the reason why we're reviewing this is because, as you guys know, a few years ago, in 2032, {{w|IKEA}}, of all companies, drew a line in the sand and said that corporations have to now take the responsibility. And I love the tagline. What's the tagline?

'''S:''' "We got it."

'''J:''' "We got ''this.''"

'''All:''' "We got this."

'''C:''' IKEA! They got this.

'''S:''' But I don't think it's ''(plainly)'' "We got this." I think it's ''(assuringly confident)'' "We got this."

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' I think it's like, "Yeah, you guys failed. You're hopeless. You're in total political gridlock. So, somebody's got to step in. So we got this. Go away. We'll [inaudible]."

'''B:''' So you're referring to governments in general, right?

'''S:''' Yeah, governments.

'''E:''' Right.

'''J:''' And it's—

'''B:''' That was a great tagline.

'''S:''' Yeah, but, you know, I'm worried about it.

'''J:''' It is a dystopian future, though, when corporations have to save us from government.

'''C:''' It's a dystopian present.

'''S:''' But, literally, I remember back in 2018, I think it was, there was a very short-lived science fiction series on some channel, some cable channel, where that's exactly what happened, [which] is that corporations had to step in because the governments were in gridlock. And then they used that in order to get—they didn't take over from the governments, governments just ceded them more and more power until they were {{w|de facto}} in charge, which is what a lot of people are worried about—like the conspiracy theorists, but it's actually not unreasonable—that that's the ultimate plan of the—what are they calling it? The Global Corporate Initiative.

'''J:''' Right.

'''C:''' GC—

'''E:''' GCI.

'''S:''' Yeah, their plan is not just to fix global warming for the world but to actually take power, to seize power.

'''J:''' So it didn't really—it almost started off as a joke, but then, just recently, in the news article that I'm covering, we've actually hit a critical mass. There's a lot of companies that just signed on that agreed that they're going to follow it. Now, here are the basic rules, or whatever, that they're following. So they're saying that they will have a zero-carbon emission or ''less'', meaning that they could actually pay in to even reduce carbon emissions, so the company cannot produce any carbon whatsoever. So—

'''C:''' Oh, so they get credits if they go negative, carbon negative?

'''J:''' Well, actually, the companies are committing to the Alliance or saying that if do, that they have to pay massive fines to the—

'''S:''' Well can’t they just buy the credit from people who are negative?

'''J:''' Yeah, yeah.

'''S:''' So they have to be neutral—

'''J:''' They have to be neutral, whether it’s done through finances or through their—

'''S:''' So it’s like the old {{w|Emissions trading|cap-and-trade}} thing, but they’re just doing it—

'''B:''' But what’s the motivation for them to actually join this? Why are they joining—what’s the win for them? I mean, this is going cause some—they may have to pay fines if they don’t—

'''C:''' Haven’t you seen all of those social media boycotts of all the companies that are just eating carbon? I think young people today, they don’t want to buy products, they don’t want to engage with companies that are just destroying the environment. They’re a lot hipper than we were when we were young.

'''B:''' I don’t go on the young people’s social media, so I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

'''C:''' We’re all the same platform, Bob.

'''J:''' No, but Cara, you’re right because the boycotting is actually part of the issue now. Is that any company—well there’s people—it goes both ways, there’s boycotting going both ways. So we have boycotts happening where companies that don’t join are being boycotted, which is—I’m kind of in that camp. But there are people that are saying if they do join, that these companies are trying to take power away from the government.

'''C:''' Great!

'''J:''' And people are boycotting them, saying that they’re going to be a part of the future problem.

'''C:''' True.

'''J:''' As typical—

'''S:''' You’re kind of screwed either way, right?

'''J:''' It’s a clusterfuck going both ways. It’s a little concerning because I would like to think that these companies have humanity’s best in mind.

'''C:''' Why would you ever think that?

'''S:''' Well, I mean it’s always complicated, all right? Companies sometimes do good things, right? And they get PR out of it, and then you say, “Okay, are they doing it because they really care about their customers, or do they really care about the planet?” They’re living on this planet, too, and some of their profits, actually—there are lots of companies who are losing profits because of climate change. So they’re invested in it as well, but then you have to wonder, are they ''just'' doing it for the PR, do they have an ulterior motive [inaudible]—

'''C:''' But also, does that matter?

'''S:''' That’s a good question, does it really matter?

'''J:''' It just depends on what the result is.

'''S:''' If you do the right thing for the wrong reason and it helps, is that—how much do you care about the motivation?

'''C:''' I mean, when it comes to climate change, I honestly don’t mind.

'''E:''' I think they’re also trying to prevent themselves from being handed down punishments by governments for not meeting certain criteria. So they’re kind of trying to stay one step ahead of that because that’s terrible for their PR.

'''C:''' They’re not going to get any punishment. The governments are in the pocket of lobbyists anyway.

'''S:''' But if they do get off their ass and actually do something, it’s probably going to be shortsighted and draconian, and the companies are afraid of what ''might'' happen if some other populist takes control. Who knows—politics now are so—we thought they bad, 2016 to 2020. They’re even worse.

'''J:''' And the trillionaires are doing nothing. We have—

'''S:''' Well, some of them are signing onto this accord.

'''E:''' Some of them are.

'''J:''' So what, though? They’re signing on, but that—they’re the trillionaires. They have the money. They could be throwing down half their wealth to try to save the planet but that hasn’t happened yet.

'''S:''' That wouldn’t be enough.

'''B:''' Imagine $500 billion’s half your wealth.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''

[inaudible] 

'''B:''' Sorry.

''(audience laughter)''

'''J:''' Of course, there was an unspoken sentence in there, Bob. Something about Halloween, right?

'''B:''' No. It’s just that I don’t have $500 billion.

''(laughter)''

'''B:''' And I want it.

'''C:''' 2035 and SGU, we’re not making it. We’re just—we still got a long ways to go before—

'''E:''' Scratching that, scratching that—

'''C:''' Before we break even a million. Definitely not a billion.

'''J:''' So we’ll just have to wait and see. I feel like what do we have to lose? No other government—I mean, Denver—I’m sorry, Colorado and California, these are local governments, but they’re kind of signing on now, too, and they’re starting to pressure the companies that are—

'''S:''' But they’ve been doing that for years. And here’s the thing: if you look at—like recently I saw over the last thirty years—as I was looking in preparation for this—last thirty years, what has been the energy mix of the world’s energy infrastructure? Right, you’ve seen this chart. I sent this out. So, if you look at all the fossil fuels, they were increasing up until around 2025? And then they leveled off. Coal has decreased a little bit, but it’s overtaken by natural gas. But, overall, fossil fuel has been about level; it’s not decreasing, even now! What’s happening—

'''E:''' It’s population.

'''C:''' Because there’s so many more people now.

'''S:''' Right, it’s 8.8 billion people.

'''B:''' Its ''proportion'' has been decreasing.

'''S:''' Yeah, so there’s been an expansion of renewable, a little bit of nuclear—now that the {{w|Generation IV reactor|Gen IV plants}} just coming online—

'''E:''' About time.

'''S:''' But they only have a few years before the older plants really, seriously need to be {{w|Nuclear decommissioning|decommissioned}}. That’s a looming disaster, by the way.

'''B:''' Yeah, but when the {{w|Fusion power|fusion plants}} come online, we’ll be in good shape.

'''S:''' Yeah, right.

'''B:''' Come on.

'''S:''' We’re still 20 years away.

'''B:''' It’s real close.

'''S:''' We’re still 20 years away.

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' It’s not 20 years away; it’s 15 years away.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' Such an optimist.

'''S:''' So renewable’s increasing, nuclear’s kind of stable, maybe increasing a little bit, but that’s just taking up all the new expansion of total global energy.

'''B:''' Right, which is something.

'''S:''' But fossil fuels are flat! We’re not decreasing fossil fuels.

'''J:''' We’re maintaining the same carbon output.

'''S:''' Over the last—we’ve been talking about this for how long? We haven’t been able—

'''C:''' How long has it been? You guys are old now.

'''S:''' 30 years.

'''E:''' Hey!

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' Okay, spring chicken.

'''C:''' Hey, well, now…

'''B:''' Yeah, when’s your {{w|Social Security (United States)|social security}} kicking in? Not too far away.

'''E:''' Yeah, right?

'''C:''' I got like a whole decade ahead of me at least.

'''J:''' Do you still have social security? [inaudible]

'''C:''' No, it’s completely insolvent.

'''S:''' All right, so, now we have to wait for IKEA to save us, is that what you’re telling me?

'''C:''' No, the Global Corporate Alliance.

'''B:''' ''(sarcasm)'' That doesn’t sound evil.

'''J:''' “We got this.”

'''C:''' That ''does'' sound evil. ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' How could that ''not'' be evil?

'''J:''' We’ll see what happens.

'''B:''' What else do they got?

=== Fourth Domain of Life (14:14) ===

'''S:''' All right. Guys, let me ask you a question, especially Bob. How many {{w|Domain (biology)|domains}} of life are there?

'''B:''' Wait, there was—oh, crap. There’s bacteria, archaea, prokaryotes—

'''S:''' Those are the prokaryotes.

'''B:''' Now, wait. No.

'''C:''' Yes.

'''B:''' No, no, eukaryotes.

'''C:''' And eukaryotes.

'''B:''' {{w|Archaea}}, {{w|Bacteria}}, {{w|Eukarya}}, and…

'''S:''' So, traditionally, that’s it.

''(Rogues assent.)''

'''S:''' Those three.

'''B:''' Oof. Thought I was missing something.

'''S:''' But there’s a fourth.

'''B:''' Whaa?

'''S:''' There’s a new, fourth domain of life.

'''B:''' Ooh, I know what you’re saying.

'''E:''' That is crazy.

'''S:''' And the name will pretty much give it away.

'''B:''' Of course.

'''S:''' The name is ''Synthetica''.

'''B:''' Yes! About time.

'''S:''' So now there’s a fourth domain of life.

'''B:''' Wait, but is that recognized now?

'''S:''' Well, hang on! We’ll get there.

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' Let’s back up a little bit.

====Revisiting GMOs (15:00)====

'''S:''' So again, we’re going to give the arc, right? We’re talking about {{w|genetic engineering}}, right? Initially, this kind of came on our radar around 2010, maybe 2012, that kind of area, right?

'''B:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Something like that—when started talking about GMOs, right? {{w|Genetically modified organisms}}. And there was a big {{w|GMO conspiracy theories|anti-GMO movement}}, which lasted deep into the 2020s.

'''C:''' Oh my god, we talked about that like every week on the show back then.

'''S:''' Well, it’s because it became—

'''E:''' Well, that’s because, right, it’s not our fault. It’s their fault!

'''S:''' It became a huge thing.

'''C:''' That’s true.

'''S:''' It was like there was a major science denial thing, even among skeptics initially, but I think we sort of turned the boat around for skeptics at first. And then—but then politically it was a really hard sell for awhile, however. But let me give you a history of what’s happened and why there’s really not much of an anti-GMO movement anymore.

'''B:''' That was a good win, man. That felt good.

'''S:''' Well, it was a good win for the wrong reason. And I’ll explain why. So, first, {{w|papaya ringspot virus}} started around—by 2006, this actually goes back decades before that, had slashed papaya production by 50%. By that time, also, there was basically no farm in Hawaii, no papaya farm, that didn’t have the ring spot virus, so it was basically obliterating the papaya industry. In 1998 a {{w|Papaya#Genetically_engineered_cultivars|GMO papaya}} was introduced, which had the viral inclusion in it, the viral DNA in it. And that was how it conferred resistance to the virus. So, basically, there would be no papaya industry—and going back, this is like going back to 2015—there would be no papaya industry without GMO papaya, which is ironic because Hawaii was one of the most anti-GMO states, but they quietly adopted GMO papayas, because they would be f’ed without it.

'''C:''' But that didn’t really change sentiment back then, it felt like.

'''S:''' It didn’t because it was under the radar.

'''C:''' And that’s because all the staple crops still—they were mostly GM, but people—

'''S:''' All the anti-GMO people just ignored the papaya story.

'''C:''' Although they ate it.

'''S:''' They ate the papaya.

'''E:''' Of course they did.

'''S:''' All right. The {{w|American chestnut|American chestnut tree}}—there was a fungus, which was—

'''J:''' That was back in, when, like the 60s?

'''S:''' That wiped out the American chestnut in the 1950s.

'''J:''' The 50s.

'''S:''' And so we grew up with chestnuts but the trees were just basically dying away. This is like eastern United States, a very, very common tree. It was almost like the most common tree in our part of the world up until we were children, then it was gone. Just totally gonzo.

'''C:''' I don’t think I’ve ever ''eaten'' a chestnut. Is that a thing people eat?

'''S:''' However—

'''J:''' That’s at Thanksgiving.

'''E:''' You know that song? ''(starts singing)'' "Chestnuts roast—"

'''C:''' It’s a song. I mean, I've never had a chestnut.

'''B:''' Come on, I eat about three of those a ''year'', what are you doing?

'''E:''' You’ve never had a chestnut?

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' But in 2019 they approved a GMO American chestnut tree that was resistant to the fungus that wiped it out. It was years before they planted it, but now there’s a thriving American chestnut industry.

'''C:''' You East-coasters are weird.

'''S:''' So those were good wins, but they were below the radar for whatever reason. But here’s the one that I—well, there’s two, there’s two that ''really'' drove it home. The first one—in 2024, the {{w|Cavendish banana}} industry completely collapsed—

'''E:''' Boom.

'''S:''' Due to {{w|Panama disease}}.

'''B:''' Cavendish banana? That’s the banana we all think of when you think of a banana, Cavendish.

'''E:''' Right, common.

'''S:''' At the time. At the time, that was banana.

'''B:''' That was it.

'''E:''' And that was it, one.

'''S:''' So there was the {{w|Gros Michel banana|Gros Michel}}, which died out in the early 20th century, and there was the Cavendish, which died out—

'''C:''' And that’s the one you guys always used to talk about. {{Link needed}}  You loved those weird Gros Michels.

'''S:''' They’re back, though.

'''J:''' I remember you cried when we found out that they were gone.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' Well, what the hell? We knew it was coming for years, too. We were talking about it on the show. The banana’s going to be going.

'''C:''' ''(feigns crying)'' It still surprised you.

'''S:''' It still surprised me. Fusarium wilt, or Tropical Race 4, or Panama Disease, completely wiped out the Cavendish industry. I think the last holdout was South America, but it was detected in South America in 2019, and that’s when they knew "now it’s a matter of time." Once they had one banana that went ''thbbt'', that’s it.

'''B:''' Remember that? No ice cream sundaes for a little while?

'''S:''' We went years without a banana.

'''B:''' That was bad, man.

'''S:''' But even before that, before 2024, when the Cavendish was gone, back in 2017, Australian researchers had developed a Panama disease-resistant banana. <ref>[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/gm-banana-shows-promise-against-deadly-fungus-strain# Science: GM banana shows promise against deadly fungus strain]</ref>

'''C:''' Oh, it came out of Australia? I didn’t realize that.

'''S:''' It came out of Australia in 2017.

'''E:''' Well done! Well done, audience. Well done.

'''J:''' That was beginning of the banana hubbub.

'''S:''' It was the beginning of the banana hubbub—

'''E:''' I think also known as a "banana-rama".

'''C:''' Banana-rama.

'''S:''' Banana-rama…but, however, nobody really knew about it until the "bananapocalypse".

'''J:''' Bananapocalypse.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' The bananapocalypse wiped out the Cavendish and then these Australian researchers were like, "Hey, we got the GMO."

'''E:''' "We got this."

'''S:''' We got the resistant banana.

'''B:''' We’re ready to go.

'''S:''' But the thing is, even that might not have—

'''B:''' "We got this."

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' "We got this," right. Even that might not have been enough because the Cavendish—I love it, it’s a desert banana. It was the number one export fruit before it was wiped out.

'''J:''' That banana fed countries.

'''S:''' Well, no, no, not ''that'' banana — other bananas.

'''J:''' What other bananas?

'''S:''' There are staple bananas that are, basically, like what we would call plantains.

'''J:''' Oh, that’s right.

'''S:''' They’re starchy bananas, and you cook with them.

'''C:''' (in Spanish) ''[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pl%C3%A1tano_(desambiguaci%C3%B3n) Plátanos].''

'''B:''' They’re awesome.

'''C:''' Steve, why are you so into bananas?

'''S:''' I don’t know.

'''C:''' You’re really into bananas.

'''S:''' I’ve just always loved them. My favorite fruit.

'''C:''' That’s fair.

'''B:''' He tried to grow them for years and failed utterly.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' That’s right! Remember, back in the teens [2010s]—

'''J:''' Did I ever tell you that I hated those goddamn banana plants?

'''S:''' They were in our studio.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' I know. They were getting in—and his cats were pissing in the banana plants.

'''E:''' The cats!

'''B:''' That’s what it was I remember that.

'''C:''' I remember that! That’s when I first joined the SGU, way back then. They were in the basement.

'''J:''' Steve and I almost got into a fistfight once in our entire life and it was over cats pissing in the studio in the banana plants.

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' Those cats are dead now.

'''C:''' A little behind-the-scenes info.

'''S:''' Maybe I should try again. But anyway, something like 20% of the world are dependent on bananas for their staple calories.

'''E:''' That’s a lot.

'''S:''' When those started succumbing to versions of Panama disease, then we were starting to have Africa and Southeast Asia—there was starvation looming—that’s when the world’s like, "Okay, this is not just our ice cream sundaes anymore. We can’t feed these people unless we get these banana cultivars back online.

'''C:''' This GM technology is looking ''pretty'' good right now.

'''S:''' GM technology saved the banana industry and, basically, lots of starving Africans. And then—here’s the double whammy—2026, the citrus industry was completely wiped out by {{w|citrus greening disease|citrus greening}}}.

'''E:''' That was awful.

'''C:''' I remember that.

'''B:''' That was horrible.

'''S:''' And again, we talked about that for at least 15 years before it hit. Remember Kevin [inaudible]? 

'''C:''' He used to come on all the time.

'''S:''' He would always tell us, "Man, when citrus greening wipes out the citrus fruit—"{{Link needed}}

'''E:''' Then you’re going to see some—

'''C:''' He was right.

'''S:''' He was absolutely right. That objection to—so, of course, in 2031, the first GMO orange with resistance genes from spinach was planted. They were working on that for years and years.<ref>[https://gmoanswers.com/biotechnology-solution-citrus-greening GMO Answers: Biotechnology as a Solution to Citrus Greening]</ref> And it essentially resurrected the citrus industry, not only in Florida but also in Australia and in other parts of the world where they grow citrus.

'''C:''' Well now they can grow them pretty much anywhere. It was smart.

'''B:''' Remember they were selling {{w|screwdriver (cocktail)|screwdrivers}} half-price at the bars?

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' So here we are. There’s 8.8 billion people on the planet.

'''C:''' God, that’s a lot of people.

'''S:''' It's a lot of people. Essentially, everyone knows, except for a shrinking fringe, that there is no agriculture without GMOs, bottom line. We would not be able to feed the planet without GMOs. There are still the extremists who are like, "Yeah, let 'em starve, and then everything will be fine."

'''J:''' Oh, great, yeah.

'''C:''' Well, those people are terrible.

'''E:''' Heartless.

'''B:''' They’re so marginalized now."

'''S:''' Now they’re totally—even Greenpeace, remember that? What was that, 2030 or something when {{w|Greenpeace}} was like, "Yeah, okay, I guess we have to feed people. We can’t let people starve."

'''E:''' It only took them decades.

'''S:''' So you don’t really hear anything from the anti-GMO crowd anymore, right?

'''C:''' Not really. They’re pretty fringy.

'''S:''' They’re pretty fringy. There’s one more thing that happened, too. So this is good. GR-5, this is the fifth generation {{w|golden rice}} is now online, but even back to GR-2, which was the first one planted in Bangladesh in 2019 <ref>[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/bangladesh-could-be-first-cultivate-golden-rice-genetically-altered-fight-blindness Science: Bangladesh could be the first to cultivate Golden Rice, genetically altered to fight blindness]</ref>, if you guys remember that. So, before Golden Rice, there were 500,000, ''500,000'' children throughout the world who would go blind from {{w|vitamin A deficiency}} every year, and half of those would die within a year. Not only that, but vitamin A deficiency, even if it doesn’t make you go blind or kill you, it leaves you with low resistance, susceptible, vulnerable to other infections. So, remember all the {{w|measles}} outbreaks in 2019, 2020, 2021?

'''J:''' But that was because of anti-vax.

'''S:''' Well, even when there was an anti-vax [movement], the children in Africa especially were susceptible to measles because they had relative vitamin A deficiency.

'''J:''' Oh, I never knew that.

'''S:''' So, guess how many children went blind in 2035 so far—it’s almost at the end of the year—due to vitamin A deficiency?

'''C:''' Less than 500,000.

'''S:''' ''3,000''.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''E:''' They shaved all that.

'''C:''' That’s a big difference.

'''S:''' It’s kind of like anything. When you easily fix the problem, it goes away. So anyway, it’s hard to argue with success.

'''C:''' So let’s not.

'''J:''' But now…

'''S:''' But now, but wait, but of course you know—

'''C:''' But wait, there’s more!

'''E:''' It gets better?

====Synthetica (23:55)====

'''S:''' Well, no. So that’s the good news. The good news is over now. Now we’re getting into—so have you guys heard the term "gen-craft"? This is kind of a new term. I think we might have mentioned it right before. It’s all under genetic engineering, but it’s not genetic ''modification''. It’s basically crafting life from scratch.

'''C:''' This is the synthetic stuff.

'''S:''' This is the synthetic stuff, right. We’ve been talking about this since, I think, 2017, 2018?

'''C:''' Venter. Craig Venter. <ref>[https://www.nature.com/news/minimal-cell-raises-stakes-in-race-to-harness-synthetic-life-1.19633 Nature: ‘Minimal’ cell raises stakes in race to harness synthetic life]</ref>

'''S:''' Venter. They first did bacteria and then they did colonies, multicellular, and then, actually, not just multicellular pseudo-colonies, but now the first actual multicellular, completely synthetic creatures. Again, we’ve talked about their being created, but the first one was approved for human consumption by the {{w|Food and Drug Administration|FDA}}.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''C:''' Oh, they got it passed!

'''S:''' They got it passed.

'''C, E:''' Wow.

'''J:''' And it’s disgusting.

'''S:''' Hang on.

'''C:''' Don’t look at it pre-processed.

'''E:''' Just put a lot of to'''mah'''to sauce on it.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' ''(in British accent)'' Tomato sauce.

'''S:''' So it’s ''cibumlimax''—that’s a terrible name—''ventera.''

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' It basically means "[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cibus#Noun meat] {{w|slug}}". And then ''ventera'' is for Craig Venter.

'''E:''' All right, Jay, you’re right. ''(laughs)''

'''C:''' They’re going to come up with some yummy brand names for this [inaudible].

'''E:''' Yeah, something else…

'''S:''' That’s the {{w|taxonomy (biology)|taxonomical}} name. It’s the {{w|domain (biology)|domain}} Synthetica and then they have the "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ''cibumlimax ventera.''"

'''C:''' Yeah, we don’t go to the barbecue place and ask for some, like, what’s the Latin name for a cow? ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' They’ll call it something—

'''C:''' Something "bovine."

'''E:''' Oh, ''bovinus, uh, whateverus.''

'''S:''' Remember they [inaudible] {{w|veggie burgers}}, then the {{w|Impossible_Foods#Impossible_Burger|Impossible Burger}}, then the {{w|Insects as food|Insect Burgers}}, right? The bug burgers.

'''B:''' We’ll call it a "blobby burger." I like that.

'''S:''' No, a "slug burger." Slug burger.

'''E:''' Slug burgers.

'''B:''' Slug? No, blobby burgers.

'''C:''' That is ''not'' appetizing.

'''J:''' You know what, though? You remember how I was so freaked out you were trying to make me eat—

'''C:''' Impossible burgers.

'''J:''' —cricket meat, cricket wheat or something?

'''C:''' Oh, yeah, {{w|cricket flour}}.

'''E:''' Cricket flour!

'''S:''' Cricket flour. That’s a staple, now, Jay.

''(crosstalk)''

'''J:''' I’m proud to say I’ve never eaten it, and—

'''C:''' Still!?

'''S:''' You probably have. I guarantee you have.

'''C:''' You have and you didn’t even know it.

'''E:''' [inaudible] Restaurants are using it. You’ve eaten it.

'''S:''' No they don’t. No they don’t.

'''C:''' No they don’t.

'''B:''' They don’t.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' That’s the thing.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' If you have eaten processed food from the supermarket that is a wheat-like product—

'''J:''' That’s bullshit.

'''C:''' Jay, it’s in ''everything'' now.

'''E:''' Have you read your ingredients?

'''S:''' It’s in everything.

'''B:''' Jay, I’m going to admit right now: Jay was having a hamburger and I made an insect burger, and he didn’t know it, and I [inaudible]. He ate it and said nothing. I didn’t say a word ’til just—

'''J:''' When did this happen?

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' Six months ago. Jay, you loved it. You loved it, dude.

'''S:''' Insect burgers are old news. Now we have slug burgers.

'''B:''' Blobby burgers.

'''C:''' But we can call them slug burgers.

'''E:''' No, no, we’ll come up with something—

'''S:''' They’re going to call it something else.

'''C:''' Can we called them "craft burgers," since they come from gen-craft?

'''E:''' Oh, gen-craft!

''(crosstalk)''

'''J:''' You know what the thing is? The slugs look like—remember {{w|pink slime}}? McDonald’s {{w|Chicken McNuggets}}.

'''S:''' You’ve seen the videos?

'''J:''' They look like pink slime!

'''C:''' I know, but that’s why you don’t look at that. We don’t cook them.

'''S:''' It’s just a blob of meat-like protein. It’s just the amino acids and whatever for… And then they grind it up and it looks [like] meat.

'''B:''' It’s got no central nervous system, right? So there’s no—

'''E:''' Right.

'''S:''' Yeah. It has nerves because it can move and it can feed, and it has some kind of neuronal kind of ganglia.

'''E:''' Ganglia?

'''C:''' The vegans aren’t into this, huh?

'''S:''' But it’s like an invertebrate. It’s like an insect or a plant.

'''C:''' Steve, so the vegans won’t eat this, huh?

'''S:''' Why not? I don’t know. Probably not.

'''C:''' I think that—some of them still don’t eat insects.

'''S:''' Yeah, if they don’t eat insects, they won’t eat this.

'''C:''' Yeah, it’s like a hard-line thing.

'''S:''' But it has no face.

'''E:''' Has no face!

'''S:''' Nothing with the face thing.

''(audience laughter)''

'''C:''' Yeah, that’s a big part of—I don’t eat anything with a face.

'''S:''' No face.

'''B:''' Did you see the scientists who drew the face on one?

''(laughter)''

'''E:''' Yes, yes!

'''B:''' It’s hilarious.

'''S:''' So, it may still be year or two before we could actually get these at the {{w|Hungry Jack’s}} or whatever.

''(audience laughter, applause)''

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' It’s just protein, right? It’s just like the insect wheat. Now we got slug burgers, slug protein. And you could mass produce these things. These eat slime or something. You see them crawling around eat algae, but they’re working on ones that can photosynthesize.

'''C:''' Oh, that’s smart! Just kind of direct—

'''S:''' So guess how many genes are in this synthetic slug?

'''J:''' Like what, 300 or something?

'''B:''' Wait, no. How many genes? So we’ve got far fewer genes than we anticipated when we first—was it 20,000?

'''S:''' We have 10,000.

'''B:''' So, how about, like, 8,000?

'''S:''' 400.

'''C, J:''' 400!

'''E:''' That’s all?

'''S:''' But how much does a slug have?

'''J:''' I don’t know.

'''S:''' 428. An actual slug.

'''B:''' Oh, that’s right. It’s really efficient, huh?

'''S:''' Yeah, it’s a little bit more efficient than an actual slug. But the genes have, like, no {{w|exon|exons}}. Or no {{w|intron|introns}}.

'''B:''' They work. There’s no junk DNA.

'''C:''' So, Steve, is that why decided to just, kind of do this as a gen-craft, like a synthetic biology sit—instead of just genetically modifying the slug?

'''S:''' Because you’re not going to get animal protein in an insect.

'''C:''' That’s true. If you eat a slug, you’re not going to get a high level—you get a little bit of protein.

'''S:''' Vertebrate protein [inaudible]. Muscle pro—but this is like making muscle-like protein.

'''C:''' Oh, it’s so gross and weird. I love it.

'''J:''' But why didn’t they just do it like back when they started to come up with lab meat?

'''S:''' But the lab-grown meat thing never really panned out.

'''J:''' Why did they—But what happened?

'''S:''' It’s too energy-intensive. You can get—I’ve had the lab-grown meat thing, and they’re fine, but they’re still a little bit expensive.

'''C:''' But guys, we’re in a water crisis. We can’t use that much water to produce—

'''S:''' It’s very water-intensive.

'''C:''' Yeah, we can’t do it.

'''B:''' Steve, when they were developing Blobby the Slug, did they figure out some of the junk DNA? Like, "Oh, this junk DNA’s important because it does something that we didn’t think it did."

'''S:''' There’s no junk DNA in it because it’s totally—So, Venter gave an interview about it. They’ve written articles about it. Every single gene was completely synthesized. And over the last 20 years, they’ve learned what the minimum number of genes that are absolutely necessary for something to live, something to develop—

'''B:''' For bacteria and stuff, but microorganisms—

'''S:''' But it turns out it wasn’t that hard. If you’re building a really simple multicellular creature, most of the genes are for just the cells to live, and then just getting them to differentiate a little bit differently so they break up the work—you know what I mean?—they’re not all doing the same thing. It’s not that hard. It actually turned out to be not that hard.

'''C:''' And remember, this thing doesn’t have to live in the wild. It doesn’t have to do a lot of the work.

'''S:''' All it has to do is eat.

'''C:''' It just has to eat and produce meat for us, or protein for us.

'''E:''' It doesn’t have to develop a ''defense'' mechanism.

'''J:''' I know people like that.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' What if we put it in the wild? Could it evolve?

'''S:''' No. It can’t survive in the wild.

'''C:''' It would die, I think. It seems like—

'''S:''' It has no defense.

'''C:''' It has no evolutionary fitness.

'''E:''' [inaudible]

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' All the other animals would be like, "Look at that slab of protein!"

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' "It can’t get away, can’t do anything. Let’s go eat it!"

'''E:''' Is there a waste product or a byproduct of it?

'''S:''' I mean, it does poop, apparently. But I think they just recycle that.

'''C:''' Eww!

'''J:''' Why can’t they just make something that poops meat?

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' Jay!

'''S:''' We’ll get right on that.

'''C:''' The most scientifically astute question.

'''J:''' They could call it a "shit burger"! ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' That’ll sell!

'''J:''' I’m not eatin' that shit!

'''S:''' Yeah, this is the guy who won’t eat a bug burger.

'''C:''' Meat poop!

'''S:''' But he wants to eat a shit burger.

'''J:''' I would try a shit burger.

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' Comes out as sausage links, already cased, ready to go.

'''C:''' Quote of the day from Jay. He tries shit burger won’t eat cricket powder. ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' I just have a thing about bugs.

'''S:''' But not slugs. Slugs are okay.

'''C:''' But unh-unh, feces!

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' So, of course, of course there’s already an anti-gen-craft movement, saying—

'''E:''' Oh, this is the bad news. This is the bad news.

'''J:''' This is what you’ve been waiting for.

'''S:''' —this is the bad news—saying that "it ain’t natural," you know? It’s all the same arguments, recycled over the last 30 years of doing this show. It’s the same thing, right? "It’s not natural. It hasn’t been tested enough."

'''B:''' "It’s cruel. It’s cruel."

'''S:''' They’re trying to say that—

'''B:''' I’ve seen people that—

'''S:''' I know, but that’s a hard—this thing is like engineered not to experience its own existence.

'''E:''' "We’re playing God." Playing God complex.

'''C:''' "Playing God." Yeah, I’ve seen that one a lot.

'''B:''' But they’re saying they can’t detect the fact that they are having some sort of existence, some quality of—

'''S:''' Prove that they don’t know they’re being killed, whatever. It’s a slug.

'''C:''' Aww.

'''J:''' Yeah, but…

'''S:''' It’s not even cute. They designed it to not be cute.

'''E:''' Right. It’s not—it doesn’t have

'''C:''' But somethings things that are really ugly are a little bit cute.

'''S:''' Oh, stop it.

'''C:''' It’s true!

'''J:''' You shouldn’t talk about your boyfriend like that.

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' You’ve been going into the Aug too much and putting faces on these slugs.

'''C:''' You know I don’t have a boyfriend.

'''B:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' So you have to cut down your time.

'''C:''' All right, all right, all right, all right. I like the Aug.

'''S:''' So we’ll see. They’re already writing virtual mails to their congresspersons. And Oregon already banned it. Already banned in Oregon.

'''B:''' Of course they did. I’d be shocked if they didn’t.

'''E:''' Yeah, well.

'''S:''' It’s terrible. So we’ll see. This is another round, now. We’ll see what they do. They’re still sort of creating their message. But this is, I think, going to be our thing for the next few years, now, is dealing with the anti-gen-craft crowd.

'''B:''' Yeah, but don’t forget. This is a new domain of life. This is the first. This the first application of that creation. I think—

'''C:''' Well, they’ve done more in the lab. This is the first one that we’re able to ''consume''. And that’s cool.

'''B:''' And that’s great, but who knows what they’re going to come with with gen-craft.

'''S:''' All right, but here’s the thing.

'''B:''' Something that’s going to make a blobby burger look like, pff, whatever. Come on!

'''S:''' The thing is, they’re not releasing this into the wild. This is a lab creature, right? I think the big fight’s going to come the first time they want to release something into the wild.

'''B:''' Well, yeah.

'''S:''' Or they grow a crop in a field.

'''E:''' Oh, there’s going to be some renegade scientist who tries to do this and—

'''S:''' Probably in China.

'''E:''' Right, right. The old CRISPR—from way back when.

'''S:''' {{w|CRISPR_gene_editing#Human_germline_modification|The CRISPR babies.}}

'''C:''' CRISPR baby. Aww.

'''S:''' Yeah, they’re still kicking, I understand.

'''E:''' Yeah!

'''B:''' They can make some that, like, eat all the plastic in the oceans… We know how big of a problem that is.

'''E:''' Yeah! Yes!

'''S:''' So they’re already doing that with the bacteria. They made the ones that can eat oil spills, that can eat plastic—

'''C:''' Yeah, they’re working; they’re just working slowly.

'''S:''' —that can eat carbon. So, they’re all there. There’s just a lot in various stages of the regulatory procedure. Some are being used, but they still haven’t pulled the trigger on releasing a Synthetica into the wild. I think that’s going to be the next step.

'''J:''' As they should be because that’s super dangerous.

'''B:''' It is.

'''S:''' It depends.

'''E:''' Well, it depends on the form.

'''C:''' We have to hear from the experts. The regulatory boards are being formed, the ethics boards, and they’re figuring it out.

'''S:''' But here’s one thing: they cannot, by design, cross-pollinate or {{w|Hybrid (biology)|interbreed}} with normal life, with the other three domains of life.

'''C:''' Exactly.

'''E:''' Right. Where’s the—no compatibility.

'''S:''' They’re producing—

'''J:''' How do we know?

'''S:''' Maybe people will figure it out.

'''C:''' And these organisms are just pure prey animals at this point. They’re not…

'''B:''' But Steve, what—

'''C:''' ''(as {{w|Ian Malcolm (character)|Dr. Ian Malcolm}})'' "Life finds a way."

'''S:''' Life find a way…

'''B:''' They’ve done—I remember, way back in 2019, I talked about how they took bacteria and they were turning them into multicellular because they were able to—

'''S:''' Yeah, this is an extension of that.

'''B:''' So, imagine taking Archea or Bacteria with their exotic metabolisms, creating multicellular life out of them. So then, what, would that fall under Synthetica? Or would that be—

'''S:''' It depends. So, by definition—

'''B:''' We’ve become Eukarya, then—

'''C:''' Yeah, how are they defining these?

'''S:''' By definition, if you are a member of the domain Synthetica, all of your genes have been created entirely artificially.

'''E:''' 100%.

'''B:''' Okay.

'''C:''' Even if you perfectly replicate a… gotcha.

'''S:''' Yes. That’s a loophole. You can replicate a gene that exists in other creatures, but you have to have completely manufactured that—

'''J:''' We’re going to have to—

'''C:''' And it’s got to be trademarked. You can read it in the DNA.

'''J:''' We’re now going to have to train—

'''S:''' At the very least, they take out all the junk and all that stuff.

'''J:''' I’m serious. We have to train {{w|Blade Runner|Blade Runners}} to kill these things.

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' "Slug runners."

'''J:''' Slug runners!

'''S:''' ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' Because they get out, think about it, they get it out and then they don’t want to be eaten. And next thing you know, they’re punching holes through walls and they’re pissed off at people.

'''C:''' With their little slug hands! ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' The tears in the rain.

'''J:''' They go back to the scientists who made them.

'''E:''' Extended protoplasm arm…

'''C:''' Their [inaudible]. ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' "I don’t want to be a burger!" "You’re a slug!" Slug runners, yeah. All right.

===Social Media, CAD, & the ''Aug'' (35:25)===

'''B:''' All right, what do we got next?

'''S:''' What do we got next? We have—

'''C:''' Am I next?

'''S:''' Yes. Cara is next with—what’s the latest, Cara, with social media?

'''C:''' Oh, god, there’s so much to talk about, you guys.

'''S:''' This is overwhelming.

'''C:''' The main article that I wanted to cover today was kind of the big—and I know you all saw this. This was the headline everywhere. It just happened two days ago, and we’re still dealing with the fallout. We’re going to be dealing with fallout for awhile. So you guys know Control-Alt-Delete, this hacker movement, "CAD."

'''S:''' CAD.

'''E:''' CADs. C-A-D.

'''C:''' Yeah, a lot of people call them "CADs", C-A-D.

'''S & B:''' All the cool people call them CADs.

'''E:''' I still like "Control Alt Delete," though.

'''C:''' I guess I’m not cool. And Control-Alt-Delete is this kind-of underground—we still don’t know who they are, right? There have been a couple of examples in the news where somebody came out and was like, "I’m Control-Alt-Delete," but nobody actually believes them.

'''S:''' If you admit to being CAD, you’re not CAD.

'''C:''' Then you’re not CAD.

'''E:''' Is that the {{w|Spartacus (film)#"I'm_Spartacus!"|Spartacus}} moment? "I am Spartacus! ''I'' am Spartacus"…

'''S:''' No, it’s not. It’s loser wannabes. The real people, you will never find out who they are.

'''C:''' So Control-Alt-Delete has been targeting a lot of these new platforms. The biggest one, the one that’s been the hardest kind to get into is the one that most of us are on, the Aug, right? I mean, I’ve been wearing—I’ve had my Aug on all night, actually. I think it’s kind of fun, especially when you’re sick and a little bit loopy.

''(Rogue whistles "loopy" sound effect)''

'''C:''' I don’t know if all of you are in it right now. We don’t really have to be sitting here.

'''E:''' Nah, I turned mine off.

'''S:''' Intermittently.

'''C:''' Yeah, you turn yours off.

'''B:''' I was told I could not bring my Aug, and I’m feeling—I’m getting {{w|separation anxiety disorder|separation anxiety}}.

'''C:''' Well, Bob, that’s because you just get lost.

'''S:''' That’s because when you’re using Aug, Bob—

'''J:''' You go off into worlds…

'''S:''' Yeah, you are staring off into space. You look creepy.

'''C:''' And then we’re like, "Bob? Hello! It’s your turn."

'''E:''' Creepi''er''.

''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' But there’s a lot of cool stuff I’m doing. You know?

'''C:''' I know! ''(Rogues crosstalk.)'' You have to use Aug to improve your work, dude.

'''S:''' Checking your V-mail and stuff while we’re doing the show.

'''J:''' Do that shit at home. Don’t Aug on my time.

'''B:''' But looking at Jay without my filter on is ''hard''.

'''C:''' That’s mean!

'''J:''' Hey, man!

'''B:''' Sorry, Jay.

'''J:''' Thanks, Bob.

'''B:''' Look! He’s not shaved. Ugh.

'''C:''' I know.

'''J:''' ''(laughs)'' So you’re seeing a shaved version of me?

'''B:''' And the filter I put on his hair makes his hair look so cool.

'''J:''' What the f— is wrong with my hair?!

''(Cara & audience laughter)''

'''B:''' It’s cool. It’s nice, Jay, but the filter I have on your hair is awesome.

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' That blue streak? That’s cool.

'''B:''' Oh, yeah. And it moves and stuff.

'''C:''' I have to admit, it has been easier. Like, I don’t really like to wear makeup, and so I like thinking that a lot of people are looking at me in Aug-land like I’m a little improved. It’s 2.0. So, you know that the Aug has been kind of the one that’s taken off the most. There’s some offshoots and stuff, but I’m not using them. Are you guys? ''(guys all say no)'' Aug has everything we need, right? It has all of our social stats. It has our social currency. I mean, it’s tied into my bank accounts, all of them, I think.

'''E:''' Yep, pretty much. Yeah, for me as well.

'''C:''' Yeah, pretty much. And we’ve been kind of on the fence about how it’s plugging more things into it.

'''S:''' In 2032, I think it was, insurance companies will now pay for Aug doctor visits.

'''C:''' Well there you go!

'''B:''' Wow! How’d I miss that?

'''E:''' Doesn’t get more mainstream than that.

'''C:''' I know. Exactly. It’s kind of hard ''not'' to be in the Aug at this point because—actually, it’s impossible. I don’t think I know anybody who’s not using Aug. Do you?

'''E:''' Everybody’s doing it.

'''S:''' You can’t function in society.

 '''C:''' You can’t function. How could you function—

'''S:''' It was like—

'''C:''' What ''did'' we do before Aug? We used—

'''S:''' We had to use our handheld phones…

'''E:''' It was a wallet or something.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' Oh my god. Remember that?

'''E:''' Remember cards!?

'''C:''' Oh, plastic cards! That’s so funny.

'''E:''' Oh my gosh. I kept my old ones. They’re in a file drawer.

'''J:''' You guys take it like it’s okay, and I’m not cool with it.

'''C:''' Are you still using paper money? ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' No. Of course not, but my point is this is a totailor—, totalerant—I can’t even say the word.

'''S, C, & E:''' Totalitarian.

'''J:''' —totalitarian’s wet dream.

'''E:''' Three t’s.

'''C:''' Jay, it ''is'' in China. It ''is'' in Russia, but the government doesn’t have their hands on Aug. I mean I know—

'''J:''' How the hell do you know that?

'''C:''' Well, I mean, they don’t own the companies.

'''E:''' They don’t admit to…

'''C:''' It’s private enterprises.

'''S:''' But that’s, again, the conspiracy theory. So we all know that Russia and China are complete Aug-totalitarian governments, right? If you live in China, you’re on their version of the Aug. They completely own you.

'''C:''' I think it’s still called {{w|WeChat}}.

'''S:''' Is it still WeChat?

'''C:''' Yeah, they never changed the name.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' Out in the West, in developed—in other parts of the world, the governments don’t control it—

'''B:''' And on the Moon, too.

'''S:''' —but corporations do, and some people argue that they’re actually more powerful than the government.

'''C:''' Absolutely.

'''S:''' They own us.

'''C:''' We’re still having this conversation—

'''S:''' We just don't know it.

'''C:''' —privacy versus convenience. And I think at this point—

'''S:''' People will ''always'' trade privacy for a little bit of convenience.

'''B:''' It’s insidious.

'''J:''' Back in 2020, {{w|Amazon (company)|Amazon}} was rated the first company and the number one company to truly have such an amazing amount of data on its customers that—it’s like a transcendent moment for a company to get to that level of data. And we were questioning back then, I mean ''I'' was. I was following this very closely back then. There’s no regulations for that level of data. No government in the world created regulation to deal with that.

'''C:''' I know.

'''S:''' Remember when {{w|Mark Zuckerberg|Zuckerberg}} gave all those testimonies before our Congress and no one believed a word he said?

'''E:''' Oh yeah!

'''C:''' But Jay, don’t act like you didn’t just buy something from those {{w|Targeted advertising|targeted ads}} the Aug gave you.

'''J:''' I literally just did as we were talking. ''(audience laughter)'' No, but the point is, though, we can’t—

'''B:''' I love targeted ads.

'''C:''' Me too. They’re ''so'' good now. They’re crazy good now.

'''B:''' [They] really know what I want.

'''J:''' I don’t know. We’re so hard-wired into this thing. We have to—

'''S:''' It’s scary how [inaudible].

'''E:''' The interdependencies—

'''J:''' We can’t go back. You can never go back. When cell phones came, there was no going [back] to a life that didn’t exist.

'''C:''' It’s part of our life. Yeah, it would be really hard at this point.

'''J:''' But this thing owns us.

'''C:''' But here’s the thing. Here’s the scary thing, and it’s something that we think we didn’t think would be possible because of the way that data is distributed in the cloud—and Bob, I know you know about this server farms and data centers. You understand this a lot better than I do. But apparently this is the new headline. So, Control-Alt-Delete managed, finally—and you know they’ve gone in and they’ve shut down server farms before. We keep seeing these headlines where something gets blacked out for a couple weeks and it takes awhile to put it back online. They finally somehow managed to trace the data of a packet of people. So 100,000 people—their entire Aug history has been erased.

'''B:''' Oh my god.

'''E:''' ''(cringing)'' Ooooooo!

'''B:''' They finally did it. They finally did it.

'''E:''' Backup and everything ''gone''?

'''C:''' They’re ghosts.

'''B:''' All the backups, all the—

'''S:''' Orphans, rights? Or virtual orphans.

'''C & E:''' Virtual orphans.

'''C:''' All their money. All of their proof of their education.

'''J:''' And there you go.

'''C:''' All of their social currency. Everything. Their history. All their memories, basically. We live via our photographs and our video recordings now.

'''B:''' I mean, how did they—

'''S:''' Their high scores on {{w|''Plants vs. Zombies''}} are gone. ''(audience laughter)''

'''B:''' How did they pull that off?!

'''C:''' {{w|''FarmVille''}}! Who knew ''that'' would stick around?

'''B:''' I really never thought they would be able to dit. Think of all the backups. It’s not one data center. You’ve got backups. You’ve got backups in the cloud, backups on the Moon. How did they get access to all of that?

'''C:''' Who did they know, right?

'''B:''' That’s scary as hell.

'''C:''' You would think. But this is, maybe, part of the problem, is that when a corporation, a multi-national corporation, owns these things—so they should be spread all over the world—it’s still only one ''company'', ultimately, right? It’s a conglomerate, but—

'''E:''' Inside job, maybe? Pirates within?

'''C:''' They must. They’ve got to have moles in there. They have to have access to enough information to know.

'''J:''' It was terrible what CAD did to these people It’s terrible. But the reason why they did it was to show that the companies, literally—look, these people don’t have lives anymore. What are these people going to do? They literally don’t exist in our system, in our collective [inaudible].

'''S:''' So, congratulations. They proved you could destroy somebody’s life by destroying their Aug—by making them virtual ghosts.

'''C:''' ''They’re'' the ones who did it.

'''S:''' But they’re the ones who did it.

'''C:''' The companies so far—these people on the Aug had been fine.

'''J:''' I don’t know. I don’t agree. I know that what they did was wrong, but I think that the point that they tried to make, they made, and it’s scary.

'''C:''' I think this is showing the dark side of {{w|hacktivism}}. As much as I agree with a lot of the posts that I’ve read from Control-Alt-Delete, I think they went too far this time. They went way too far.

'''S:''' They have a point, but they’re ''basically'' terrorists. I hate to use that word, but if you’re doing that—So, there’s a talk—I don’t know if this part of your news item, though—but talk of the {{w|United Nations|UN}}—are you going to get to that part? But the UN, basically, they’re considering a resolution to make, just so that they have more regulatory power to go after CAD, you know, Control-Alt-Delete—If you 'kill' somebody’s virtual history, that’s now virtual murder.

'''C:''' Oh! Like their—oh, because we all have our little {{w|Avatar (computing)|avatars}}. You can actually murder somebody in the Aug?

'''S:''' If you comp—like 100% erase somebody’s data so they can’t come back, that is virtual murder—

’’’C:’’’ So these guys could be tried in {{w|the Hague}}?

'''S:''' —because you create a virtual ghost. They can get tried in the Hague. If they ever catch them, they can get—

'''C:''' We know who they are.

'''E:''' Well, catching them’s going to be so hard.

'''J:''' If they catch those people…

'''B:''' Oh my god, yeah.

'''S:''' They’re done, they’re toast. But I’m sure it’s like cells. You might get one guy or one {{w|Clandestine cell system|cell}}, but you’ll never totally root out…

'''J:''' That’s the other thing, too. The other scary reality is—yeah, so Control-Alt-Delete, sure, they did something bad.

'''C:''' ''Really'' bad.

'''J:''' But there’s—okay, I don’t want to say ''real'' terrorists out there—but there are terrorist group that ''do'' want to tear down the society that we live in.

'''C:''' How is this different?

'''S:''' Well, how better to tear down society than to get rid of someone’s complete Aug history? Jay, imagine yourself as one of these people. What do you do?

'''J:''' You’re done. I don’t know.

'''S:''' You’re done. You’re cooked. Go live on a commune in the woods somewhere?

'''J:''' I think the point is that we’re missing—

'''S:''' [inaudible]

'''C:''' Some people already do that. There are people who aren’t in the Aug. I don’t know any of them, but I read about them sometimes.

'''E:''' The {{w|Off-the-grid|Off-Gridders}}! I love them. The Off-Gridders.

'''C:''' Yeah, the Off-Gridders! Yeah, they’re weird. There’s a TV show about them on Discovery.

'''E & C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' The Off-Gridders?

'''J:''' Do you guys think—and actually the show is pretty cool—but do you guys think, though, that we are kind of going down the snakes mouth right now with technology?

''(A Rogue sighs)''

'''S:''' But we’ve been saying this for 20 years.

'''C:''' That’s the thing. It’s so hard, right? Because we were going to go this route ''anyway''. That’s the thing. If the Aug’s parent company didn’t hit the right kind of algorithm to get us here, another company would have.

'''J:''' I’m not saying—yeah, of course, I think it would have happened anyway—but back in the mid-2015 era, we started to realize that {{w|Facebook}} really didn’t have humanity’s best interests in mind. And then we watched Zucker-freak—

'''C:''' Did we ever ''really'' think they did?

'''J:''' —go in front of Congress and lie his face off, telling them how everything that they—

'''C:''' Do you remember when he ran for president? Idiot. Sorry.

''(laughter)''

'''J:''' That was the beginning of his downfall. But the point is, though, we saw even with Facebook—and this is ''nothing'', Facebook is nothing compared to this. This is, literally, we live in {{w|augmented reality}} now.

'''C:''' I know, but Facebook didn’t give us anything except people’s picture so their babies.

'''S:''' But at the time—

'''C:''' This is ''way'' better.

'''B:''' And cat…

'''E:''' And a lot of advertising. A ''lot'' of advertising.

'''C:''' And {{w|Cats and the Internet|cat videos}}.

'''J:''' I don’t know, I don’t know.

'''C:''' But now you can just watch a cat video anytime, anywhere.

'''E:''' Oh, yeah, that’s a good point.

'''B:''' I always got one running in the corner of my vision. It’s really cool.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' But ''we'' were on Facebook, and it was important to our marketing. And it was—

'''C:''' That’s the point. That’s the part that’s so—

'''S:''' And now we’re on the Aug and it’s—Imagine our show without the Aug.

'''C:''' I know, yeah. But that’s the part that’s so unsavory to me, and that I do have the lucky feeling about, is it ''all'' is just about marketing, still.

''(unknown Rogue)'': Yeah, it is.

'''C:''' It’s all just about selling us shit.

'''E:''' That’s been true for ''so'' long.

'''S:''' Ever since the—exactly.

'''E:''' Since the analog days. And beyond.

'''B:''' And they’re so good at it now. A lot of people are saying that there’s—it’s actually giving credence to people’s belief in psychics.

'''C:''' They think they’re psychic?

'''B:''' They ''must'' be psychic because they know what I want so fast.

'''S:''' Before you know you want it.

'''C:''' Don’t they understand big data. That’s ridiculous.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' But we see it. We see it. It’s funny as hell.

'''J:''' All right. I’m warning you guys. I’m warning—I bet you in another 10 years we’ll see some seriously bad stuff come out of this.

'''C:''' Another 10 years, you’ll be ''dead''. ''(Laughs)''

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' There you go, Jay! How’s that?

'''J:''' And that’s the bad thing!

'''B:''' But those longevity therapies are working pretty damn good.

'''C:''' Ever the techno-optimist.

'''E:''' Can we download ourselves yet?

'''B:''' Look at me.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' You’ll never be [inaudible].

'''C:''' "Five to ten years."

[KiwiCo ad]

===Near-Earth Asteroids: Apophis and Perses (48:13)===

'''S:''' So, Evan—

'''B:''' All right, now this is some shit, man.

'''S:''' This is the ''big'' news. This is actually—everything else is just the warm up to the actual big news that everyone wants to hear about.

'''C:''' 100,000 people erased from—

'''S:''' Because what do we got, 10 years to live? What’s going on with that?

'''E:''' Uh, yeah. We—well, it’s 20 years to live.

'''C:''' Say what now?

'''S:''' We’ll be dead.

'''E:''' But we’re working on it. We’re working on it. I want to remind everyone the whole background of this, so please bear with me before I get to the ''actual'' news item.

'''B:''' Like we don’t know, but go ahead.

'''E:''' I know, I know. So I’m hoping the audience here remembers {{w|99942 Apophis|Apophis}}, right, the [[SGU_Episode_392#Quickie_With_Bob:_Apophis_Update_.2842:31.29|2029 asteroid]] that came within 25,000 kilometers of Earth?

'''S:''' That’s nothing. That’s a whisker.

'''J:''' Phew!

'''C:''' But it missed us.

'''E:''' It ''did'' miss us, absolutely, and that’s what the scientists told us—

'''S:''' Yeah, that’s why we’re still here, because of [inaudible].

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' And it happened on a {{w|Friday the 13th}}.<ref>[https://www.space.com/asteroid-apophis-2029-flyby-planetary-defense.html Space.com: Huge Asteroid Apophis Flies By Earth on Friday the 13th in 2029. A Lucky Day for Scientists]</ref> Which, you know— ''(crosstalk)''

'''S:''' What are the odds?

'''B:''' Remember the party we threw that day?

'''E:''' Pretty decent. There was so much fear-mongering with Apophis. It was first discovered way back in {{w|99942_Apophis#Discovery_and_naming|2004}}, and at that point, the scientists, with the information they had—there was maybe just under a 3% chance of it actually impacting the planet based on the data that they had at the time. Well that sent people kind of into "Okay, here it is! Now, finally, this is the ''real'' apocalypse coming. Forget all the other—the Mayan, the 2012—all that. This is the actual one.

'''C:''' Forget all the other apocalypses!

'''E:''' But, as time went on, and more careful studying of it went, they realized—that shrunk down over the years, and by the time, about 2019, 2020 rolled around, the scientists said, "It is 0% chance of this [inaudible] and, of course, it didn’t.

'''S:''' Yeah, it’s not going to happen.

'''E:''' But Apophis was the {{w|Apep|god of chaos}}, for those who don’t know their {{w|Greek mythology}}. And you’ll remember that tragic incident leading up to the fly-by, the cult, known as the Children of Claude, that was an offshoot of the {{w|Raëlism|Raëlian Movement}}, you guys remember? We used to talk about the Raëlians way back, like in 2005, 2006.

'''B:''' Raëlians, right.

'''S:''' Didn’t they pretend to clone somebody at one point?

'''E:''' Yes!

'''C:''' I can’t believe they stuck around all that time.

'''E:''' They did! It was little offshoots of it.

'''J:''' Was that [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens guy with the hair] that said, "I’m not saying it was aliens…but it was aliens." Was he a Raëlian?

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' I think I know of whom you’re speaking. That’s the {{w|Raël|Claude}} person, and this offshoot is the "Children of Claude." So, they were the ones who, as the asteroid came by, they thought it was going to open an inter-dimensional space, and the only way to get up there was to be—to leave their earthly coils. A couple dozen people, unfortunately, took their own lives. But we’ve seen this before, cults and suicide.

'''S:''' What was that? The {{w|Comet Hale-Bopp|Hale-Bopp}}, back in ’97, and the {{w|Heaven's Gate (religious group)|Heaven’s Gate cult}}, anyone?

'''C:''' [to audience] These guys are all way too young to remember that. No, they’re too young.

'''E:''' No? Oh, gosh, I’m totally dating myself. I’m an old man now. Well, in any case, that was the most, I think, notable fear-related story to it. The Internet obviously went wild. But then in 2030, just a couple years ago, you know what came next. The astronomers located object designation 2030-US, also known as Perses.

'''S:''' Mmm. Perses.

'''E:''' Perses. P-E-R-S-E-S, named for—

'''S:''' Not Perseus.

'''E:''' Not {{w|Perseus|Perse''us''}}, no.

'''S:''' Perses.

'''E:''' {{w|Perses (Titan)|Perses}} was the Greek {{w|Titans (mythology)|Titan}} of destruction.

'''S:''' Mmm. Appropriate.

'''E:''' And this one’s giving us trouble. 33% chance—

'''S:''' Don’t want to roll those dice.

'''E:''' —of {{w|Impact event|impact}}. And the studies since then—they’ve obviously been very closely monitory this one—and it’s holdin' true.

'''C:''' How far away is it now?

'''E:''' Well, we’re about—2055 is going to be the date. June 21, 2055.

'''B:''' Aww, right around the [inaudible].

'''E:''' So we’ve got—there’s 20 years. But, as you know, {{w|NASA}}, the {{w|European Space Agency|ESA}}, the {{w|Roscosmos|Russian Space Federation}}, and others have finally—

'''S:''' {{w|Free_Willzyx#Plot|MASA}}?

'''E:''' MASA, among others—{{w|Israel Space Agency|Israel’s group}}, and the {{w|Indian Space Research Organisation|space agency of India}}…So they can’t behind {{w|global warming}} and deal with that, but at least this is ''something'' that they ''can'' get behind, and they ''have'' gotten behind.

'''C:''' We like a good short-term threat.

'''E:''' Yeah, exactly. When something’s a little more immediate, and, like, right in your face, that will motivate.

'''B:''' Especially when it’s an {{w|Extinction event|Extinction Level Event}}…[inaudible].

'''C:''' And they’ll make lots of movies about it.

'''B:''' Oh yeah. Documentaries…

'''S:''' They’ll dig up {{w|Bruce Willis}}.

'''C:''' Poor guy.

'''B:''' Think he’s just virtual [inaudible].

'''J:''' That {{w|Armageddon_(1998_film)|movie}} he made sucked, didn’t it?

'''S:''' That ''one'' movie he made?

''(laughter)''

'''J:''' And what about that—remember, he was a coal-miner or something?

'''E:''' Oh, remember that Christmas movie, {{w|''Die Hard''}}?

'''C:''' I was going to say, ''Die Hard'' is Christmas movie! ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' ''Die Hard'' is a Christmas movie!

'''S:''' That’s still my favorite Christmas movie.

'''C:''' [again to audience] Also too young, too young. ''(laughs)''

====The good news part (52:45)====

'''E:''' Wow! Really? Here’s the news item. Here’s the news item today. ESA—

'''S:''' —Some good news?

'''E:''' It is good news because—

'''C:''' —Oh good, thank goodness.

'''S:''' I’d rather ''not'' be hit by a two-kilometer—

'''E:''' Exactly. And the {{w|Asteroid impact avoidance|prevention methods}} have gone into effect because ESA successfully launched GT1 into orbit the other day. No issues, everything is fine. It’s the first salvo in the fight against Perses in which is going to approach Perses and establish a fixed position in close proximity to it. It’s using the {{w|gravity tractor}} method—

'''C:''' Oh, "GT1."

'''E:''' —GT1, which is why it’s called that.

'''B:''' I love this idea.

'''E:''' So if all goes according to plan, [presumably demonstrating to audience] here’s Perses, it’s coming in, GT1. They’re going to park it over here in a stable position and the gravity between the two objects, it should nudge it. It should nudge it just—and it doesn’t need to nudge much because it’s still out there far enough—a few centimeters! That’s all they’re looking to do at this distance.

'''S:''' Yeah, but 20 years is actually ''right'' on the margin—

'''B:''' —It’s on the edge.

'''S:''' —For the gravity tug method.

'''J:''' It’s a little too close for comfort.

'''C:''' They want to try as soon as—I mean as late—whatever you want to say—as possible.

'''S:''' That can’t be the only thing that they’re doing.

'''E:''' No, it’s not—

'''J:''' —No, they tried other stuff.

'''E:''' —There’s a three-prong attack against Perses, and this was the first one, and it successfully went—but there are two more coming. So the second prong is being undertaken by {{w|China National Space Administration|China’s space agency}}. They’re going to be launching a direct impact probe into Perses, and they’re going to attempt to knock it off its trajectory. Now, this is sometimes referred to as the "battering ram attempt," but this particular project is considered, actually, a little less reliable because previous experiences from space agencies with this exact method, the direct impact approach, had mixed results.

So, if you recall, NASA conducted a test of the direct impact approach back in 2022. The name of the test was called DART. DART stood for {{w|Double Asteroid Redirection Test|Direct [sic] Asteroid Redirection Test}}.

'''C:''' Oh yeah, DART.

'''E:''' And it shot the DART at—oh, you’ll love this Cara—at a small test asteroid called {{w|65803 Didymos|Didymoon}}.

'''C:''' Didymoon?

'''E:''' Didymoon.

'''C:''' I like Didymoon.

'''E:''' Jay, didn’t you name one of your dogs Didymoon?

'''J:''' No.

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' Bob?

'''J:''' It’s Jay. He never would admit to it.

'''E:''' I thought it was Jay.

'''S:''' It was a goldfish.

'''E:''' He lied to me.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' Little Didymoon.

'''E:''' Now, look, Didymoon was a much smaller asteroid than Perses is. So the data revealed by the impact is that, yes, it would be effective on an asteroid ''that'' size, but it wasn’t clear if it would do something the size of Per—oh, I failed to mention: Perses is two kilometers in diameter—

'''C:''' —But doesn’t it ''barely'' have to move because it’s so far away, still?

'''S:''' —Yeah, but—

'''C:''' I mean, I know it’s close. But it’s ''so'' far.

'''E:''' —A couple centimeters—

'''S:''' —Two kilometers is big.

'''J:''' Yeah, but I thought—

'''E:''' Yeah two kilometers is ''huge''.

'''C:''' —Yeah, but it’s like "bink," and then it’s, like, ''so'' far from us.

'''S:''' —It’s all momentum.

'''J:''' —But I also thought that they were worried that hitting something like that could cause just a bunch of smaller objects.

'''S:''' No, that’s only if they hit it with a nuclear weapon. And even then—

'''E:''' —Right, and that was never really a consideration, even back in the late teens, when they were talking about that even as a possibility for any future impact. They kind of ruled it out at that point, for—

'''J:''' Okay.

'''B:''' —Yeah, the composition of the asteroid’s critical in determining what best approach.

'''S:''' What method. But this is solid, right? So it has to be solid. You can’t hit a pile of rubble with an impact method—

'''E:''' Right, because you’re—

'''C:''' —So it’ll just stay rubble.

'''E:''' Exactly. No effect.

'''S:''' [inaudible] It’ll decay—it’ll have no effect. So—

'''E:''' —No effect.

'''S:''' But the thing is, it’s just hard launching a ship fast enough, heavy enough to hit it with enough momentum to move it—

'''C:''' —And also, it’s, like, yeah, it’s two kilometers, but that’s really small in the grand scheme of, like, ''space''.

'''E:''' So this is why—

'''S:''' —But it’s really big in the grand scheme of a ''rocket''.

'''C:''' True, but they have to get that calculation ''perfect'' to be able to reach it.

'''S:''' That’s not a problem.

'''C:''' Really?

'''S:''' They won’t miss.

'''C:''' Okay.

'''B:''' {{w|Classical mechanics|Newtonian mechanics}}. You don’t even need {{w|Introduction to quantum mechanics|quantum mechanics}}. [inaudible] is good enough.

'''E:''' China’s craft is significantly bigger than DART’s was. So they’re relying on the much, much larger size of this to perhaps do the job. They’re calling it—I don’t speak Chinese. If anyone out there does speak a dialect of Chinese, forgive me—Tuí Tuí, which is Chinese for "push" or "shove," which I thought was kind of cute. That’s a phonetic spelling. T-U-I with an accent over it is how they spelt it in English.

'''J:''' So can they tell—Don’t we have the science to know that the gravity from the ship is going to affect it or not? We’re all kind of sitting on pins and needles, like wanting to get something definitive.

'''S:''' But it’s all orbital mechanics. They’ll have to hit it, and then they’ll have to follow its orbit for, like, two years to ''really'' know what the impact is.

'''B:''' That’s right. You have to be—

'''S:''' —That’s why they can’t wait—

'''C:''' —It takes ''that'' long for them to know if it’s knocked off its course?

'''S:''' —That’s why they have to everything at once. They can’t wait because every time they wait, we lose the ability to deflect it.

'''B:''' Yeah, it’s just too important to screw up, so that’s why it’s good to have Plan A, B, C, as many plans as you can muster.

'''C:''' Redundant. Are there more than two?

'''S:''' I don’t think three is enough. They should do something else.

'''E:''' There’s a third.

'''B:''' There is a third. There is—

'''E:''' —Now, Tuí’s going to launch in late 2038, early 2039 is the estimated window for that one. But, third prong attack—and, Bob, you’re going to love this one.

'''B:''' Oh yeah.

'''E:''' This is called Alda. A-L-D-A. It’s expected to launch in 2040, and it stands for Asteroid Laser Deflection Array. Well, I have to mention it now. We love {{w|Alan Alda}}, when we used to watch him back when television was a thing. When {{w|M*A*S*H (TV series)|M*A*S*H}}—but he was also a great science communicator. He did Scientific American Discoveries on—

'''C:''' —You can still get M*A*S*H on the Aug.

'''E:''' —So good.

'''S:''' Yeah, you can.

'''E:''' —And you never know what kind of entertainers and stuff are going to become science communicators or great things. {{w|Millie Bobby Brown}} became an oceanographer, and who saw that coming? Stranger things. Who saw that coming?

'''C:''' —''(laughs)'' She was smart.

'''E:''' —But, in any case, ALDA’s going to be launched in 2040. And it’s going to contain five {{w|Laser propulsion|space lasers}}, Bob—

'''C:''' —''Lasers''.

'''E:''' —They’re going to rendezvous with Perses—

'''B:''' —How powerful?

'''E:''' —In 2040—how powerful, indeed! 50 {{w|peta-}}watts per laser.

'''B:''' Yeah! [inaudible]

'''E:''' Woo! They’re going to blast this thing.

'''S:''' Are they going to draw a shark on the side of the—

'''E:''' —I hope so. ''(audience laughter)'' If they don’t, what a wasted opportunity. The idea being is that you pound this thing with enough laser power—debris, gases get released from it—

'''S:''' —And that pushes it.

'''E:''' —And that creates a little bit of a push. It takes time. This doesn’t—you don’t send it up there, fire a couple lasers, and call it day. They estimate it’s going to take 6 to 24 months of laser bombardment in order to get thing to move those few centimeters.

'''C:''' Wait, are the lasers space-based, or are they Earth-based?

'''E:''' Oh, they’re launching them out.

'''S:''' They’re space-based.

'''C:''' Oh they’re launching. Okay, got it.

'''E:''' Yep, they’re going to launch them out there.

'''C:''' Is anything going to be in between this laser ship and—

'''B:''' —Not for long. Not for long.

''(laughter)''

'''E:''' Not at 50 peta-watts!

'''C:''' Are we risking anything?

'''E:''' Not at 50 peta watts.

'''C:''' They have a pretty clear shot. They’ve calculated that. They don’t care.

'''E:''' It will intercept it in 2043. And so that’s the three-prong attack, and the first launch happened today, so we will keep obviously close tabs on this one.

'''C:''' So what do we think the odds are?

'''E:''' With all three of these things going out there? I think, ''I'' think very good—

'''B:''' —Doable.

'''E:''' —Scientists are not really putting out any false hope and saying, "Yeah, it’s guaranteed to work," or any kind of 99.9% effective. They’re not really saying anything along those lines, for obvious reasons.

'''S:''' So we’re starting at 33%, and I think each one will knock it down 10% or so. They’re hoping to get it to less than 5%. But they may be the best they could do.

'''C:''' So it’s an interesting {{w|eschatology|eschatological}} threat. It’s kind of the first one other than climate change, which has been this slow burn. Heh, no pun intended. This is the first real time where I’m feeling like this could be how I go out, you guys.

'''B:''' This could be how everyone goes out.

'''E:''' We’ll go out with you.

'''C:''' You'll be ''dead'' by then.

''(audience laughter)''

'''J:''' Why do you keep reminding us of that?

'''C:''' I’m sorry! But you have this weird false hope that you’re going to live forever. What—

'''E:''' —He’s taking his extension therapy…

'''C:''' —It’s 2035. When is this supposed to hit us?

'''E:''' We’ve had relatively—2055. 20 years from now.

'''S:''' [inaudible] people live into their 90s.

'''C:''' 20 years from now and you guys are already in your mid-70s?

'''S:''' Yeah. Our farm relatives lived into their 90s.

'''E:''' I’m only 65.

'''J:''' My dad made it to 86, and he ate whatever the hell he wanted.

'''C:''' You’re only 65? Huh. You’re closer in age to me.

'''E:''' That’s right.

'''S:''' He didn’t it meat slugs.

'''J:''' That’s right.

'''E:''' That’s right!

'''C:''' All right. You’re right.

'''B:''' My grandmother’s in her early 90s.

'''S:''' Or cricket biscuits.

'''C:''' We might all go out this way.

'''J:''' We have to stay hopeful, and we have to trust the scientists.

'''S:''' But it shows you how necessary the asteroid detection system was. Without that early detection system, we wouldn’t have known about this until it was too late.

'''C:''' Remember, we didn’t really have that back in the day, did we?

'''S:''' I think—remember we interviewed {{w|Rusty Schweickart}}? {{Link needed}} He was working with the UN to develop—

'''J:''' That was the beginnings of it. That was it.

''(crosstalk)''

'''E:''' This is it.

'''B:''' Who was he?

'''S:''' That detection—

'''C:''' —This happened in our lifetime.

'''J:''' He was the {{w|Apollo program|Apollo}} astronaut that we talked to.

'''S:''' Remember?

'''B:''' I don’t remember that at all.

'''S:''' Yeah, that was a long time ago.

'''C:''' His memory’s been going.

'''B:''' A long time ago.

'''J:''' That was one my—that was one of the best interviews we ever did.

'''E:''' You have to go back and listen to that one, Bob.

'''C:''' How many episodes have we done at this point? Phew!

'''S:''' We’re over 1,500.

'''E:''' Uh, where are we?

'''C:''' Catalogued…

'''B:''' So Cara, right before the asteroid hits, I’m going to call you. I’m going to say, "I’m still here."

'''E:''' ''(laughs)''

'''C:''' We’re still going to be doing the show, my friend.

'''S:''' I’ll still be editing it.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

''(audience laughter)''

'''E:''' That’s true.

'''S:''' I mean, this episode, I’ll be editing it.

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' So you’re hopeful, Evan?

'''E:''' I’m optimistic. The glass is ''more'' than half-full.

'''S:''' It’s hard to talk about anything other than this. I know it’s kind of been dominating the news, but I think people are just expecting it’s going to be taken care of, and—

'''C:''' —Well, what other options—

'''S:''' —Or else you get—

''(crosstalk)''

'''S:''' We can’t obsess about it all the time.

'''E:''' What are we going to do, run around like this for 20 years with our arms flailing in the air? [presumably demonstrating]

''(audience laughter)''

'''C:''' Let’s start a cult!

'''S:''' I know! We’ll kill ourselves!

'''E:''' That’ll do.

'''S:''' That’ll fix it.

'''E:''' That’ll fix everything.

'''C:''' Do it the ''day'' before the asteroid, and we’ll never know what happened. ''(laughter)'' We won’t even be missed.

===Deep Learning (1:01:56) ===

'''S:''' Okay, Bob.

'''J:''' Finally.

'''S:''' Finally. So we’ve been literally talking about this for 30 years. Remember, 30 years ago, when you thought that we would have {{w|artificial intelligence}} by now?

'''B:''' Yeah, yeah, yeah.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''S:''' And I said, "Nah."

'''B:''' Keep rubbing it in. It’s coming.

'''S:''' So have we made any adv—where are we?

'''B:''' Yeah, this, ''this'' looks promising.

'''S:''' ''This'' looks promising?

'''C:''' ''This'' is the one!

'''E:''' ''This!''

'''B:''' So {{w|deep learning}} is in the news again.

'''S:''' Again!

'''B:''' Remember, we used to talk about deep learning—

'''S:''' —Right there with the {{w|''The Hype About Hydrogen''|hydrogen economy}}, right?

'''B:''' —We used to—we talked about, come on, we talked about deep learning a ''lot'' in the late teens, early 20s, and it looked promising as hell, really promising. Remember some of those advances? Let me lead with what the news is, here, that researchers from the {{w|Marvin Minksy|Minsky Institute}} have announced that they created a viable path to {{w|artificial general intelligence}}, and that they think that using the {{w|Moravec’s paradox|Moravec’s artificial general intelligence test}}—they think this could be the first AI test to—

'''S:''' —Which one?

'''B:''' —The Moravec artificial general intelligence test.

'''S:''' What happened to the {{w|Turing test}}?

'''B:''' It repl—come on! Get with the times, dude.

'''J:''' So general intelligence, just to remind the audience, is a computer that can think like a human being.

'''B:''' Right. It’s adaptable and—

'''J:''' —It’s not—

'''B:''' —It’s not super-smart in one domain. It’s like a human—

'''C:''' —Wait, remind me what made deep—

'''B:''' —Intelligent in many domains.

'''C:''' —What made deep learning deep learning? What ''is'' deep learning?

'''B:''' —Well, deep learning is—it’s a technique. It’s an artificial intelligence technique using neural networks and a ''lot'' of training data to see patterns, to see increasingly clearly, patterns and data, lots of data, that otherwise are very, very hard to see. So—

'''C:''' —Oh, and that’s why it had all those creative chess moves and Go moves.

'''B:''' —Well, right. There was {{w|AlphaZero}}, there was {{w|AlphaGo}}. Those were the systems that beat the best {{w|chess}} and best {{w|Go (game)|Go}} players on the planet. But not just — the AlphaZero was the one that was really fascinating for me because that was a system using deep learning that created a system that is so good in chess that they didn’t even test it against people because it was a waste of time. They tested it against the best computer chess program, and it kicked its butt. And human {{w|Grandmaster (chess)|grandmasters}} that looked at it were like, "This thing played like a person but like a person-super computer hybrid." They said it was such an amazing, virtuoso performance. They could not believe how good this was, and this was largely created by deep learning. So deep learning — oh, what are you laughing at? What’s going on over there? So—

'''C:''' It’s a ''hybrid!''

'''E:''' It’s a hybrid!

'''J:''' Oh, I missed it!

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' You missed it!

'''B:''' Come on!

'''E:''' Turn ''off'' your Aug!

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' When Bob talks, I just zone out, and I start looking at {{w|Cats and the Internet|cat videos}}. I can’t help it.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' Cat videos!

''(laughter)''

'''J:''' They’re f-ing adorable.

'''B:''' All right. So the point was, Jay, deep learning was a huge success in the late teens and the 20s, not only with chess and Go but also image recognition, autonomous driving, language recognition. It was an amazing success, but the problem was that it was overhyped. Remember? It was just went —

'''S:''' —Like everything is overhyped.

'''B:''' —This one was crazy overhyped. It went viral. If you looked for AI classes, everything was deep learning, deep learning, deep learning. And so it really was a victim of its success because people kind of equated deep learning with artificial intelligence in ''general'', right? They thought deep learning was going to create the first truly artificial general intelligence, which it could never have done because if you look at it, deep learning was just a tiny little subset of {{w|machine learning}}, and machine learning was a tiny little subset of AI itself. So it never—this was just one of the tools of AI that just exploded, and it really created a false impression. So people became disillusioned when deep learning—

'''S:''' —And there was a post-hype phase.

'''B:''' —wasn’t making all these—right. So there was—

'''E:''' —And, Bob, is a parallel to this, remember the "train your brain" to do—what was the name of that? {{w|Lumosity|Luminosity [sic]}} or whatever.

'''J:''' That was all [inaudible]. Yeah, they said your playing their stupid little things will—

'''E:''' —Playing your games will increase your overall intelligence and a whole bunch of —but it actually only helped you out in that ''one'' very specific set of puzzles you were learning.

'''J:''' —Yeah, it turns out—

'''B:''' —Right, okay. I see where you’re going with that.

'''J:''' —It turns out that the game that you were training on, that’s what you got better at.

'''E:''' That’s right.

'''C:''' So that’s like a metaphor for deep learning versus general intelligence.

'''S:''' It’s more like a metaphor. But I think the hype, though, was similar to—remember there was the hydrogen economy hype, which never manifested. Then there was, "stem cells are going to cure all diseases," which never manifested. Although all of these—there is a niche for this. Stem cells are having their day now, twenty years later. But it’s not going to cure everything. Then we were going to cure everything with {{w|CRISPR_gene_editing|CRISPR}}—

'''J:''' —Then we had the {{w|Twinkie#Twinkie_diet|Twinkie diet}}. Everybody was eating Twinkies.

'''S:''' —The Twinkie diet.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' After {{w|''Zombieland''} with Evan [inaudible].

'''B:''' That worked. I lost ten pounds on that.

'''E:''' ''(laughs)'' That franchise petered out.

'''C:''' Yeah, man.

'''S:''' And so, it’s the same thing. But we knew: deep learning was ''never'' on the path to AGI.

'''B:''' Right. And if you were kind of an enthusiast in this, you kinda realized that. But the general population really had no idea. So they were really disillusioned—

'''S:''' —They don’t know difference between AI and AGI.

'''B:''' Exactly. And it kind of created this little—they call it an {{w|AI winter}}, which has happened a couple times in the past, when AI was first really, really hyped. They thought, "Well look, we can create these chess programs. We’ll have human intelligence matched in five or ten years!" And they weren’t even close and—

'''S:''' —Oh, you remember when we saw {{w|2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)|''2001''}} how—we were like, "Yeah, we’ll have that in 30 years."

'''B:''' Yeah, it seemed totally reasonable. So the expectations were way, way high. Remember that? So just like previous AI winters, it caused a little mini winter, and people were very disillusioned, but the research continued. And we see a lot of its successes, and it’s not called deep learning, or even AI. They called it lots of different things so that people didn’t even realize what it was, and it had become so embedded in society that you don’t even think of it as AI, which is the true test of a system’s success.

'''S:''' It’s everywhere now. [inaudible] Deep learning is driving your car, it’s doing everything. But it’s in the background, and nobody talks about it, so you think it’s a failure. We’re like, nope, it’s running everything you’re using.

'''B:''' But it’s not AI. It’s not artificial general intelligence—

'''S:''' —It’s not AGI.

'''B:''' —which is what people—which is the real sexy thing that’s in the movies and the TV shows and what everyone really, really wants, and they’re very disappointed. So I think they may—what are you laughing at?

'''J:''' ''(laughs)'' This [cat] video is so funny!

''(Laughter)''

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' He is such a jerk.

'''E:''' Oh, Jay! Some things ''never'' change.

'''J:''' Oh, man.

'''B:''' Turn on the scrambler again!

'''J:''' This zombie [inaudible]—

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' —Jay, Jay, send me the link.

'''B:''' So one of the things that this Minsky Institute really showed was that consciousness, they think, is really—it’s like a three-dimensional thing. You need three things. You need computational intelligence, and that’s what deep learning can really help with. But that’s only ''one'' leg of the tripod. You also need autonomous complexity as well—

'''J:''' —What does that mean?

'''B:''' —And that means—it’s like survival drives. It’s things like getting out of bed in the morning because you want to get out of bed. You’re goal-oriented. You’ve got intentionality. You want to do stuff. Those are things that—

'''S:''' —That’s the part that always worries me.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' What’s your goal going to be?

'''S:''' Right.

'''C:''' It’s like this locus of control.

'''B:''' But you need that. That’s something you—consciousness needs that leg of the tripod.

'''J:''' I don’t know. I don’t really want to get out of bed, and I’m conscious.

''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' You claim.

'''E:''' Well…

'''C:''' Sometimes you do, though.

'''B:''' So the third leg, this is the important one—

'''S:''' —Twinkies?

'''B:''' —Social complexity. ''That’s'' the one that was really a major driver for human consciousness. Without that—

'''C:''' —But this is still digital consciousness. Let’s be clear. It’s ''approximating'' human consciousness.

'''B:''' —It is. It is. So who knows how big conscious space actually is and [for] synthetic consciousness, what form that will take. But using the human consciousness as a template, they think—

'''C:''' —It’s the only one we have.

'''B:''' —You’ve got one real data point there. Well, except for—but it’s all, like, life on Earth and primates and dolphins. So they think that if you link up these AI test beds that have those three legs—so you’ve got the computational complexity, like deep learning gives us with pattern recognition and things like that, and you link that up to another system that has autonomous complexity, and these have been developing in the labs for 15, 20 years, and then you hook that to the social complexity cognitive robotic agents, put them all together—

'''S:''' —You get a [https://masteroforion.fandom.com/wiki/Psilon Psilon].

'''B:''' —then you—well—

'''C:''' —I don’t understand what that means. ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' Still?

'''J:''' So what’s the point?

'''B:''' They’re joining these different test beds that look at AI from a different perspective, putting them together, and they’re communicating, sharing data, sharing the things that you need to become, we think, have a consciousness like humans. So they’re communicating… And the one drawback with deep learning is that even the ones that were great at chess, they couldn’t tell you, "Well, I looked at all the rules of chess and I played about a billion games, and these are my takeaways. These are my insights into chess." They ''can’t'' give us those insights because they’re not designed to speak and say, "This is what my takeaway [is]," so it’s kind of like a black box, kind of like an {{w|oracle}}, where you ask—

'''E:''' —We may never know.

'''C:''' —We can’t learn [inaudible].

''(crosstalk)''

'''B:''' —You really can’t. You ask a question, you get an answer. And it sounds like—that sounds completely unintuitive. How could that even work?

'''C:''' —{{42}}!

'''B:''' —But when you test it, it works.

'''E:''' —Basically.

'''B:''' —So these systems are now communicating with each other, and this is the crux of this news items is, is that they’re talking together, they’re making advances that they never would expect, not only with computational complexity but social complexity and autonomous complexity. They’re seeing advances they have not seen, ever, so they think this could be—we’re not there.

'''C:''' Should we be scared?

'''B:''' Not now. Maybe later.

''(laughter)''

'''B:''' Now, now just be happy because it looks like we’re finally on the path for some sort of artificial general intelligence—

'''C:''' ''Now'' be happy! Be scared later. Okay.

'''E:''' —Enjoy it while it’s good.

'''B:''' —You know, brain imaging has come a long way, and that’s like comparing top-down to bottom-up approaches. I think it could give brain imaging a run for its money because that’s another viable way for artificial general intelligence. We’ve got a brain! Image it. Digitize it. Make it work digitally, and that’s another viable path. That’s very promising, but now maybe it has competition. Who knows who will get there first.

'''C:''' Yeah, {{w|radiology}} has been a dwindling specialty lately. Like, the techs are able to do a lot of what the physicians used to do because these new—

'''B:''' —The pattern recognitions are—

'''C:''' —Yeah, pattern recognition algorithms are amazing.

'''B:''' —In that domain, they’re off the hook. Off the hook.

'''S:''' All right but here’s the thing that concerns me, right? And this is going back at least 15 years when I first heard about this thing. You guys remember {{w|Google}}, right? They have a—it’s still sort of state of the art. They can translate any language into any language, right?

'''B:''' Yep.

'''S:''' But do you know how they do that? You translate every language into a machine language and then you translate that machine language back into any other language. So you don’t have to make a connection between every language and each other; you just have to make a connection between every language and this machine language.

'''B:''' That’s what’s happening here!

'''S:''' But on steroids. So this is going back at least 15 years—

'''C:''' —But it’s so glitchy, still, isn’t it?—

'''S:''' —No, it really isn’t.

'''C:''' —I mean, when you do that, you lose so much context and nuance and cultural kind of—

'''S:''' —It’s getting a lot better because they’re not translating word-for-word, they’re translating idea-to-idea. You can translate even a euphemism, and metaphor, whatever, into the machine language. But here’s the thing—

'''C:''' —And there’s {{w|prosody (linguistics|prosody}}, and all—

'''S:''' —Here’s the critical bit: ''nobody'' can speak this machine language. We have ''no'' idea what it is.

'''C:''' Well, yeah, of course not because it’s got every—it’s like the core of everything.

'''S:''' Yeah, it’s a separate language that these computers developed. This is mainly deep learning. They developed it through deep learning and—

'''C:''' —It’s the black box.

'''S:''' —they understand it, but no ''human'' understands this language. So now we have computers talking to each other ''in'' this language that we can’t understand, and it’s like a closed loop. It is another black box. Who knows what the hell’s going to pop out of it.

'''E:''' We can’t command them to tell us what is going on?

'''S:''' We can’t—it’s not a human language. We can’t understand it.

'''C:''' Yeah, all they can do is translate back into our language, which is—

'''S:''' —That’s right. They’ll translate back into English, but they can’t communicate to us directly in their language, and people tried—

'''C:''' —Because we can’t speak their language.

'''E:''' It’s not just {{w|binary code|binary}}?

'''S:''' No, it’s not binary. It’s an abstract language.

'''C:''' It’s like a synthesis of everything else. It needs all of it to be able to—

'''S:''' No one’s been able to crack its

'''J:''' There’s only about 30 movies out there {{w|Category:Films about artificial intelligence|that show how bad}} that this will turn out. And we just keep pretending like it’s going to be okay. We should just be like, "Maybe we shouldn’t let computers speak to each other in a language that we don’t understand." Maybe?

'''C:''' But, Jay—

'''B:''' —That’s been happening on some level for decades—

'''S:''' —It’s been happening for a while.

'''C:''' —It’s easy to say that, but think about all the amazing technology we’d be missing if we just, like, blocked this from the beginning.

'''B:''' But not just that. Imagine the things we can learn, even geo-engineering to help with this climate change ''disaster'' we’re entering.

'''S:''' I’m sure they’re running the calculations on the rockets to move the—

'''E:''' Something tells me the computers don’t care too much about carbon emissions. It’s no threat to their—

'''J:''' —We’re really screwed.

'''E:''' —existence.

'''C:''' —No, but that’s the thing, we are inherently limited through our own human filters and fallacies, right? So these computers are capable of maximizing algorithms. They don’t fall victim to the {{w|heuristics}} that we have to use. So they’re going to be able to solve problems that we are too limited to be able to solve.

'''S:''' That’s the hope.

'''C:''' The question is, what are the unintended consequences?

'''E:''' Yes, that’s always the case.

'''J:''' The real day that we’ll know we’re screwed is when we finally do tell the computers, "Well, tell us what you’re talking about with the other computers." And they go, "Eh, nothing, don’t worry about it."

''(laughter)''

'''E:''' "You’ll find out."

'''S:''' "It’s not important."

'''B:''' Maybe they’re writing poetry. Probably not.

'''S:''' I wasn’t worried about this when they were driving your car and things like that, but when you talk about, "We’re going to combine the deep learning piece and social piece with the self-preservation, full autonomous"—that’s the piece that’s ''always'' concerned me. And even if it—and, remember, I’ve gone through these phases where at first, I’m like, "Yeah, this is something we need to be worried about." Then I’m like, "Meh, maybe not because this is deep learning phase. Deep learning can do anything without AGI, so we’re going to develop AGI." Then we sort of really learned the hard limits of deep learning. It’s like, "Well, so we may need to go beyond that." But also, you don’t ''need'' self-awareness in order to be a threat to civilization.

'''B:''' Right, just mindlessly do something very destructive.

'''S:''' Exactly.

'''J:''' In the future, they’re going to say, "Skynet went online in 2037." And you know what happened with Skynet and the {{w|''Terminator'' (franchise)|Terminator}}, remember that?

'''S:''' Well didn’t Skynet turn into something else? What was the one it turned into? I forget that crappy reboot. Remember, from 20—

'''J:''' Yeah, whatever, that movie sucked.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''E:''' Nobody knows. Nobody watched it.

'''B:''' I’ve got it on my {{w|Ultra-high-definition television|10K screen}}. It’s awesome.

'''S:''' So they have it in 10K?

'''E:''' 10K, that’s it.

'''C:''' I just watch everything on my Aug now. You guys still have ''screens?''

'''S:''' Yeah, I’m old-fashioned.

'''E:''' Retro.

'''C:''' You’re so retro. You still drive cars, don’t you?

''(laughter)''

'''S:''' I will still occasionally drive.

'''E:''' I have a {{w|classic car|classic}}!

'''C:''' You guys will go out and drive a car.

'''S:''' Yeah, I still have my license.

'''B:''' The {{w|Flying car|drone cars}} are the best, though, come on.

'''S:''' Yeah, I know. That’s true.

'''C:''' Self-driving…

'''S:''' So if Perses doesn’t kill us, the Psilons are going to kill us. Is that what you're telling us?

'''J:''' Right.

'''B:''' Maybe. Maybe. It’s going to be a fun ride either way.

'''S:''' But at least we’ll have slug burgers to eat in the meantime.

'''B:''' ''(laughs)'' Way to bring it around, there, Steve!

'''S:''' Been doing this for awhile, Bob.

''(laughter)''

{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:16:50) ==
{{SOFinfo
|theme = Anxiety<ref name=anxiety>[https://www.neurocorecenters.com/8-facts-anxiety-symptoms-statistics Neurocore: 8 Fascinating Facts About Anxiety: Symptoms, Statistics, and Efforts to Reduce the Stigma]</ref>

|item1 = Anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women.
|item2 = Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expression.
|item3 = Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them.
|item4 = People who suffer from anxiety can perceive smells negatively while having an anxious episode.
|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = less sensitive

|science1 = more prevalent
|science2 = negative smells
|science3 = think highly of

|rogue1=bob
|answer1=less sensitive
|rogue2=Steve
|answer2=less sensitive
|rogue3=Evan
|answer3=less sensitive
|rogue4=Cara
|answer4=think highly of
|host= Jay 

|sweep= 
|clever= 
|win=y 
|swept= 

}}
'''S:''' So, Jay, you are going to cover "Science or Fiction" this episode.

'''B:''' Oh boy.

'''J:''' Right.

'''E:''' Ooo!

''Voiceover: It’s time for Science or Fiction.''

'''J:''' So as you know, Cara and I very openly talk about our—we’re medicated people. I suffer from anxiety. I thought I'd talk about {{w|anxiety}} today.

'''C:''' ''Extra'' medicated today, though.

'''J:''' And I thought I would hit you guys with some interesting facts about anxiety and see if you could figure out which one of these is not correct. So the first one is—so what I'll do is I'll go through these four items—

'''B:''' —I’m anxious about this one.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)'' Yeah.

'''J:''' —and then I'll quiz the audience, and then I'll let you guys go, and then we'll see if you guys change the audience's decisions. So the first one is: "Anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women." The second one is: "Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions." The third one: "Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them." And the last one: "People who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively."

So if you [the audience] think that the first one – anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women – if you think this one is the fake, clap when I lower my hand. ''(a few claps)'' Okay, four people. ''(audience laughter)'' The second one – anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions – if you think this one is the fake... ''(most of the audience single claps)'' The third one – friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them – if you think this one is the fake... ''(another few claps)''. And the fourth one – people who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively. ''(remaining few claps)'' Okay so, definitely, the crowd here thinks that number 2 is the fake, the one about anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions. So, Bob – and don't scroll, because all the answers are [inaudible].

''(laughter)''

'''C:''' You can't ask your wife!

=== Bob’s response ===

'''B:''' Okay. "...more prevalent in developed countries and among women." That just makes sense. That’s all I’m going to say. "Socially anxious people tend to be thought highly of by friends and family." Yeah, that kind of makes sense. I just realized I know so little about this. I’m just going by what little experience I have. That kind of makes sense as well. And then this last one, here, this one ''really'' makes sense to me. "People who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively." I’ve run into some people who seem to have that happen, although I don’t know if they were necessarily suffering from anxiety. But I think I’m going to go with the audience. They seem to be very confident about this. And this is the only one, the second one, that doesn’t quite make as much sense to me as the other ones. '''They’re less sensitive to changes in facial expressions.''' I can’t imagine why that would be so. So I’ll say that one’s fiction.

'''J:''' All right, Steve.

=== Steve’s response ===

'''B:''' Steve’s like, "I wrote a paper on this one!"

''(laughter)''

'''C:''' Novella, et. al. 2029. 

'''S:''' The "developed countries and among women", I seem to remember that that is the demographic, yeah. Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions? I would guess they were ''more'' sensitive to it because they’re kind of looking for things. So that may be how that one is the fiction. That was my initial thought. Friends and family think highly of them? Yeah, I think they tend to be more kind of overachiever kind of people who are anxious, so that would go along with that. And, yeah, this is going back maybe 15 or 16 years, but I seem to remember the smell one, that they interpret things in a negative way. It’s kind of like the brain is just interpreting everything negatively. So that makes sense. I was thinking that '''the facial expression one was the fiction''' even before the audience chimed in, so I’m going to agree with the audience as well.

'''J:''' Evan?

=== Evan’s response ===

'''E:''' Well, I’m not trying to be a lemur here, but—

'''S:''' —Lemurs don’t jump off cliffs. That’s a myth.

'''C:''' —That’s also not a lemur. That’s a ''lemming.''

'''E:''' —Thank you, Steve.

'''S:''' —Lemming.

'''E:''' —Oh, whatever!

''(laughter), (applause)''

'''E:''' I set 'em up, they knock 'em down! ''(laughter)''

'''C:''' You don’t have to be a lemur, either. ''(audience laughter)''

'''J:''' You’re such a ''lemur.''

'''S:''' So what would that be? You piss on your hands and rub it up against trees? ''(laughter)''

'''E:''' Yeah, let me show you. ''(laughter)'' Oh boy. Look, I really have no insight to this. I know very little about anxiety issues. I’m a neophyte when it comes to this kind of stuff. I don’t think I’ve experienced any real sensation of anxiety in my life—

'''J:''' —Oh, you’re ''so'' lucky.

'''E:''' —in which I’ve felt like I had to seek help for it or anything. Maybe I have and just didn’t, but I’ll just say what Steve kind of said—not just because it’s Steve, because I had the same thing—'''''less'' sensitive to changes in facial expressions: that seems to be the opposite.''' Wouldn’t they be ''more'' sensitive to changes in facial expression? They’re constantly looking for feedback, signals, and interpreting—

'''S:''' —They could be self-absorbed, though, and that’s why they’re less sensitive.

'''E:''' Maybe.

'''S:''' I’m just throwing that out there.

'''E:''' Maybe, but that was also my initial reaction. And have no reason to believe that it’s otherwise, so I will go that direction.

'''J:''' All right, Cara, what do we got?

=== Cara’s response ===

'''C:''' This is a tough one because I’m not sure I agree with the crowd. I do agree that anxiety is more prevalent among women. I know depression is more prevalent among women, and the neurotic personality style is more prevalent among women, and anxiety and neuroticism tend to—I don’t really like that word, anymore, but they still do use it in the literature. I also think that people who have anxiety might perceive a smell more negatively just because they’re—I think that vigilance that happens—and also, you specifically said while they’re having—you didn’t say panic attack, but I’m assuming it’s something along the lines of a severe experience of anxiety. They’re going to catastrophize everything. That’s a common experience.

My problem is with the two middle ones, and I’m kind of on the fence between them right now. So anxious people are ''less'' sensitive to changes in facial expressions? On the whole, anxious people? I don’t know because there’s so many types of anxiety. I think that if somebody is actively experiencing panic, they’re going to be way less sensitive because they’re not dialed into what somebody looks like at all, but somebody who might be ''socially'' anxious might be ''more'' sensitive to a change because they’re worried about feedback and how they’re being perceived, right? Being on anxiety is kind of like being high, and you’re like, "Everybody’s looking at me. They all think I’m saying something stupid." That ''can'' be an experience of somebody who’s experiencing social anxiety.

On the flip side of that, "friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them." You specifically said ''socially'' anxious people. Socially anxious people tend to withdraw from interaction in public. And I think that sometimes there is actually a lot of stigma around social anxiety that actually leads to people thinking that that person is anti-social. That person’s not very nice. That person kind of comes across like "they don’t really like me, or they think they’re better than me."—

'''B:''' —But no one cares.

'''C:''' —So I do think sometimes friends and family of socially anxious might actually stigmatize them a little bit and think negatively of them. So that’s kind of where I’m on the fence because I think ''either'' of those could be true. My fear is that—or my concern is that "anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions" is a ''broad'' statement. Anxious people ''on the whole'' are less sensitive to facial expressions? Maybe? Maybe not. So—

'''B:''' —Come on, be a lemur. Come on!

'''E:''' Yeah, yeah! Be a lemur!

'''C:''' I might be wrong—and just to be clear, I do not study anxiety, and I don’t have anxiety. I am medicated for depression, and I don’t really work with anxiety in any of my clinical work. It’s not an area that I research ''at all'', so basically what I know is just what I know from textbooks. And I’ve never specifically come across these studies. But there’s a part of me that thinks there is still a stigma around socially anxious people. And so I’m going to say '''people actually ''don’t'' think more highly of them.''' And that’s the fiction. But I could be wrong. You guys could totally have it because I’m on the fence about those.

=== Jay polls the audience again ===

'''J:''' All right. Let’s go through again. I’m going to ask the audience, here. So, we’ll go to the first one again. "Anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women." ''(one clap)''

'''S:''' One holdout!

'''C:''' [inaudible]

'''S:''' Stick to your convictions!

'''E:''' Independence! I love it. Yes.

'''J:''' Apparently the rest of the audience was too anxious to clap. ''(laughter)'' "Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions." ''(audience single claps)

'''C:''' Hmm…

'''J:''' I don’t know. It’s pretty close to the first one.

'''C:''' I don’t know. Let’s lesson to the next one.

'''E:''' A few people shifted.

'''J:''' "Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them." ''(audience single claps)''

'''B:''' Oh boy!

'''S:''' Cara definitely influenced them.

'''C:''' But, guys, I might have led you astray. ''(laughter)'' I’m really sorry.

'''J:''' "People who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively." ''(another few claps)'' All right. Did you feel that those [middle] two were close?

'''S:''' Those two are a lot closer than initially—

'''E:''' —A lot closer.

'''B:''' —[inaudible] ask again, real quick?

'''S:''' No, I think we’ll just call it a tie.

'''C:''' I think we shifted it to more tied in between the two.

=== Jay explains Item #4 ===

'''J:''' All right. I will start with the last one: "People who suffer from anxiety, while having an anxious episode, can perceive smells negatively." So, people with anxiety disorders tend to label neutral smells as bad smells, so '''this one is science.''' Professor Win Lee explains, "in typical order-processing, it is usually just the olfactory system that gets activated, but when a person becomes anxious, the emotional system becomes part of the olfactory processing stream."<ref name=anxiety/> That is ''fascinating.''

'''B:''' Wow. That’s cool!

'''J:''' So, your anxious consciousness taps into the way that your olfactory processing happens.

'''E:''' But what about the other areas, the other senses? Does it also impact—

'''C:''' —I think it does affect other senses, too. It might make sounds more shrill or more difficult.

'''E:''' —Tastes, even?

'''B:''' —But it makes sense that it would be tied to smells because your olfactory centers are closer to the—

'''J:''' —To memory.

'''B:''' —the limbic areas of your brain tied to emotions. So that’s why when you smell something, it can bring you back ''decades.'' Just that one trigger of a smell can bring you back to a memory that’s literally fifty years—

'''C:''' —They’re also very fast, right? Your olfaction, because it doesn’t pass through the {{w|thalamus}} like everything else. It’s a very fast sense compared to some of the other senses. It’s evolution, like, very old.

'''J:''' —To answer your question, I don’t know, Ev, I don’t know if it can hijack the other senses as well. As an anxious person, I will tell you that if I’m having a ''really'' bad panic attack, ''everything'' is catastrophized.

'''C:''' Yeah, it’s acute.

'''J:''' Yeah, everything’s acute. I would imagine—

'''E:''' —Or exaggerated. But negative, as well.

'''J:''' —But it’s also something, with my personal experience, very much insular, like I’m turned into myself. I’m not peering out into the world. I’m just looking in at what’s going on.

'''C:''' —''(hinting)'' You might not be looking at faces…I don’t kno-o-ow. ''(laughs)''

=== Jay explains Item #3 ===

'''J:''' All right. So I want to go to #3, "Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them."

'''C:''' Crap.

'''J:''' I’ll just read this. And then you guys will—

'''C:''' —Crap.

'''J:''' —discover what the truth is. So people with social anxiety usually think they don’t do well in social situations, but new research indicates otherwise. So '''this one is science.''' "Friends of those with social anxiety tend to think very highly of their nervous companions. This is possibly due to how sensitive anxious people can be while they’re in a social environment, meaning that they think before speaking and always consider the feelings of others."<ref name=anxiety/>

'''C:''' So, wait, you’re saying that they think more highly of them than they think of themselves?

'''J:''' Well, a socially-anxious person—

'''C:''' —''(playfully growling)'' ''Not'' what the item said!

'''J:''' —Yeah it is.

'''C:''' Is it?

'''J:''' Yeah, listen.

'''C:''' It just says, "highly."

'''J:''' "Friends and family of socially anxious people tend to think highly of them." So a socially anxious person is actually, for lack of a better way to say it—they’re scoring points with friends and family because they’re tuned into their politeness and to the other people more. ''Because'' of their social anxiety, they’re reading everyone, and they’re analyzing their environment more actively than a person that doesn’t have the anxiety.

'''C:''' Gotcha. Okay. Yeah.

=== Jay explains Item #2 ===

'''J:''' So I will now go to, "Anxious people are less sensitive to changes in facial expressions." '''This one is the fake.''' So the audience got it. Good job.

'''C:''' Good job, guys! ''(applause)''

'''J:''' I picked this one because the way that I did this—I tested myself on all of these facts. I read them and thought to myself whether I agreed. The website I found was kind of like, "well, what do you think the truth is?" And it was interesting.

I thought that this one was the opposite because of what you and I said, because when you’re having a panic attack, you’re so—your surroundings almost don’t matter because you really do kind of get this haze that comes over you and you’re just in your own head. It’s very insular. But it turns out that people who are anxious—so they said, "People with anxiety are quicker to perceive changes in facial expressions than those without anxiety; however, they are less accurate at perceiving their ''meanings.''"<ref name=anxiety/> So they can misinterpret them—

'''S:''' —But they probably interpret them negatively.

'''C:''' —They make them negative.

'''J:''' Right, right, of course. "It’s easy for those who struggle with anxiety to overthink and jump to conclusions. This may lead to tension and conflict in relationships."<ref name=anxiety/> So, very good, audience. You guys did a great job, except you [pointing to lone hold-out], who I noticed didn’t clap because you were thinking probably like I do. ''(laughter)''

=== Jay explains Item #1 ===

'''J:''' So the first one: "Anxiety is more prevalent in developed countries and among women." '''This one is science.''' "The US is considered to be one of the most anxious nations on Earth."<ref name=anxiety/> Sociologists blame the increased number of choices—''the increased number of choices that we have''—so our modern—

'''S:''' —[inaudible]

'''J:''' —well, modern society in general. We have—

'''S:''' —It’s getting worse.

'''J:''' —We have so many choices in front of us that it adds up to emotional stress throughout the day. You get more and more stressed. You got so many—you’re scrolling through {{w|Amazon (company)|Amazon}}, and you don’t just have one pair of socks. You’ve got hundreds of pairs of socks, and you have to think about it and think about it and think about. So—

'''S:''' —Well, and this gets to the, seriously, the confluence of AI and [[SGU_Episode_762#Social_Media.2C_CAD.2C_.26_the_Aug_.2835:25.29|the Aug]], social media, is you have virtual assistants who make decisions for you, and people love that because it reduces their anxiety—

'''E:''' —Yeah, exactly.

'''S:''' —it reduces their choices. And now you have not only targeted ads; you’re allowing whoever’s in charge of the Aug to live your life for you, like to lead you around and make decisions for you. And, at first, it’s like the things you don’t really care about that much or whatever, but how intrusive is that going to get? Think about it! Again, we’ll trade convenience for security, for privacy. Imagine how much we’ll trade to really reduce our cognitive load? That is really what psychologists would call that, right? {{w|Cognitive load}} is how much work you have to do to get through your day, to get through a task, to do something. AI system software in general, it’s all engineered—or it should be, if it’s good, if it’s working well—to ''minimize'' cognitive load, right?

Good movie-making is about minimizing cognitive load in a lot of ways. I remember, back when we were still doing films, we learned—because we got a course from our friend at {{w|Pixar}}, who said, "If you follow the action on a movie screen"—remember movie screens?—"You follow the action. If one scene ends over here, the next scene picks up here." [Steve presumably gestures.] Right? It doesn’t pick up over here?

'''J:''' Yeah, meaning that where your eyes are—

'''S:''' —Yeah, they know where eyes are. They’re following your eyes, and then they’re making sure your eyes are following the action from one scene to the next—

'''C:''' —It’s less work for you.

'''S:''' —because—right, because that’s less work. If you have to suddenly hunt for where the action picks up—"Oh, it’s over here!"—that’s cognitive load—

'''E:''' —Too disorienting, yeah.

'''S:''' —it takes you out, it re—

'''C:''' —That’s why {{w|360-degree video|360 films}} are hard for people. Like it’s hard to catch on to a 360 movie because you have to—

'''S:''' —Or {{w|Virtual_reality_applications#Cinema|virtual films}}, remember the virtual films, which never really took off? 

'''C:''' —yeah, you have to ''find'' the action, as opposed to—

'''S:''' —Yeah, you’re constantly looking for where the action is. They can be fun, but that’s ''high'' cognitive load. You’ve got to be in the mood for that. So now we’re just going to be surrounded by systems that will reduce our cognitive load for us, and that’s like crack. Who won’t do that?

'''J:''' That’s like somebody cutting your lawn for you.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' How could you not love that? ''(audience laughter)''

'''S:''' Right.

'''E:''' The lawn bots.

'''J:''' My wife and I were going in overlord to get the yard cleaned up for the fall. And we hired some people to come and take down some trees from the tornado and I remember standing—I have a cup of coffee. I’m looking out the window. I’m watching a few guys work on my yard, and I’m just like [loving gesture/nod?] "I love ''all'' of you guys. Thank you so much! This is such a pleasure."

'''E:''' "I’m in here, you’re out there."

'''B:''' I told you to get robots to do that.

'''C:''' ''(laughs)''

'''B:''' I look out my window and want the ''robots'' cutting my lawn—

'''J:''' —I don’t want robots in my yard. ''(laughter)''

'''E:''' "Get off my lawn!"

'''S:''' Still not down with the robots?

'''J:''' No.

== Questions/V-mails/Corrections ==

'''S:''' We got emailed—or v-mailed some questions, if we want to take some virtual questions.

'''C:''' Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.

'''S:''' I have one, which I want to bring up.

=== Question #1: New Universal Flu Vaccine (1:33:24) ===

'''S:''' So did you guys all get your {{w|Influenza vaccine|flu shot}} this year? Everybody get their flu shot?

''(Rogues confirm.)''

'''S:''' It’s not really flu season down here, right?

'''C:''' They got theirs six months ago, right?

'''E:''' Their ''quad.''

'''S:''' Well, the quad, that ''was'' the standard of—actually, remember the [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quadrivalent#Adjective tetravalent vaccines], the flu vaccines?

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' But now we have the {{w|universal flu vaccine}}, which came out in 2032. So the question—this comes from Haywood, and Haywood asks—

''(Rogues cackle at inside joke.)''

'''E:''' [to Jay] He got you! Totally got you.

'''C:''' ''(laughing)'' I’m sorry.

'''J:''' ''(laughing)'' [inaudible] swallowing. I just [inaudible]. Did you ''not'' think I was going to lose it? Does anybody know why that’s funny?

'''B:''' No, you ''can’t''—

'''C:''' Yeah, we don’t have to tell them.

'''E:''' Unh-unh-unh-unh-unh-unh.

'''B:''' You can’t say! Jeez, stop it.

'''C & E:''' ''(laughs)''

'''J:''' ''(laughing)'' What was that emailer’s last name, Steve?

'''C:''' No! He left it off the email.

'''S:''' ''(laughing)'' He didn’t say. Just a first name [inaudible].

'''C:''' ''(laughs hard)'' He’s totally losing it.

'''E:''' ''(guffaws)''

'''S:''' So, anyway.

'''E:''' Oh, gosh!

'''S:''' He wants to know if he should get the new universal flu vaccine because—well, there's now the antivaxxer fear mongering around this one, right, because—

'''B:''' —Yeah, of course.

'''S:''' —because it’s all genetically modified, et cetera. So, yes, ''Haywood,'' you ''should'' get the universal flu vaccine because even the tetravalent vaccine—Every year, back in the day, up until two years ago, they would have to—If you were from the United States, like we are, they used to give us whatever strains of flu you guys [Australians] were getting, and then ''you'' get whatever strains we’re getting six months before because that was lead time to make the vaccines. And there’s, of course, hundreds of strains, and they’re just ''guessing.'' So they increased the ''number'' of strains that they were covering per vaccine. Some sort of became permanently imbedded, so you have to cover certain strains every year, then you have to add one or two that you think are going to come—

'''C:''' —But that left out any potential mutations.

'''S:''' Yeah. When the vaccine matches, it’s like 95% effective, but mismatch could reduce that to 90, 60, ''40%'' on bad years. It might only be 40% effective.

'''C:''' Yeah, there have been years like that, for sure.

'''E:''' Very bad.

'''C:''' Where you got the vaccine, you still got the flu. It sucked.

'''S:''' They’ve been researching, for about 40 years, a universal flu vaccine. The problem has always been that the parts of the flu vaccine—of the flu virus—that are universal are hidden from antibodies. The immune system can’t get access to that because all of the stuff that changes from strain to strain was in the way. But they did finally figure out a way to crack into that, to get access to the universal bits. And so they’ve been, now, producing a universal flu vaccine. And if you get that, you are resistant to ''every'' flu strain. And so you only need to get it about once every five years. If you get that for once every five years—and now it’s like ''every'' year it’s 95% effective.

'''E:''' That’s good.

'''S:''' So, yes, get it! You should absolutely get it.

'''J:''' Of course!

'''C:''' We all did!

'''S:''' Yeah, I know. I know. I made you get it.

'''C:''' ''(playfully proud)'' We’re the SGU!

'''E:''' It still hurt a little, though.

'''S:''' It’s still a vaccine. It’s still a shot.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:36:31) ==
<blockquote>Science is the greatest thing known to humans. Through science we have been able to seize a modicum of control over the otherwise natural state of chaos throughout the cosmos. It is truly the most stunning achievement by a life form that emerged from the dust of the stars. In order for us to be the best stewards of our universe, we must continue the pursuit of science, and may it forever be our torch to light our way forward. — Dr. Alyssa Carson<ref name=Carson/>, first resident of {{w|Moonbase|Armstrong Station}}, The Moon</blockquote>

'''S:''' All right, Evan, before we close out the show, give us a quote!

'''E:''' "Science is the greatest thing known to humans. Through science we have been able to seize a modicum of control over the otherwise natural state of chaos throughout the cosmos. It is truly the most stunning achievement by a life form that emerged from the dust of the stars. In order for us to be the best stewards of our universe, we must continue the pursuit of science, and may it forever be our torch to light our way forward," spoken by Dr. Alyssa Carson. She’s a NASA astronaut and she was the first inhabitant of Armstrong Station on the Moon in 2031.

''(laughter), (applause)''

== Signoff ==

'''S:''' Thank you guys all for joining me for this special episode, and [to audience] thank all of you for joining us—

'''C:''' —Thanks, Steve.

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}.

''(applause)''

{{Outro664}}

== Today I Learned ==

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

{{Page categories
|Guest Rogues =
|Live Recording = 
|Interview =
|Randi Speaks =
|Skeptical Puzzle =
|Amendments =
|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science = 
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations = 
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution = 
|Neuroscience & Psychology = 
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics = 
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine = 
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology = 
|UFOs & Aliens =
|Other =
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}

SGU Episodes

2025-01-07T03:45:42Z

Xanderox: added 2025

[[File:LogoSGU.png|right|150px]]


Below are collapsible tables with links to all the SGU episodes, sortable by date, transcription status, and various notable episode features. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] outline.
{{anchor|jump}} 
''Jump to: [[#2035|2035]], [[#2025|2025]], [[#2024|2024]], [[#2023|2023]], [[#2022|2022]], [[#2021|2021]], [[#2020|2020]],
[[#2019|2019]], [[#2018|2018]], [[#2017|2017]], [[#2016|2016]], [[#2015|2015]], [[#2014|2014]], [[#2013|2013]],
[[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]],
[[#2005|2005]]''

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|     {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|-
|    {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|     {{a}}
| –  initial transcription by Google Speech API
|-
|    {{tick}}
|  –  episode proof-read
|     {{bot}}
| –  initial transcription by high quality "[[Template:Bot|'''transcription-bot''']]"
|}
 
{{EpisodeList2025}}
{{EpisodeList2024}}
{{EpisodeList2023}}
{{EpisodeList2022}}
{{EpisodeList2021}}
{{EpisodeList2020}}
{{EpisodeList2019}}
{{EpisodeList2018}}
{{EpisodeList2017}}
{{EpisodeList2016}}
{{EpisodeList2015}}
{{EpisodeList2014}}
{{EpisodeList2013}}
{{EpisodeList2012}}
{{EpisodeList2011}}
{{EpisodeList2010}}
{{EpisodeList2009}}
{{EpisodeList2008}}
{{EpisodeList2007}}
{{EpisodeList2006}}
{{EpisodeList2005}}

[[Category:Navigation pages]]

Help:Automatic transcription

2025-01-07T03:41:40Z

Xanderox: a bit more info

==Voice recognition on SGUTranscripts.org==
=== Bot Icon: {{bot}} ===
When the AI speech-to-text "robot" icon {{bot}} is used in the episode list, it indicates high quality transcription (2024 standard) from the '''"transcription-bot"''', which does the following:

* performs diarization (identifying speakers)
* maps speakers to the names of the rogues
* segments the transcript (including timestamps)
* uploads the podcast image
* includes links to articles

To report issues or learn more about transcription-bot, visit https://github.com/mheguy/transcription-bot.

=== API Icon: {{a}}===
When the AI speech-to-text icon {{a}} is used in the episode list, it indicates that the episode, or sections of it, were first transcribed by the [https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/demos/speech.html Google Web Speech API Demonstration] (or another automatic method).

Although this app works great when one person is speaking clearly, it soon gets things wrong when the Rogues talk over one another, or if someone has an accent other than American.
 <big>'''''...So, how you can help?!'''''</big> 
When editing automated transcription, or [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proofreading|proofreading]], you should take into account the current difficulties that hamper these not-yet-robot-overlords.
[[Category:Help]]

Template:EpisodeList2022

2024-12-26T20:49:46Z

Xanderox: Removed protection from "Template:EpisodeList2022"

Template:Tooltip

2024-11-26T19:29:57Z

Xanderox: /* Link to an SGU Transcripts page */ original anchored link is not bolded

<abbr title="{{{2|}}}">{{{1|}}}</abbr><div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-myDivision">''{{{2|}}}''</div><noinclude>
This template allows for transcribers to attach a hovering note to some text, perhaps to alert readers to a connection to a previous episode, like [[SGU Episode 829#correction|the correction made in Episode 829]], or to note a name dear to the Rogues, like {{tooltip|Julia.|one of Steve's daughters}}

The basic format is: <pre>{{tooltip|_name_or_text_with_punctuation_if_any_|_hovering_note_about_the_name_or_text_}}</pre>

The above example renders as '''{{tooltip|_name_or_text_,|_hovering_note_about_the_name_or_text_}}''' with a dotted line under "_name_or_text_," and a floating '?' above it to draw attention to the hovering note. '''Note:''' "_name_or_text_," has been bolded for emphasis in this example.
'''''Also note that clicking/tapping on the underlined text expands the note that hovers for desktop users; some mobile devices cannot display the hovering text, so this format is more accessible.'''''
== Tooltip with Episode/Website/Wiki links ==
=== Link to an SGU Transcripts page ===
To put a tooltip above a link to another Episode, use the tooltip template ''after'' the pipe that follows the link.
The tooltip over the anchored (#) [[SGU Episode 822#tooltipexample|link in Episode 822 to Episode 829]] is formatted: <pre>[[SGU Episode 829#correction|{{tooltip|Wii Shop Channel Theme.|correction made in Episode 829}}]]</pre>
which renders as [[SGU Episode 829#correction|{{tooltip|Wii Shop Channel Theme.|correction made in Episode 829}}]]

=== Link to a website ===
To put a tooltip above a link to a website, use the tooltip template inside the single <code>[</code>brackets<code>]</code>, ''after'' the url, as in [[SGU_Episode_946#References|the References list from Episode 946]]. This example currently does not do this, since the latest tooltip template winds up making a duplicated link...it may be preferable to put the tooltip ''outside'' the brackets for the website:
<pre>Harefuah (a medical journal by the {{tooltip|IMA):|Israel Medical Association}} [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12187564/ Titin: some aspects of the largest protein in the body]</pre>
which renders as Harefuah (a medical journal by the {{tooltip|IMA):|Israel Medical Association}} [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12187564/ Titin: some aspects of the largest protein in the body]

=== Link to a Wikipedia article ===
To Put a tooltip about a link to a wikipedia article that uses the [[Template:W|Wikipedia template]], use the tooltip template ''after'' the pipe that follows the Wikipedia article name. Make sure to close both the W and tooltip templates with double close braces: <code>}} }}</code> Example:
<pre>{{w|TRIUMF|{{tooltip|TRIUMF|Canada's national particle accelerator centre}}}}</pre>

which renders as {{w|TRIUMF|{{tooltip|TRIUMF|Canada's national particle accelerator centre}}}} inside the episode infobox in [[SGU Episode 952]].

== Usage ==
Formatting certain examples:
===Hover text inside an internal SGU Transcripts link===
<pre>[[_SGU_transcript_pagename_#with_anchor_if_anchor_|{{tooltip|_name_or_text_|_hovering_note_about_the_name_or_text_}}]]</pre>
renders: [[Template:Tooltip#Usage|{{tooltip|_name_or_text_|_hovering_note_about_the_name_or_text_}}]]
===Hover text inside a hyperlink (currently semi-problematic)===
<pre>[_website_URL_ {{tooltip|_name_of_webpage_or_other_info_|_hovering_note_}}]</pre>
renders: [http://www.sgutranscripts.org {{tooltip|_name_of_webpage_or_other_info_|_hovering_note_}}]</pre>
===Hover text inside Wikipedia template call===
<pre>{{w|_Wikipedia_article_title|{{tooltip|_Wikipedia_article_title_or_alternate_text| _hovering_note_}}}}</pre>
renders: {{w|The Skeptics Guide to the Universe |{{tooltip| _Wikipedia_article_title_or_alternate_text | _hovering_note_}}}}
</noinclude>

Template:Tooltip

2024-11-26T19:25:15Z

Xanderox: /* Hover text inside Wikipedia template call */ diff word

<abbr title="{{{2|}}}">{{{1|}}}</abbr><div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-myDivision">''{{{2|}}}''</div><noinclude>
This template allows for transcribers to attach a hovering note to some text, perhaps to alert readers to a connection to a previous episode, like [[SGU Episode 829#correction|the correction made in Episode 829]], or to note a name dear to the Rogues, like {{tooltip|Julia.|one of Steve's daughters}}

The basic format is: <pre>{{tooltip|_name_or_text_with_punctuation_if_any_|_hovering_note_about_the_name_or_text_}}</pre>

The above example renders as '''{{tooltip|_name_or_text_,|_hovering_note_about_the_name_or_text_}}''' with a dotted line under "_name_or_text_," and a floating '?' above it to draw attention to the hovering note. '''Note:''' "_name_or_text_," has been bolded for emphasis in this example.
'''''Also note that clicking/tapping on the underlined text expands the note that hovers for desktop users; some mobile devices cannot display the hovering text, so this format is more accessible.'''''
== Tooltip with Episode/Website/Wiki links ==
=== Link to an SGU Transcripts page ===
To put a tooltip above a link to another Episode, use the tooltip template ''after'' the pipe that follows the link.
The tooltip over the bolded, anchored (#) [[SGU Episode 822#tooltipexample|link in Episode 822 to Episode 829]] is formatted: <pre>[[SGU Episode 829#correction|{{tooltip|Wii Shop Channel Theme.|correction made in Episode 829}}]]</pre>
which renders as [[SGU Episode 829#correction|{{tooltip|Wii Shop Channel Theme.|correction made in Episode 829}}]]

=== Link to a website ===
To put a tooltip above a link to a website, use the tooltip template inside the single <code>[</code>brackets<code>]</code>, ''after'' the url, as in [[SGU_Episode_946#References|the References list from Episode 946]]. This example currently does not do this, since the latest tooltip template winds up making a duplicated link...it may be preferable to put the tooltip ''outside'' the brackets for the website:
<pre>Harefuah (a medical journal by the {{tooltip|IMA):|Israel Medical Association}} [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12187564/ Titin: some aspects of the largest protein in the body]</pre>
which renders as Harefuah (a medical journal by the {{tooltip|IMA):|Israel Medical Association}} [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12187564/ Titin: some aspects of the largest protein in the body]

=== Link to a Wikipedia article ===
To Put a tooltip about a link to a wikipedia article that uses the [[Template:W|Wikipedia template]], use the tooltip template ''after'' the pipe that follows the Wikipedia article name. Make sure to close both the W and tooltip templates with double close braces: <code>}} }}</code> Example:
<pre>{{w|TRIUMF|{{tooltip|TRIUMF|Canada's national particle accelerator centre}}}}</pre>

which renders as {{w|TRIUMF|{{tooltip|TRIUMF|Canada's national particle accelerator centre}}}} inside the episode infobox in [[SGU Episode 952]].

== Usage ==
Formatting certain examples:
===Hover text inside an internal SGU Transcripts link===
<pre>[[_SGU_transcript_pagename_#with_anchor_if_anchor_|{{tooltip|_name_or_text_|_hovering_note_about_the_name_or_text_}}]]</pre>
renders: [[Template:Tooltip#Usage|{{tooltip|_name_or_text_|_hovering_note_about_the_name_or_text_}}]]
===Hover text inside a hyperlink (currently semi-problematic)===
<pre>[_website_URL_ {{tooltip|_name_of_webpage_or_other_info_|_hovering_note_}}]</pre>
renders: [http://www.sgutranscripts.org {{tooltip|_name_of_webpage_or_other_info_|_hovering_note_}}]</pre>
===Hover text inside Wikipedia template call===
<pre>{{w|_Wikipedia_article_title|{{tooltip|_Wikipedia_article_title_or_alternate_text| _hovering_note_}}}}</pre>
renders: {{w|The Skeptics Guide to the Universe |{{tooltip| _Wikipedia_article_title_or_alternate_text | _hovering_note_}}}}
</noinclude>

User talk:Mheguy/Archive/001

2024-11-26T19:18:59Z

Xanderox: Created page with "What does "un-comment" mean here? (P.S. the other stuff is even more Greek to me.) - ~~~~"

What does "un-comment" mean here? (P.S. the other stuff is even more Greek to me.)
 - [[User:Xanderox|Xanderox]] ([[User talk:Xanderox|talk]]) 06:18, 27 November 2024 (AEDT)

Template:EpisodeList2024

2024-11-24T15:02:07Z

Xanderox: added final 2024 episodes. obviously still need to update the episodes whose episode features are already transcribed

<noinclude>
=== Description ===
This style of template is for collating a year's list of episodes into a table sortable by date and other notable SGU episode features. The column headers for episode features are listed left to right in order of the typically most common occurrence. That is, the most common episode feature is at least one special "non-news" segment, followed by a SoF game with a theme, followed by interviews and guest Rogues.

'''To add entries, insert the code that follows. Note: each line's indents will appear aligned in the edit window.'''

<pre>
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =
|date = MM-DD 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
</pre>

Previous year: [[Template: EpisodeList2023|2023 - Episodes 913-964]]

Following year: [[Template: EpisodeList2025|2025 - Episodes 1017-1068]]

''Note: This table's columns will "fill out" when episode features are added, widening them to more or less match previous years' tables.'' <hr></noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2024 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 965-1016)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1016
|date = 12-28 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1015
|date = 12-21 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1014
|date = 12-14 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1013
|date = 12-07 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1012
|date = 11-30 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1011
|date = 11-23 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1010
|date = 11-16 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1009
|date = 11-09 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1008
|date = 11-02 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1007
|date = 10-26 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1006
|date = 10-19 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1005
|date = 10-12 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1004
|date = 10-05 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1003
|date = 09-28 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1002
|date = 09-21 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 1001
|date = 09-14 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 1000
|date = 09-07 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 999
|date = 08-31 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =998
|date = 08-24 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =997
|date = 08-17 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =996
|date = 08-10 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =995
|date = 08-03 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =994
|date = 07-27 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =993
|date = 07-20 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =992
|date = 07-13 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =991
|date = 07-06 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =990
|date = 06-29 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 990#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_990#theme|Technology news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =989
|date = 06-22 
|status = 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 989#tiktok|Free energy murders]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =988
|date = 06-15 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 988#quickie|Quickie with Evan]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =987
|date = 06-08 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 987#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 987#theme|GMO news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =986
|date = 06-01 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 986#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_986#theme|''"Good news, everyone!"'']]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =985
|date = 05-25 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 985#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_985#theme|Armor]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =984
|date = 05-18 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 984#special| Steorn Free Energy update]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_984#theme|Battery materials]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =983
|date = 05-11 
|status = proofread 
|other =n
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_983#theme|Animal eyes]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_983#interview| Robert Bartholomew]], sociologist
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =982
|date = 05-04 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 982#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_982#theme|Deciphering jargon]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =981
|date = 04-27 
|status = proofread 
|other =n
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_981#theme|Medical risk]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =980
|date = 04-20 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 980#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =979
|date = 04-13 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 979|Live from Dallas]] [[SGU Episode 979#special|Eclipse science]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_979#theme|Texas]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =[[SGU_Episode_979|Dustin Bates]], [https://www.starsetonline.com ''Starset'' rockstar]
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =978
|date = 04-06 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 978#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_978#theme|Eggs]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =[http://www.jonesrooy.com Andrea Jones-Rooy,] political, social, & data scientist
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 977
|date = 03-30 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 977#special|AI-created music]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_977#theme|Power & energy news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 976
|date = 03-23 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 976#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_976#interview|Dante Lauretta]], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cybp21DcWPg "The Asteroid Hunter"]
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 975
|date = 03-16 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 975#special|Tax scams]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_975#theme|Equinoxes]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 974
|date = 03-09 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 974#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_974#theme|Daylight Saving Time]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 973
|date = 03-02 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 973#quotable|Potent Quotables]] [[SGU Episode 973#alabama|Alabama SC decision]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 972
|date = 02-24 
|status = proofread 
|other =n 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_972#theme|Eclipses]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_972#interview|Chris Smith]], virologist & podcaster
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 971
|date = 02-17 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 971#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]] [[SGU Episode 971#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =n 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue ={{w|George Hrab}}, musican & skeptic
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 970
|date = 02-10 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 970#wtw|What's the Word?]] [[SGU Episode 970#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_970#theme|SGU Shark Week]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 969
|date = 02-03 
|status = proofread 
|other =n 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_969#theme|Animal emotions]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_969#interview|Dustin Bates]], [https://www.starsetonline.com ''Starset'' rockstar]
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 968
|date = 01-27 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 968#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|theme = [[SGU_Episode_968#theme|The Ice Age]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 967
|date = 01-20 
|status =proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 967#quickie|Quickie: TikTok recap]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_967#theme|''Hidden Theme!'']]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_967#interview|Robert Sapolsky]], neuroendocrinology researcher
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 966
|date = 01-13 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 966#dumbest|Dumbest Thing of the Week]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_966#theme|Positive global trends]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 965
|date = 01-06 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 965|2024 Psychic Predictions]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 965#theme|The worst countries]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2024 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 965-1016)
|}

Main Page

2024-11-24T14:45:07Z

Xanderox: Inserting episode tables directly instead of using episode list template

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==
We aim to provide transcripts of the [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ Skeptics' Guide to the Universe] podcast for linking, searching, and improved accessibility.

There's plenty of work still to do. [[Help:How_to_Contribute|'''Please help!''']]

{|style="margin: auto"

|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #9DB7C4;background:#F2F4F7;margin: 0.5em;width:240px;height:240px;vertical-align: top;" cellspacing="3"
|-
|style="background-color:#CCD4EC;text-align:center;font-size:110%;height:35px;"|<big>[[SGU Episodes|'''SGU Transcripts''']]</big>
|-
|style="text-align:center;height:170px"|[[File:LogoSGU.png|link=SGU Episodes|160px]]
|-
|style="text-align:center;"|[[SGU Episodes|List of episode pages]]
|}

|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #9DB7C4;background:#F2F4F7;margin: 0.5em;width:240px;height:240px;" cellspacing="3"
|-
|style="background-color:#CCD4EC;text-align:center;font-size:110%;height:35px;"|<big>[[5X5 Episodes|'''5x5 Transcripts''']]</big>
|-
|style="text-align:center;height:170px"|[[File:Logo5x5.png|link=5X5 Episodes|160px]]
|-
|style="text-align:center;"|[[5X5 Episodes|List of 5x5 pages]]
|}

|}
{|style="margin: auto"
|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #B7DAC7;background:#F2FBF6;margin: 0.5em;width:260px;height:270px;" cellspacing="3"cellpadding="1"
|-
|style="background-color:#C7DEC7;text-align:center;height:35px;"|<big>[[Browse Categories|'''Browse by Category''']]</big>
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;padding-top:0.6em;" valign="top"| Each SGU episode covers a variety of topics, from [[:Category:Astronomy & Space Science|astronomy]] and [[:Category:Nature & Evolution|evolution]], to [[:Category:Alternative Medicine|alternative medicine]] and the [[:Category:Paranormal|paranormal]].

They also include regular features, such as [[:Category:Interview|interviews]], [[:Category:Guest Rogues|guest rogues]] and [[:Category:Live Recording|live recordings]].

You can browse episodes and segments by category by clicking on the links below
|}
|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #B7DAC7;background:#F2FBF6;margin: 0.5em;width:260px;height:270px;" cellspacing="3"cellpadding="1"
|-
|style="background-color:#C7DEC7;text-align:center;height:35px;"|<big>'''Quotes'''</big>
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;padding-top:0.6em;" valign="top"| '''[[Skeptical Quote Collection]]''' – The Skeptics' Guide includes a weekly quote. This page puts them all in one place for you.

'''[[Favorite Rogue Quotes]]''' – Our friends at the SGU often say some pretty profound and/or hilarious things. We've put together some of our favorites. Why not add your own?
|}
|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #B7DAC7;background:#F2FBF6;margin: 0.5em;width:260px;height:270px;" cellspacing="3"cellpadding="1"
|-
|style="background-color:#C7DEC7;text-align:center;height:35px;"|<big>[[Help:Contents|'''Support''']]</big>
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;padding-top:0.6em;" valign="top"|SGUTranscripts.org is a community project, and with so much fantastic material to cover, we could do with some help.
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;"| '''[[Help:Getting Started|Getting Started]]''' – The basics of setting up and editing a page.
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;"| '''[[Help:How to Contribute|How to Contribute]]''' – There are plenty of different ways to help out, from adding links and proof-reading pages, to compiling fact lists for episodes.
|}
|}

== Categories ==


Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of links in each category, including both episode and individual segment links.
=== SGU Features: ===
{|style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto;text-align: center; border-spacing: 0; padding: 2;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Interview
|icon = CatIcon_interview.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Guest Rogues
|icon = CatIcon_guest.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Live Recording
|icon = CatIcon_live.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Amendments
|icon = CatIcon amendments.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Skeptical Puzzle
|icon = CatIcon puzzle.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Randi Speaks
|icon = CatIcon randi.png
}}
|}
{|style="margin: 0 auto 0 auto; text-align: center; border-spacing: 0; padding: 2;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = SoF with a Theme
|categoryLabel =   SoF with a Theme
|icon = CatIcon_sof.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = What's the Word?
|categoryLabel =   What's the Word?
|icon = CatIcon_wtw.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Name That Logical Fallacy
|categoryLabel = Name That Logical Fallacy
|icon = CatIcon fallacy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = This Day in Skepticism
|categoryLabel = This Day in Skepticism
|icon = CatIcon_thisday.jpg
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Forgotten Superheroes of Science
|categoryLabel = Forgotten Superheroes
|icon = CatIcon_FSS.jpg
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Women in History
|categoryLabel =   Women in History
|icon = CatIcon_WIH.jpg
}}
|}

===Topics:===
{|style="margin: 1em auto 0 auto;text-align: center; border-spacing: 0; padding: 2;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Alternative Medicine
|categoryLabel = Alternative Medicine
|icon = CatIcon_altMed.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Energy Healing
|categoryLabel = Alt med: Energy Healing
|icon = CatIcon energy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Homeopathy
|categoryLabel = Alt med: Homeopathy
|icon = CatIcon homeopathy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Astronomy & Space Science
|categoryLabel = Astronomy & Space Science
|icon = CatIcon space.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Mars
|categoryLabel = Astronomy & Exploration: Mars
|icon = Clipart mars.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = The Moon
|categoryLabel = Astronomy & Exploration: The Moon
|icon = Stylized moon.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Climate & Environmental Science
|categoryLabel = Climate & Environmentalism
|icon = Cat climate science icon.jpeg
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|categoryLabel = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|icon = CatIcon scam.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Conspiracy Theories
|categoryLabel = Conspiracy Theories
|icon = CatIcon conspiracy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Entertainment
|categoryLabel =   Entertainment
|icon = CatIcon entertainment.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = General Science
|categoryLabel =   General Science
|icon = CatIcon science.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = History
|categoryLabel =   History
|icon = CatIcon history.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Humor
|categoryLabel =   Humor
|icon = CatIcon humor.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Legal Issues & Regulations
|categoryLabel = Legal Issues & Regulations
|icon = CatIcon legal.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Logic & Philosophy‏‎
|categoryLabel = Logic & Philosophy
|icon = CatIcon logic.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Myths & Misconceptions‏‎
|categoryLabel = Myths & Misconceptions‏‎
|icon = CatIcon myths.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Nature & Evolution
|categoryLabel = Nature & Evolution
|icon = CatIcon nature.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Neuroscience & Psychology
|categoryLabel = Neuroscience & Psychology
|icon = CatIcon neuro.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = New Age
|categoryLabel =   New Age
|icon = CatIcon newage.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Paranormal
|categoryLabel =   Paranormal
|icon = CatIcon paranormal.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Cryptozoology
|categoryLabel = Paranormal: Cryptozoology
|icon = CatIcon crypto.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = ESP
|categoryLabel = Paranormal: ESP
|icon = CatIcon esp.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Ghosts & Demons
|categoryLabel = Paranormal: Ghosts & Demons
|icon = CatIcon ghosts.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = UFOs & Aliens
|categoryLabel = Paranormal: UFOs & Aliens
|icon = CatIcon ufo.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Physics & Mechanics‏‎
|categoryLabel = Physics & Mechanics‏‎
|icon = CatIcon physics.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Politics
|categoryLabel =   Politics
|icon = CatIcon politics.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Prophecy
|categoryLabel =   Prophecy
|icon = CatIcon prophecy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Pseudoscience
|categoryLabel =   Pseudoscience
|icon = CatIcon pseudoscience.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Religion & Faith‏‎
|categoryLabel =   Religion & Faith‏‎
|icon = CatIcon religion.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Creationism & ID
|categoryLabel = R&F: Intel. Design & Creationism
|icon = CatIcon ID.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Science & Education
|categoryLabel = Science & Education
|icon = CatIcon edu.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Science & Medicine
|categoryLabel = Science & Medicine
|icon = CatIcon_medicine.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Science & the Media
|categoryLabel = Science & the Media
|icon = CatIcon media.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = SGU
|categoryLabel =   The SGU
|icon = CatIcon SGU.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Technology
|categoryLabel =   Technology
|icon = CatIcon tech.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Artificial Intelligence
|categoryLabel =   Technology: AI
|icon = Cat ai icon.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Year in Review
|categoryLabel =   Year in Review
|icon = CatIcon yearReview.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Other
|categoryLabel =   Other
|icon = CatIcon other.png
}}
|}

== SGU Transcripts ==
Below are collapsible tables with links to all the SGU episodes, sortable by date, transcription status, and various notable episode features. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] outline.
{{anchor|jump}} 
''Jump to: [[#2035|2035]], [[#2024|2024]], [[#2023|2023]], [[#2022|2022]], [[#2021|2021]], [[#2020|2020]],
[[#2019|2019]], [[#2018|2018]], [[#2017|2017]], [[#2016|2016]], [[#2015|2015]], [[#2014|2014]], [[#2013|2013]],
[[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]],
[[#2005|2005]]''

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|     {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|-
|    {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|     {{a}}
| –  initial transcription by Google Speech API
|-
|    {{tick}}
|  –  episode proof-read
|     {{bot}}
| –  initial transcription by high quality "[[Template:Bot|'''transcription-bot''']]"
|}
 
{{EpisodeList2024}}
{{EpisodeList2023}}
{{EpisodeList2022}}
{{EpisodeList2021}}
{{EpisodeList2020}}
{{EpisodeList2019}}
{{EpisodeList2018}}
{{EpisodeList2017}}
{{EpisodeList2016}}
{{EpisodeList2015}}
{{EpisodeList2014}}
{{EpisodeList2013}}
{{EpisodeList2012}}
{{EpisodeList2011}}
{{EpisodeList2010}}
{{EpisodeList2009}}
{{EpisodeList2008}}
{{EpisodeList2007}}
{{EpisodeList2006}}
{{EpisodeList2005}}

== 5X5 Transcripts ==
This is a sortable table of all of the transcribed 5X5 episodes, the date they were released, what was covered, and the topic categories.

Episodes with a tick {{tick}} as their status have been proof-read. Episodes marked with {{i}} are in progress, and those with {{Open}} need transcription.
{{5X5 episode list}}
[[Category:Navigation pages]]

SGU Episodes

2024-11-24T14:42:07Z

Xanderox: Apparently we can’t have a bunch of templates calling other templates

[[File:LogoSGU.png|right|150px]]


Below are collapsible tables with links to all the SGU episodes, sortable by date, transcription status, and various notable episode features. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] outline.
{{anchor|jump}} 
''Jump to: [[#2035|2035]], [[#2024|2024]], [[#2023|2023]], [[#2022|2022]], [[#2021|2021]], [[#2020|2020]],
[[#2019|2019]], [[#2018|2018]], [[#2017|2017]], [[#2016|2016]], [[#2015|2015]], [[#2014|2014]], [[#2013|2013]],
[[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]],
[[#2005|2005]]''

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|     {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|-
|    {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|     {{a}}
| –  initial transcription by Google Speech API
|-
|    {{tick}}
|  –  episode proof-read
|     {{bot}}
| –  initial transcription by high quality "[[Template:Bot|'''transcription-bot''']]"
|}
 
{{EpisodeList2024}}
{{EpisodeList2023}}
{{EpisodeList2022}}
{{EpisodeList2021}}
{{EpisodeList2020}}
{{EpisodeList2019}}
{{EpisodeList2018}}
{{EpisodeList2017}}
{{EpisodeList2016}}
{{EpisodeList2015}}
{{EpisodeList2014}}
{{EpisodeList2013}}
{{EpisodeList2012}}
{{EpisodeList2011}}
{{EpisodeList2010}}
{{EpisodeList2009}}
{{EpisodeList2008}}
{{EpisodeList2007}}
{{EpisodeList2006}}
{{EpisodeList2005}}

[[Category:Navigation pages]]

Main Page

2024-11-24T03:23:55Z

Xanderox: /* SGU Transcripts */ quick note

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==
We aim to provide transcripts of the [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ Skeptics' Guide to the Universe] podcast for linking, searching, and improved accessibility.

There's plenty of work still to do. [[Help:How_to_Contribute|'''Please help!''']]

{|style="margin: auto"

|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #9DB7C4;background:#F2F4F7;margin: 0.5em;width:240px;height:240px;vertical-align: top;" cellspacing="3"
|-
|style="background-color:#CCD4EC;text-align:center;font-size:110%;height:35px;"|<big>[[SGU Episodes|'''SGU Transcripts''']]</big>
|-
|style="text-align:center;height:170px"|[[File:LogoSGU.png|link=SGU Episodes|160px]]
|-
|style="text-align:center;"|[[SGU Episodes|List of episode pages]]
|}

|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #9DB7C4;background:#F2F4F7;margin: 0.5em;width:240px;height:240px;" cellspacing="3"
|-
|style="background-color:#CCD4EC;text-align:center;font-size:110%;height:35px;"|<big>[[5X5 Episodes|'''5x5 Transcripts''']]</big>
|-
|style="text-align:center;height:170px"|[[File:Logo5x5.png|link=5X5 Episodes|160px]]
|-
|style="text-align:center;"|[[5X5 Episodes|List of 5x5 pages]]
|}

|}
{|style="margin: auto"
|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #B7DAC7;background:#F2FBF6;margin: 0.5em;width:260px;height:270px;" cellspacing="3"cellpadding="1"
|-
|style="background-color:#C7DEC7;text-align:center;height:35px;"|<big>[[Browse Categories|'''Browse by Category''']]</big>
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;padding-top:0.6em;" valign="top"| Each SGU episode covers a variety of topics, from [[:Category:Astronomy & Space Science|astronomy]] and [[:Category:Nature & Evolution|evolution]], to [[:Category:Alternative Medicine|alternative medicine]] and the [[:Category:Paranormal|paranormal]].

They also include regular features, such as [[:Category:Interview|interviews]], [[:Category:Guest Rogues|guest rogues]] and [[:Category:Live Recording|live recordings]].

You can browse episodes and segments by category by clicking on the links below
|}
|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #B7DAC7;background:#F2FBF6;margin: 0.5em;width:260px;height:270px;" cellspacing="3"cellpadding="1"
|-
|style="background-color:#C7DEC7;text-align:center;height:35px;"|<big>'''Quotes'''</big>
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;padding-top:0.6em;" valign="top"| '''[[Skeptical Quote Collection]]''' – The Skeptics' Guide includes a weekly quote. This page puts them all in one place for you.

'''[[Favorite Rogue Quotes]]''' – Our friends at the SGU often say some pretty profound and/or hilarious things. We've put together some of our favorites. Why not add your own?
|}
|style="vertical-align: top;" |
{| style="border: 1px solid #B7DAC7;background:#F2FBF6;margin: 0.5em;width:260px;height:270px;" cellspacing="3"cellpadding="1"
|-
|style="background-color:#C7DEC7;text-align:center;height:35px;"|<big>[[Help:Contents|'''Support''']]</big>
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;padding-top:0.6em;" valign="top"|SGUTranscripts.org is a community project, and with so much fantastic material to cover, we could do with some help.
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;"| '''[[Help:Getting Started|Getting Started]]''' – The basics of setting up and editing a page.
|-
|style="padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;"| '''[[Help:How to Contribute|How to Contribute]]''' – There are plenty of different ways to help out, from adding links and proof-reading pages, to compiling fact lists for episodes.
|}
|}

== Categories ==


Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of links in each category, including both episode and individual segment links.
=== SGU Features: ===
{|style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto;text-align: center; border-spacing: 0; padding: 2;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Interview
|icon = CatIcon_interview.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Guest Rogues
|icon = CatIcon_guest.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Live Recording
|icon = CatIcon_live.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Amendments
|icon = CatIcon amendments.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Skeptical Puzzle
|icon = CatIcon puzzle.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Randi Speaks
|icon = CatIcon randi.png
}}
|}
{|style="margin: 0 auto 0 auto; text-align: center; border-spacing: 0; padding: 2;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = SoF with a Theme
|categoryLabel =   SoF with a Theme
|icon = CatIcon_sof.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = What's the Word?
|categoryLabel =   What's the Word?
|icon = CatIcon_wtw.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Name That Logical Fallacy
|categoryLabel = Name That Logical Fallacy
|icon = CatIcon fallacy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = This Day in Skepticism
|categoryLabel = This Day in Skepticism
|icon = CatIcon_thisday.jpg
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Forgotten Superheroes of Science
|categoryLabel = Forgotten Superheroes
|icon = CatIcon_FSS.jpg
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Women in History
|categoryLabel =   Women in History
|icon = CatIcon_WIH.jpg
}}
|}

===Topics:===
{|style="margin: 1em auto 0 auto;text-align: center; border-spacing: 0; padding: 2;" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Alternative Medicine
|categoryLabel = Alternative Medicine
|icon = CatIcon_altMed.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Energy Healing
|categoryLabel = Alt med: Energy Healing
|icon = CatIcon energy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Homeopathy
|categoryLabel = Alt med: Homeopathy
|icon = CatIcon homeopathy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Astronomy & Space Science
|categoryLabel = Astronomy & Space Science
|icon = CatIcon space.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Mars
|categoryLabel = Astronomy & Exploration: Mars
|icon = Clipart mars.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = The Moon
|categoryLabel = Astronomy & Exploration: The Moon
|icon = Stylized moon.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Climate & Environmental Science
|categoryLabel = Climate & Environmentalism
|icon = Cat climate science icon.jpeg
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|categoryLabel = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|icon = CatIcon scam.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Conspiracy Theories
|categoryLabel = Conspiracy Theories
|icon = CatIcon conspiracy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Entertainment
|categoryLabel =   Entertainment
|icon = CatIcon entertainment.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = General Science
|categoryLabel =   General Science
|icon = CatIcon science.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = History
|categoryLabel =   History
|icon = CatIcon history.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Humor
|categoryLabel =   Humor
|icon = CatIcon humor.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Legal Issues & Regulations
|categoryLabel = Legal Issues & Regulations
|icon = CatIcon legal.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Logic & Philosophy‏‎
|categoryLabel = Logic & Philosophy
|icon = CatIcon logic.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Myths & Misconceptions‏‎
|categoryLabel = Myths & Misconceptions‏‎
|icon = CatIcon myths.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Nature & Evolution
|categoryLabel = Nature & Evolution
|icon = CatIcon nature.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Neuroscience & Psychology
|categoryLabel = Neuroscience & Psychology
|icon = CatIcon neuro.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = New Age
|categoryLabel =   New Age
|icon = CatIcon newage.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Paranormal
|categoryLabel =   Paranormal
|icon = CatIcon paranormal.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Cryptozoology
|categoryLabel = Paranormal: Cryptozoology
|icon = CatIcon crypto.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = ESP
|categoryLabel = Paranormal: ESP
|icon = CatIcon esp.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Ghosts & Demons
|categoryLabel = Paranormal: Ghosts & Demons
|icon = CatIcon ghosts.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = UFOs & Aliens
|categoryLabel = Paranormal: UFOs & Aliens
|icon = CatIcon ufo.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Physics & Mechanics‏‎
|categoryLabel = Physics & Mechanics‏‎
|icon = CatIcon physics.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Politics
|categoryLabel =   Politics
|icon = CatIcon politics.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Prophecy
|categoryLabel =   Prophecy
|icon = CatIcon prophecy.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Pseudoscience
|categoryLabel =   Pseudoscience
|icon = CatIcon pseudoscience.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Religion & Faith‏‎
|categoryLabel =   Religion & Faith‏‎
|icon = CatIcon religion.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Creationism & ID
|categoryLabel = R&F: Intel. Design & Creationism
|icon = CatIcon ID.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Science & Education
|categoryLabel = Science & Education
|icon = CatIcon edu.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Science & Medicine
|categoryLabel = Science & Medicine
|icon = CatIcon_medicine.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Science & the Media
|categoryLabel = Science & the Media
|icon = CatIcon media.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = SGU
|categoryLabel =   The SGU
|icon = CatIcon SGU.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Technology
|categoryLabel =   Technology
|icon = CatIcon tech.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Artificial Intelligence
|categoryLabel =   Technology: AI
|icon = Cat ai icon.png
}}
|-
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Year in Review
|categoryLabel =   Year in Review
|icon = CatIcon yearReview.png
}}
{{Cat. table entry
|category = Other
|categoryLabel =   Other
|icon = CatIcon other.png
}}
|}

== SGU Transcripts ==
''Note: we're working on updating this section to automatically display the tables listed on the [[Template:SGU episode list|Episode list template]]''
 
{{SGU episode list}}

== 5X5 Transcripts ==
This is a sortable table of all of the transcribed 5X5 episodes, the date they were released, what was covered, and the topic categories.

Episodes with a tick {{tick}} as their status have been proof-read. Episodes marked with {{i}} are in progress, and those with {{Open}} need transcription.
{{5X5 episode list}}
[[Category:Navigation pages]]

SGU Episodes

2024-11-24T03:23:14Z

Xanderox: quick note

[[File:LogoSGU.png|right|150px]]

''Note: we're working on updating this page to automatically display the tables listed on the [[Template:SGU episode list|Episode list template]]''
 
{{SGU episode list}}
[[Category:Navigation pages]]

Template:EpisodeList2018

2024-11-24T03:19:35Z

Xanderox: removed auto-start-collapsed

<noinclude>
=== Description ===
This style of template is for collating a year's list of episodes into a table sortable by date and other notable SGU episode features. The column headers for episode features are listed left to right in order of the typically most common occurrence. That is, more episodes have special "non-news" segments than have SoF games with a theme, and more episodes have SoF games with a theme than have interviews.

For the "Non-News Segment" column, we suggest prioritizing the segments in this order, since the column can be sorted alphabetically by the first letter of the top-listed segment:

* What's the Word?
* Forgotten Superheroes of Science
* Name That Logical Fallacy
* Dumbest Thing of the Week
* Potent Quotables
* and finally Quickie with _ROGUE_
followed by any other special segments that aren't regular episode features.
===To add entries, insert:===

<pre>
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =
|date = MM-DD 
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
</pre>
Previous year: [[Template: EpisodeList2017|2017 - Episodes 600-651]]

Following year: [[Template: EpisodeList2019|2019 - Episodes 704-755]]</noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2018 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 652-703)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =703
|date =12-29
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =702
|date =12-22
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =701
|date =12-15
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =700
|date =12-08
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =699
|date =12-01
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =698
|date =11-24
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =697
|date =11-17
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =696
|date =11-10
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =695
|date =11-03
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =694
|date =10-27
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =693
|date =10-20
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =692
|date =10-13
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =691
|date =10-06
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =690
|date =09-29
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =689
|date =09-22
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =688
|date =09-15
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =687
|date =09-08
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =686
|date =09-01
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =685
|date =08-25
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =684
|date =08-18
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =683
|date =08-11
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =682
|date =08-04
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =681
|date =07-28
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =680
|date =07-21
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =679
|date =07-14
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =678
|date =07-07
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =677
|date =06-30
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =676
|date =06-23
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =675
|date =06-16
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =674
|date =06-09
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =673
|date =06-02
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =672
|date =05-26
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =671
|date =05-19
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =670
|date =05-12
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue = 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =669
|date =05-05
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 669#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_669#theme|Mistletoe]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_669#interview|Ethan Winer]], recording engineer
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue =n
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =668
|date =04-28
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 668#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme =n
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 668#interview|Tobias Füchslin]], research manager
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue =n
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =667
|date =04-21
|status = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|other =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue =n
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =666
|date =04-14
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 666#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_666#theme|Serial killers]]
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue =n
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =665
|date =04-07
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 665#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 665#theme|Animals of the Amazon]]
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 665#interview|Mark Lynas]], author
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue =n
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =664
|date =03-31
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 664#fss|Forgotten Superheroes of Science]]
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue =n 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =663
|date =03-24
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 663#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|sort_theme =zzz 
|theme =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue =n 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =662
|date =03-17
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 662#fss|Forgotten Superheroes of Science]]; [[SGU Episode 662#memoriam|In Memoriam: Stephen Hawking]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 662#theme|Stephen Hawking]]
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|rogue =n
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =661
|date =03-10
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 661#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =n
|interviewee =n
|rogue =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =660
|date =03-03
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 660#fss|Forgotten Superheroes of Science]]
|theme =n
|interviewee =n
|rogue =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =659
|date =02-24
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 659#fss|Forgotten Superheroes of Science]]; [[SGU Episode 659#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 659#theme|Water]]
|interviewee =n
|rogue =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =658
|date =02-17
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 658#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =n
|interviewee =n
|rogue =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =657
|date =02-10
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 657#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =n
|interviewee =n
|rogue =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =656
|date =02-03
|status = machine 
|other =n
|theme =[[SGU Episode 656#theme|Hawaii]]
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 656#interview|Brian Dunning and Emery Emery]], writer and producer, & comedian, film editor, and producer, resp.
|rogue =n
|sort_other =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =655
|date =01-27
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 655#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 655#theme|The Milky Way]]
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 655#interview|Richard Saunders]], skeptic & podcaster
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =654
|date =01-20
|status = machine 
|other =[[SGU Episode 654#fss|Forgotten Superheroes of Science]]
|theme =n
|interviewee =[[SGU Episode 654#interview|Richard Wiseman]], professor of public psychology
|rogue =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =653
|date =01-13
|status = machine 
|other =[[SGU Episode 653#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 653#theme|Robots]]
|interviewee =n
|rogue =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =652
|date =01-06
|status =machine 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
|theme =                  {{blank}}                  
|interviewee =n
|rogue =                        {{blank}}                       
|other =[[SGU Episode 652#wtw|What's the Word?]] 2018 Psychic Predictions
}}
|}
|}

Template:SGU episode list

2024-11-24T03:18:16Z

Xanderox: updated per Mheguy's amazing work. He definitely deserves a promotion to admin!

<noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] structure.

* Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, {{i}}, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon, {{Open}}.

* Once all the transcription is finished, the page should be marked with <code><nowiki>{{mag}}</nowiki></code> to add the magnifying glass icon, signifying that it needs to be proof-read, {{mag}}.

* Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon, {{tick}}.

* Where an initial transcription is done using a machine transcription, the page should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{a}}</nowiki></code> to add the AI speech-to-text icon, {{a}}.

* Transcriptions using automated bots, such as "[[Template:Transcription-bot|'''transcription-bot''']]", should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{bot}}</nowiki></code> to add the robot icon, {{bot}}.

We are slowly working on updating the tables for the entries for older episodes, like the one for [[Template:EpisodeList2022|episodes in 2022]]. Templates for these years' tables of episodes are where users can update the episodes' transcription progress and add useful information to the tables.

For the "Non-News Segment" column, we suggest prioritizing the segments in the order below, since the column can be sorted alphabetically by the first letter of the top-listed segment:
* ''What's the Word?''
* ''Forgotten Superheroes of Science''
* ''Name That Logical Fallacy''
* ''Dumbest Thing of the Week''
* ''Potent Quotables''
* and finally ''Quickie with _ROGUE_''
* followed by any other special segments that aren't regular episode features.

 '''''What follows is the episode list as displayed on the home page and the episode list page.''''' 
-----------------------------------
</noinclude>
Below are collapsible tables with links to all the SGU episodes, sortable by date, transcription status, and various notable episode features. Blank and new episodes will benefit from using the [[Episode skeleton]] outline.
{{anchor|jump}} 
''Jump to: [[#2035|2035]], [[#2024|2024]], [[#2023|2023]], [[#2022|2022]], [[#2021|2021]], [[#2020|2020]],
[[#2019|2019]], [[#2018|2018]], [[#2017|2017]], [[#2016|2016]], [[#2015|2015]], [[#2014|2014]], [[#2013|2013]],
[[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]],
[[#2005|2005]]''

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|     {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|-
|    {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|     {{a}}
| –  initial transcription by Google Speech API
|-
|    {{tick}}
|  –  episode proof-read
|     {{bot}}
| –  initial transcription by high quality "[[Template:Bot|'''transcription-bot''']]"
|}
 
{{EpisodeList2024}}
{{EpisodeList2023}}
{{EpisodeList2022}}
{{EpisodeList2021}}
{{EpisodeList2020}}
{{EpisodeList2019}}
{{EpisodeList2018}}
{{EpisodeList2017}}
{{EpisodeList2016}}
{{EpisodeList2015}}
{{EpisodeList2014}}
{{EpisodeList2013}}
{{EpisodeList2012}}
{{EpisodeList2011}}
{{EpisodeList2010}}
{{EpisodeList2009}}
{{EpisodeList2008}}
{{EpisodeList2007}}
{{EpisodeList2006}}
{{EpisodeList2005}}

SGU Episode 1000

2024-09-19T05:29:12Z

Xanderox: still here sorry it's taking a bit!

{{transcribing all
|date = 2024-09-19
|transcriber = xanderox
|time = 0015
|}}
{{Editing required
|transcription = y
|proofreading = 
|time-stamps = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y 
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{UseOutline}} 
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 1000
|episodeNumDisplay = 💥✨ 1000! ✨💥
|episodeDate = {{month|9}} {{date|7}} 2024

|verified = 

|episodeIcon = File:1000 SGU1000.jpg

|caption = Celebrating 1000 episodes of '''The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe''', recorded live in Chicago

|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|Evan =y
|George =y

|qowText = QUOTE
|qowAuthor = AUTHOR, _short_description_  
|downloadLink = {{DownloadLink|2024-09-07}} 

|forumLinktopic = 56829.0 
|}}

== Introduction, 1000th episode! ==
''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

== "Looking Back" News Items (12:52) ==

'''S:'''

'''B:'''

'''C:'''

'''J:'''

'''E:'''


''(laughs)''
''(laughter)''
''(applause)''
[inaudible]

{{anchor|news#}} 
=== News_Item_1 (13:54) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_2 (29:31) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_3 (48:36) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_4 (1:12:28) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_5 (1:31:03) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:44:34) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = The number 1000

|item1 = There are roughly 1000 stars within 45 light years of Earth.
|link1web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link1title = _article_title_ 
|link1pub = _publication_ 

|item2 = A recent census of a 430m2 urban property (in Brisbane, AU) found over 1000 macroscopic species.
|link2web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link2title = _article_title_ 
|link2pub = _publication_ 

|item3 = In 2021 the median household income in the world was just over $1,000.
|link3web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link3title = _article_title_ 
|link3pub = _publication_ 

|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = 
|science1 = 
|science2 = 

|rogue1 = 
|answer1 = 

|rogue2 =
|answer2 =

|rogue3 =
|answer3 =

|rogue4 =
|answer4 =

|rogue5 =
|answer5 =

|host =steve

|sweep = 
|clever =y 
|win = 
|swept = 
}}
''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''


<big>'''Evan's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Bob's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Jay's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Cara's Response'''</big>

<big>'''George's Response'''</big>

<big>'''Audience's Response'''</big>

=== Steve Explains Item #1 ===

=== Steve Explains Item #2 ===

=== Steve Explains Item #3 ===

{{anchor|qow}} 
== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==

{{qow
|text =
|author = 
|lived = _birth_year_-_death_year_ 
|desc = 
}}


== Signoff () ==

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 
''(applause)''

{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
|Forgotten Superheroes of Science =
|Women in History =

}}

SGU Episode 979

2024-09-19T05:21:08Z

Xanderox: random little update

{{Editing required
|transcription =
|proofreading = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y 
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 979
|episodeDate = {{900s|979|boxdate}} 

|verified = 

|episodeIcon = File:979 Eclipse2024.jpg

|caption = {{w|Baily's beads|"Diamond ring"}} as seen in the {{w|Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024|2024 total solar eclipse}}

|bob = y
|cara = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|george = y
|guest1 =DB: [https://starset.fandom.com/wiki/Dustin_Bates Dustin Bates], American rockstar

|qowText = As the sun eclipses the stars by his brilliancy, so the man of knowledge will eclipse the fame of others in assemblies of the people if he proposes algebraic problems, and still more if he solves them.
|qowAuthor = {{w|Brahmagupta}}, Indian mathematician and astronomer
|downloadLink = {{900s|979|download}} 

|forumLinktopic = 55437.0 
|}}

== Introduction, live from Dallas, guest Rogue Dustin Bates ==

''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the {{SGU|link=y}}. ''(applause)'' Today is Sunday, April 7th, 2024, and this is your host, Steven Novella. ''(applause)'' Joining me this week are Bob Novella...

'''B:''' Hey, everybody! ''(applause)''

'''S:''' Cara Santa Maria...

'''C:''' Howdy. ''(applause)''

'''S:''' Jay Novella...

'''J:''' Hey guys. ''(applause)''

'''S:''' Evan Bernstein...

'''E:''' Good evening folks! ''(applause)''

'''S:''' George Hrab...

'''G:''' ''imitates yodeling'' ''(applause)''

'''S:''' And we have a special guest on this episode, Dustin Bates. Dustin, welcome to the SGU.

'''DB:''' Hey. ''(applause)''

'''S:''' Dustin, you are actually one of the few rock stars that we've had on the show, and you are from the band Star Set, correct?

'''DB:''' That's it.

'''S:''' Tell us a little bit about yourself, your career.

'''DB:''' Star Set is a sci-fi based cinematic rock band. It's basically, we're on tour right now, we call it immersion. We immerse you into what I call, up for this tour, Dark Disney. Just released a novel about four days ago, or actually it hasn't officially come out until tomorrow with The Eclipse. Personally, I have a master's degree in electrical engineering, so I have a love for space science and STEM. Part of Star Set is the Star Set Society, so we're always pushing both the sci-fi and the real STEM stuff as well.

'''S:''' Dustin, here's my question for you. Have you built a working lightsaber yet?

'''DB:''' No, but I do have a replica.

'''S:''' A replica, okay. All right. So you're working on the fully functional version though.

'''DB:''' Absolutely.

'''S:''' All right. And you said you have a book coming out?

'''DB:''' Yeah. It releases tomorrow. That's the second novel that our tour coincides with.

'''S:''' What's the name of the book?

'''DB:''' It's called A Brief History of the Future, and it's based on a brain machine interface, so it's like a neural lace story, a dystopia set in about 20 years in the future.

'''S:''' 20 years. That's a tough time frame.

'''DB:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' It is. When you're trying to predict the future, you go really far, you can say anything, right?

'''DB:''' Now, there's a story device to make it go a little bit further in the future, yeah.

'''S:''' Okay, I got you.

'''G:''' Dustin, what's the makeup of your band? How many people are in the band?

'''DB:''' It just keeps getting bigger. There are seven people in the band right now.

'''G:''' Wow.

'''DB:''' We have a cellist, a violinist, and a guy that I feel sorry for him because we have so much electronics. He's just dancing around various synthesizers and samplers at all times.

'''G:''' If you could magically have any musician be in your band, living or dead, who would you choose to play with you?

'''DB:''' Wow.

'''G:''' You have 10 seconds.

'''DB:''' Yeah. Yeah, that's a hard one. Whoever draws the most since we're on tour.

'''G:''' Oh, is that what it is?

'''DB:''' Yeah. I want to get into the arenas ASAP.

'''C:''' Taylor Swift.

'''DB:''' There you go.

'''B:''' Done.

'''DB:''' Let's go.

'''S:''' Who plays the theremin in your group?

'''DB:''' Okay. Funny enough, there is a channel on Keyboard Guy's place for a theremin. We quickly decided it was a little too cheesy.

'''S:''' A little too cheesy. That's why I asked about it, right? All right. Well, we have a great full show for you.

{{anchor|special}} 
== Special Segment: Eclipse Science (3:43) ==
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/nasa-research/
|article_title = NASA Eclipse Science
|publication = NASA
|redirect_title = Eclipse Science from NASA (979)
}}
'''S:''' We're going to start with a little bit of Eclipse discussion because tomorrow we're all going to get a great viewing of the Eclipse. The weather's going to be perfect. We flew down to Dallas because we were promised that in Dallas, there's guaranteed to be nothing but sunshine, not a cloud in the sky, and nobody would lie to us, right, about that?

'''J:''' It's Bob's fault. We all know it.

'''B:''' Yep. The curse is in full force. Every time, if you're not familiar with the curse, I've been looking for, like, comet, meteor showers for years and years, and every September is the famous Perseids, and I would go out there, and for 15 years, it was overcast for 15 years, so every time there was something interesting in the sky, there was clouds, so I developed this hypothesis of a curse that now seems pretty clearly obvious. I mean, it's like, this one hurts. This one hurts, though. It's like, really? The best totality in how many decades, because there's so many reasons why this one is special, and it's like, no, I'm going to be looking at clouds tomorrow, apparently, but fingers crossed, you know.

'''S:''' There's still a chance, but it goes beyond meteors because we also had the worst viewing of Halley's Comet in 2,000 years, literally.

'''B:''' 86. See, I expelled that memory from my head because it hurt. Well, I remember that. I was getting excited. Then I didn't see it, first off, because when you could see it, it was overcast, but then I remember reading, like, oh, yeah, this is like 20 million miles farther away than it's ever been in millennia. It's like, even if it was visible, it wouldn't have been good.

'''S:''' I saw it. I only saw it when we were in Florida. We couldn't see it from Connecticut, and it was terrible. The viewing was terrible.

'''B:''' And then, how about, where were we in Australia? We went to a mountain.

'''S:''' Oh, yeah. We went to a dark sky event in New Zealand.

'''B:''' And what happened?

'''S:''' It was supposed to be the best view of the southern. So we've been down under three times, and we're like, we have to see the southern sky because the southern sky is supposed to be gorgeous.

'''B:''' In a lot of ways, better than the northern sky.

'''S:''' Better than the northern sky. We've never seen it. I have to say. We go down there, like, every time. We didn't get to see it at all the first two times. The third time, we're like, that's it. We're going to a dark sky observatory, and it was overcast.

'''B:''' It was like two.

'''S:''' And we had to see jack shit, but we did have to drive out of the city that we were staying in, like an hour. Evan, you came with us.

'''E:''' I did. Yeah. We were in Christchurch.

'''S:''' And we got, like, finally, we got a decent view of the southern sky.

'''B:''' The curse didn't know what I was doing somehow. It was magnificent.

'''S:''' Magnificent.

'''B:''' The Southern Cross, the Magellanic Clouds, it was beautiful, beautiful, highly recommended. And the upside-down moon.

'''S:''' The upside-down moon, right?

'''E:''' Yes.

'''B:''' How do you explain that on a flat Earth?

'''S:''' On a flat Earth.

'''E:''' Facing the wrong direction.

'''G:''' We've got some Australians here today? If you're Australian, let's clap. ''(a few claps)'' Look at that. How cool is that?

'''S:''' Yeah, all three of them.

'''G:''' It's good.

'''E:''' Why is it always cloudy down there at night? Why?

'''S:''' So during the eclipse, there's a lot of science taking place especially this one, because it's an unusually prolonged one. Evan tell us a little bit about the science that's taking place during the eclipse.

'''E:''' Yeah, absolutely. And NASA kind of has a page sort of devoted to this, so you can go there and learn some more. But eclipses are good times for astronomers who are trying to make discoveries, mostly having to do with understanding the corona of the sun, because that is a very difficult thing to study correctly in the absence of a total solar eclipse. There are other instruments that NASA has at their disposal to sort of make virtual total eclipses, but it really doesn't get them to the place where they need to be to make the true observations. And when you're learning about the corona of the sun, you're really trying to figure out about how heat and energy are transferred from the sun out and into the solar wind, which is something they're still trying to get more information about. This has a direct impact on us, absolutely, and our technology here, because those particles are bombarding us constantly. And understanding how that impacts our electronics, satellites, so many different things, the better we have an understanding of that, the better we can be either prepared for sudden events and to build the next generation of technology to be proofed against any kind of disasters that may ultimately hit our way. They have models in which they predict how these materials come out from the sun. And again, the eclipse gives them a chance to really refine those models. Solar eclipse changes illumination of the Earth and its atmosphere under comparatively small region of the moon's shadow. The localized blocking of solar energy is useful for studying the sun's effects on our atmosphere, especially the upper atmosphere, where the sun's energy creates a layer of charged particles, which is the ionosphere. And understanding that is important because, again, many of our low-Earth satellites, low-Earth orbit satellites, and communication signals, radio waves, and what makes our GPS system ultimately work, these changes have impacts constantly on us. So that's primarily...

'''S:''' Yeah, I know NASA's sending up a plane above the clouds, right, to study the ionosphere. That's definitely a guaranteed way to get a good viewing of the eclipse, is to fly.

'''B:''' What would happen if I were on that plane?

'''E:''' Yeah, right?

'''B:''' Something would happen. No doubt. Something would happen. Something would happen.

'''C:''' It'd be a Boeing plane, probably. Damn it. Damn it.

'''B:''' But I wouldn't have gotten on it.

'''C:''' Good call.

'''E:''' When the eclipse happened in 2017, there was a, I don't know, it was a contest or someone... They voted on the best photograph of the eclipse, and it was taken from a plane. Without a doubt. And I have a nice, big print of it hanging over my fireplace at my house. I went and bought it. It is stunningly beautiful.

'''S:''' All right, thank you. Yeah, so we're all looking forward to the eclipse, but at least some good science will come out of it.

== News Items ==

{{anchor|news#}} 

=== AI-Designed Drugs (10:03) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ai-designed-drugs/
|article_title = AI Designed Drugs
|publication = nn
|redirect_title = AI-Designed Drugs (979) 
}}
'''S:''' We're going to have a couple of AI-related items to open up the news items of this show. I'm going to talk about artificial intelligence being used to design drugs, although this is just one application. I want to talk really about what AI is doing to scientific research. But what researchers recently did, they're trying to design new antibiotics, right? And of course, we all know we need new antibiotics. We're headed for the antibiotic apocalypse, where there's more and more bacteria that are multi-drug resistant. And pharmaceutical companies haven't come out with a completely new antibiotic in a while. And it's an arms race that is probably going to be never-ending. And the question is, what's going to happen faster, bacteria developing resistance or our ability to generate novel mechanisms of antibiotic treatments? So far, the bacteria are kicking our ass. They are winning. So any way to develop new types of antibiotics is extremely needed. So what they did was, now using computer modeling to design drugs is not new. Using AI to design drugs is not new. What this study did was incremental, but it does show where the state of the art is. So essentially, they fed into a large language model type, GPT type of AI, like the latest crop of AI that's driving everybody crazy. They fed into it our catalog of known drugs, of known pharmaceutical chemicals, which includes not only their chemistry, but also how they are manufactured and what they do, like the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, how they affect the body, how the body affects them.

'''J:''' Steve, is this just chemicals that this particular company came up with?

'''S:''' No, no. It's just in the catalogue of what humankind knows in terms of these chemicals. So it was some massive number, 10,000, 100,000, that were fed into, trained on the AI model. And then they wanted it to then design new drugs that would have antibiotic activity against a particular bacteria. Here's one of the interesting bits. They talk about the chemical space. That means the space of all possible chemical configurations, right? So-

'''B:''' Like stable chemical-

'''S:''' Yeah. Oh, no. Just chemical configurations, right? So you're saying, what chemical space is this AI program able to explore, able to model? How many do you think it was?

'''J:''' 40.

'''S:''' 40?

'''B:''' How many distinct chemical configurations, molecular configurations?

'''C:''' Something with the exclamation point.

'''S:''' No, it was 30 billion. So just imagine researching 30 billion different chemicals, right?

'''C:''' You can't, right?

'''S:''' You can't do this-

'''C:''' Yeah, it has to be computation.

'''S:''' -in physical space. You have to model it.

'''J:''' Well, but how long would it, how many man years would it take to do that?

'''S:''' I mean, it's probably impossible to calculate, but it's like, we couldn't do it. Like in civilization's timeline, like 30 billion experiments, you can't do it.

'''G:''' {{tooltip| Ian could do it | Ian Callanan, SGU tech-guru}} in a weekend.

'''S:''' Yeah, Ian could do it. Yeah.

'''C:''' He's working on it right now.

'''S:''' Ian's doing it right now.

'''G:''' He's doing it right now.

'''B:''' So, Steve, what exactly did it do 30 billion of?

'''S:''' So it basically was able to like shuffle through those 30 billion chemicals.

'''J:''' How long did it take?

'''S:''' It took nine hours. It took nine hours to run the program once they trained it and everything. Nine hours.

'''G:''' Wow.

'''S:''' So it came up with a list of chemical structures within that 30 billion that had two features, right? One was that it had antibacterial activity against the specific bacteria.

'''B:''' Oh, specific bacteria.

'''S:''' Yeah. And then the other one was that it was easy to manufacture.

'''B:''' Oh.

'''S:''' Because, and that was the new bit, really, because previous attempts at doing this generated a lot of potential chemicals, but almost all of them failed because they were either really hard or really expensive to manufacture. So they said, well, let's just build that into the algorithm up front, you know? So then they came up with a list of, there's something like 58 different chemical compounds that had activity against bacteria and should be easy to manufacture. Then they, and the AI not only just says, here's the chemical, it says, here's the chemical reactions you need to do to make it. So we gave them the formula for it as well.

'''B:''' That's wicked. So they had 30 billion options and only 58 were spit back?

'''S:''' Well, those are the most active, those are the best candidates. And then they, so they had a chemical company manufacture all 58 of them.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''S:''' And then they tested them against the bacteria. And there were three in particular that showed high antibacterial activity against the bacteria.

'''G:''' Nice.

'''S:''' And that, so now we have like, all right, potentially, now they still have to go through all the standard testing, right? The preclinical animal human testing. But potentially we have three antibiotic candidates that are easy to manufacture and have a novel, that was the other bit, this is novel mechanism. This is not-

'''C:''' And it's synthetic, this is novel synthetic. It's not like they discovered this.

'''S:''' They didn't discover these. These are synthetic chemicals.

'''C:''' Yeah. That's very cool.

'''S:''' And yes, with a new mechanism. So that's, that's critical because if you're if you're resistant to the mechanism that it doesn't matter if you have another chemical that has the same mechanism of action, right? It has to have a novel mechanism of action. So that's amazing. Just coming up with three potential antibiotics with novel mechanisms that can be commercialized, can be manufactured at scale in nine hours, right? Coming up with that is a fundamental transformation of like our ability to do this kind of research. And this is just one thing. And this is, this is actually the item, Jay, that's, we were talking about this and we were talking about AI in general. And I told Jay, it's like it's possible that we are at the beginning of a singularity like event now, right? Like you, the singularity isn't a moment in time. It's this notion that at some point technological research, it's like a geometric increase and there's an inflection point where it just takes off so quickly. It's like we can't even keep up.

'''J:''' So you're, and you're saying just to be clear about it-

'''S:''' We're like, it might be just in that inflection point with this kind of research. This is doing what would have previously taken years to do in nine hours.

'''J:''' Yeah, so like, but the idea is that so many different companies and institutions are working on using AI to achieve things that could do millions of man hours worth of labour.

'''S:''' Yes.

'''J:''' And we will get to a point where things could be coming out. Like for example, I said to Steve, when we were talking about this, I said, why don't they use AI on CRISPR? Like, why cause CRISPR seems like so rife with potential and we will get to a point and it we're not guaranteeing any of this, but the idea is it could be in our lifetime where things take off in a profound way.

'''S:''' Again, it's just one of those things where there's just researchers all over the world thinking about, oh my God, how can I leverage this kind of AI in order to facilitate my research, anything that's information based. But even if just with chemistry, how many questions in material science or in chemical science are there where you could sick this kind of AI after it and give it all kinds of parameters about what features you want, again, including, yeah, make it easy to manufacture and give me the formula. Like that's huge.

'''C:''' Yeah, it's brilliant. Cause it streamlines it. We've been doing computational chemistry to try and test candidate drugs, but before we had to go through stupid lists stupidly. And now we're going through lists intelligently.

'''S:''' Intelligently. Artificially intelligently.

'''C:''' Exactly.

'''S:''' Right. And it's also just, again, another example of the fact that we don't need like a sentient general AI to transform our world.

'''B:''' I need it.

'''S:''' Narrow AI is really powerful.

'''B:''' I need it.

'''S:''' You do. You need it. You may need it. But like scientists don't need it. The narrow AI does amazing stuff.

'''B:''' Yeah. It's just new tools. New, amazingly powerful tools.

'''S:''' How many chemicals? What is the full chemical space possible in existence in the universe?

'''B:''' Right.

'''S:''' It's massive. It's like 10 to the 40.

'''C:''' You also don't want that narrow AI to know how to do anything else.

'''S:''' Right. Right.

'''C:''' Like that's not, you stay on task, dude. Like I only want you to know how to do this.

'''S:''' Do what I tell you to do.

'''G:''' Which begs to question when AI make a drug that when you take it, it makes AI generated images not look so trippy?

'''S:''' Not look so trippy. Right. Right.

'''G:''' With the seven fingers and the four eyes and the whole thing.

'''C:''' And the weird teeth. Always the teeth are weird.

'''G:''' Teeth are weird. And like ankles are like, what's going on? I'm just freaked out.

'''J:''' You know, George, I use Midjourney and Dolly quite a bit.

'''G:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' And Steve and I both do it.

'''S:''' It's getting better.

'''J:''' And it has gotten a lot better in the last 12 months. Yeah. I'm not seeing like the multi-fingered problem anymore. It's handling like people holding objects a lot better now than it ever did. Like they're just constantly improving it.

'''G:''' It's astounding. Yeah.

'''E:''' Steve, what's powering this particular AI? Is it quantum computing?

'''S:''' No. It's just regular computers.

'''E:''' This is just regular computers? So if you add quantum computing into this mix, then what happens?

'''S:''' We don't know because the quantum computers aren't just really powerful computers. They compute in a completely different way. They do certain kinds of problems orders of magnitude faster than a traditional computer can do.

'''B:''' Like encryption.

'''S:''' Yeah. But they don't do what ordinary computers do necessarily.

'''B:''' You will never have a quantum OS Windows machine. That's not going to happen.

'''J:''' For example, a quantum computer would be amazingly good at modeling weather because you have trillions of particles that it wants to track and keep the temperature on and the movement of and all that stuff. That's what a quantum computer would be excellent at.

'''E:''' But you wouldn't use quantum computing for this application? For finding these new drugs?

'''S:''' Well, I don't know. The thing is, you have to find a way to leverage quantum computers to do it. It's good for certain types of mathematical problems. It's not just a power. We can't think of it as just a powerful computer. It's good at quantum computer problems.

'''J:''' So we won't be playing Fortnite on a quantum computer?

'''S:''' Probably not. Probably not.

'''E:''' Can you imagine?

'''S:''' But it's great for quantum encryption. The thing is, you could do quantum encryption that no non-quantum computer could break in the age of the universe. There's actually the three-body problem. Anybody here watching the three-body problem? They're trying to break this alien encryption and they ask the computer expert, how long is this going to take? Like, well, if we're really lucky, four, five trillion years. Because you can't break quantum encryption with non-quantum computers. That's kind of the whole point. If you have a powerful enough quantum computer, you could never ever break the encryption with a non-quantum computer.

=== AI Music (20:47) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.shootonline.com/spw/new-study-ai-music-production-pits-human-against-machine
|article_title = New Study of AI Music Production Pits Human Against Machine
|publication = Shoot Publicity Wire
|redirect_title = AI Music (979) 
}}
'''S:''' All right. Now we're going to talk about a different application of AI, kind of at the other end of the spectrum. We're going to talk about AI and music. Dustin, tell us about this.

'''DB:''' Yeah. So on a recent podcast, you guys had actually mentioned AI and music. And one of the things that was mentioned was the soulless aspect of it. And I thought I would expand on that with my limited insight and since my job is on the line with it. So the topic was recently discussed in an article on ShootOnline. And they essentially asked the question of how generative AI stacks up against humans in its ability to cause specific and directed emotional responses based on a prompt. It was conducted by a company called SoundOut and a music branding company called Stephen Arnold Music. So I'm assuming maybe they had it make jingles or something. And spoiler alert, the humans won by a wide margin, of course. Generative AI produced emotionally accurate results only 20% of the time and did not meet professional standards in most instances. So it seems I might have a couple of years. But I also looked up the company SoundOut, and it seems they use something called OnBrand. It was actually mentioned in the article. So I looked that up. And that was listed as an AI-powered tool used to predict the granular emotional impact of music trained on feedback from half a million people. So it seems they used AI and machine learning to test the feasibility of generating emotion in AI songs. So it's a bit circular. But to expand on that, my experience with trying musical AI tools has given me similar results. I found it to be technically very impressive, but lacking in emotional and substance and various other aspects like uniqueness, relatability. It's also generic and robotic and a bit goofy in some of its choices. Basically it has no style as well, to no emotion. But it's gotten to this point relatively quickly. And so while it's difficult to extrapolate the future results, it is almost a certainty that the rapid improvement will continue. And I think the main question is, will there be some sort of roadblock in this machine learning's ascension to musical domination, particularly with emotion? So does AI actually need sentience? It feels to me, writing songs, that it does. What it seems to have excelled at are the things that are more mathematical. Chord structures. There are defined things that elicit certain emotions. That's super easy to program. The beat, the tempo, the key, the scale, phrasing, these aspects of songwriting are all very mathematical, very easy to model. Another thing is bringing in a ton of songs and cross-correlating, much like all of these other machine learning things. What about the intangibles, the things that make it feel soulless? I listed a couple. Voice inflection. It's actually getting good at modeling voices. You just give a lot of examples and it models it. But unique voices. So I have a friend that wrote a song for the artist Jelly Roll, and he showed me Jelly Roll singing this song. But it wasn't Jelly Roll singing it, it was crazy. But Adele, for instance, could this create an Adele without there being Adele data? Because Adele could pretty much read the phone book and you'd lean in for a better listen. And that's an interesting part of songs. Also the unique wordsmithing and poetry. Everything... I want to be lazy. Before it takes my job, I at least want to use it to do my job. So I'm always feeling lazy. And I've done it multiple times, like, I do not want to do this, because it's hours and hours and hours of trying to get into the so-called flow state. And I look up the various apps for lyric generation, and it's always super lame. And it's uninspired, and you can just see the correlation. It just took those words and cross-correlated against everything it had, and uninspired. And then passionate melodies and unique chords, things outside of what it has seen and outside of these algorithmic choices it makes. So it's hard for me to quantify the next levels of that modeling based on my own human experience, because that experience is intangible. Like I said, the flow state of letting the emotion and the feeling and the muse take the driver's seat. You get to a place and feel in a song, and then you use that intuition and that feeling and that emotion to go figure out where you're going to go next. And there is some math there, there's some extrapolation and some recursion, but there's also this feel that seems informed by experience, intellect, and something in the deep psyche. And how hard is that to model? So from my emotional perspective, it feels like an undefined and mystical thing. And logic tells me I have about two years to start saving.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Yes, I think that's the most interesting question at the core of this is, how easy versus difficult is it going to be to model things that right now we think of as being like human creativity? Because like the emotional content, George and I, we were just talking about this too, the emotional content of music is ultimately mathematical. You know what I mean? There is... Ultimately, our neurons firing and they're reacting to some pattern, and that pattern can be modeled. I think right now, the soulless aspect of the music, just like anything that these AIs are doing, whether it's art, poetry, music, whatever, images, the soulless aspect is that's because they started by picking the low-hanging fruit, right? They started by modeling the easy things that there are to model. The difficult things to model is where you get all the creativity and the style. But that, I don't see any fundamental reason why that cannot ultimately be done.

'''DB:''' Me either. Our brains are discreet as well.

'''S:''' It just may be orders of magnitude more difficult. And maybe it'll be more than two years, but I think we'll incrementally get there. I don't see why we wouldn't.

'''DB:''' Yeah. I sold a lot of my back catalogue as a hedge.

'''S:''' Yeah, but on the other hand it's fun to joke about that, but I do think that it's possible we could we get to the point where you're saying, I want to use it as a tool to help me do my job, not replace me in doing my job. But we may be stuck in that position for as long as we want to be in that position. You know what I mean? I don't see why we would have to necessarily take ourselves out of the creative loop. We will just find ways to use this as a tool.

'''G:''' There is a corollary to this, and this goes back to as long as technology has been incorporating itself into any creative endeavour. So music especially. I mean, when the piano came along, there were detractors at the time saying that it was too broad of a spectrum of sound. You didn't want an instrument of that size to be that loud and that quiet. There literally were detractors saying, like, it's not going to work. It's just not going to work. When drum machines first were introduced, drum machines were seen as the most soulless, metronomic, lifeless instrument you could use. It was up to the artists using it to not inject soul into the machine or put the ghost in the machine as it were, but to utilize that soullessness in a new and creative endeavor. So when you look at what Prince did with drum machines, where he was using multiple drum machines, that he somehow managed to string together into ways that they weren't supposed to be strung together and created these monstrously huge grooves that were just incredible. Hall & Oates, too, during one of the very first Lindrum samples for a couple of their songs that just created this really interesting thing. I'm conflicted between what you just said, Steve, about do we use AI in these environments to enhance the artistic capabilities of an artist? At what point does it then take over? When AI writes a legitimately funny joke, that's when I'm going to worry. Because you can define humor. You can try to sort of put it into tangibles of, oh, the setup, the punchline, the thing. But there's still this certain thing that whenever—I mean, there was that whole George Carlin AI special. Did you see that? Someone modeled a George Carlin hour of stand-up. It was his voice.

'''B:''' Really?

'''G:''' Yeah. And the Carlin family was quite upset with it. And it's like a middle school production of a George Carlin so that thing is missing. But you wonder, at what point will it be able to create jokes or a melody or whatever?

'''C:''' But even that, I think, will always be subjective.

'''G:''' I think so, yeah.

'''C:''' There will always be, whether it's the AI pop artist or the AI visual artist or the AI comic, there will always be a certain population of society for whom they go, that is funny or I do like that or that does speak to me. And then there will be the people who are like, well, but I'm highbrow and this doesn't speak to me.

'''G:''' Right, right, right.

'''C:''' And so I think it's less about should we, because the train is moving, like we can't do anything about it.

'''S:''' You can't get off this train now.

'''C:''' And I think it's more about sort of the social critique and the social commentary of like, as a society, is this what we want to be using these tools for? And great if we want to be infusing our creative arts with more machine learning. I think that's incredible if we see that as being a boon. But like, why are we constantly talking about this and not talking about how we can use machine learning to do the tasks we don't want to do so we can free up more time and space to have creative endeavors? Because like, but that requires a fundamental retooling of the structure of our economy. And that's something that we're not having a conversation of very often I think we're constantly being threatened by AI taking away the only things that give us joy anymore, as opposed to thinking, how can we retool our lives so that we find joy and use AI to our advantage?

'''J:''' Well, look, I think that's a really nice way to look at it. But I think people are going to use AI to replace musicians so they don't have to pay the musicians.

'''C:''' Well, but that's because of the economic system we live in.

'''J:''' Yeah, I agree.

'''C:''' 100%.

'''J:''' I totally agree. But I mean...

'''G:''' Musicians have been screwed since the absolute beginning of recorded music. At every level, the artist always gets effed on the bottom line.

'''C:''' But that's never going to make people stop making music.

'''G:''' No question.

'''C:''' And that's the important thing. There will be people who will make music and it is sad and it is unfair that they won't be getting paid for it. But because there is music pouring out of their soul, they will continue to make it.

'''J:''' I want to ask George and Dustin a question. Would you guys dislike the experience of hearing an AI-generated song that you really like?

'''DB:''' Nope.

'''J:''' George, what do you think?

'''G:''' Generated song that what?

'''S:''' That you really like.

'''J:''' If you listen to an AI-generated song and you're like, damn, that's a really good song, would that bother you?

=== Music Getting Simpler (32:50) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/song-lyrics-really-are-getting-simpler-and-more-repetitive-study-finds/
|article_title = Song Lyrics Really Are Getting Simpler and More Repetitive, Study Finds
|publication = sa
|redirect_title = Music Getting Simpler (979) 
}}
'''G:''' It wouldn't bother me. I mean, at this point, it would surprise me, but it wouldn't bother me, no. The problem is, what is it trying to achieve? What is that song trying to achieve? On one level, someone like Bruno Mars is an AI that he distills these different styles and puts them into an amalgam that then when you listen to it, you go, oh, like I kind of know that. And it's catchy and it's brilliant and it covers the planet in uptown funk. He is doing an AI, in essence, and he and Roger, the producer, are creating these things by distilling different styles. And I have the same problem, and I love Bruno Mars, he's brilliant, but I have the same problem with what Bruno Mars is doing in that there is a homogenization that happens. And the homogenization is the death of creativity on some level, because I don't think an AI would ever make a Bob Dylan. I don't think an AI, based on what's being fed to it now, the equivalent of a Bob Dylan or the equivalent of a Jello Biafra or the equivalent of Devo, you wouldn't get those weird acts that kind of come out of nowhere that are a response to something that is the antithesis of what is popular and what is part of the homogenized culture. That's my biggest fear, is that it's just going to get more and more, oh, this is catchy. I mean, it's happened already with, again, as a drummer, I have a great bias. But drum sounds, I think we spoke about this before, drum sounds are so good now. They're so good. They're like the perfect snare drum has been figured out how to get the perfect snare drum. So every modern, like physically, the recording of it, it's just how to hit it, how to do everything, how to record it. It's great. It's so perfect. So every drummer sounds the same. You listen to these recordings, and it used to be in the 70s and 80s, and again, old man yells at the crowd. I know I'm there. I know I'm there. But if I heard, and again, I'm going to show my age, if I heard Bill Bruford's snare drum, you instantly knew that was Bill Bruford's snare drum. If you heard Neil Peart's china cymbal that he had that he had found in a garbage can, you knew that was that china cymbal. And nowadays, these amazing players that are brilliant, that are wonderful, they are homogenized because that recording process has gotten so good, and this is what the standardized has become. It's like any kind of filtering system of popular things that this is what a white shirt looks like. And there's 600 of the same white shirt, basically, because we know it sells. We know it fits the best. We know we can make it for this much money. And this is how we sell it. And that's my greatest fear.

'''C:''' But is that also not just, I mean, just a statistical sampling bias because the barriers to entry that used to exist don't exist the way they did. So now you've got literally more options on the shelf. When you have more options on the shelf, you are going to see more homogenization across the options, just fundamentally as a function of statistics. There's more stuff on the shelf. More stuff is going to look the same. But I don't see why having more of something means that those unique things that can stick out don't still stick out. It's just they're against a louder background noise. You know what I mean?

'''G:''' I mean, you can find amazing music that sounds brilliant.

'''C:''' It's just the background is a lot louder now. That's what I see as the difference.

'''G:''' No question. Yeah.

'''C:''' And so it's like, okay, it's going to have a loud background. But those unique things are always going to be there. You're going to find those artists.

'''S:''' Well, I think one historical reason for optimism is what happened when photography was introduced.

'''G:''' Right.

'''S:''' So at the time, there was a movement in art for like what we would now call photorealistic. You know, that's an anachronism. But like hyper realism, right? They were artists who were trying to draw a painting that looked like reality. And then photography came out. And they're like, well, dang anyone can take a picture and it is reality. And that kind of spoils the whole thing. You don't need to work for years to perfect this technical aspect of the art in order to make a perfect picture. And then a couple of things happened, right? So one is the artist said, okay, well, we're going to go off in a bunch of other different directions. And that basically was part of what spawned impressionism and like all of the 20th century art styles that are not hyper realistic, right?

'''G:''' Representational.

'''S:''' Yeah, yeah. Non-representational, cubism, pixelism, all that stuff. And the other thing that happened was photography, while it became sort of like in every man's way of making images also became its own art form with high art photography. And so I see the same thing happening here pretty much on every level is that, okay, well, because AI can reproduce certain kinds of what we would now consider maybe soulless art or corporate art or queer jingles or whatever that kind of level of things. There's not going to be much value in a human being doing that technically when that technical thing could be now done by an AI. And so for us schlocks who aren't, don't have artistic talent, that's going to be our camera, right? We're going to use that now to take pictures, you know? And Jay making the rap song or like us we make images to you for our personal crappy use for our friends and ourselves, right? Not anything that we would ever like show to the world as art, just for personal use, right?

'''J:''' I don't know, but Steve, I get what you're saying.

'''S:''' But at the same time, at the high end, artists are still going to be artists. Let me finish my thought. Artists are still going to be artists, right? There's still going to be people who are going to be creative and are going to figure out a way to go into a new creative space in a world with AI. And I think that they're going to use AI more, there's going to be other artists that are going to use these AI tools for their own art, like with the drum machine or whatever.

'''J:''' But there's a few things to think about. One... I forgot it. One of them is, okay, on a personal level, right, this is me being emotional, I want humans to continue to create all the art forms and come up with new art forms, right? I'm sure that they will, but this is what I predict is going to happen. I think what's going to happen is exactly what I just experienced. I used the website, what is it, Ian? Suno.ai. I went on there, I had it make me an 80s electronic rap song. I ran through it, did about 50 versions, I took the best pieces of it, I edited them together and I made a song and I really liked it, I thought it sounded good. And I think what people are going to do, because it's freaking easy and it's only going to get easier, is they're going to have the AI come up with all the ideas, and then they're going to re-record it, and it's not really going to come from a person.

'''S:''' But it's also not going to really be good, either.

'''J:''' I don't agree with that.

'''S:''' I do. Because it's not going to be new.

'''J:''' This is the first time, like, let me finish. ''(applause')' I'm just, I love this moment. Okay. So, damn, I forgot what I was going to say. No. I got it. I got it.

==== Will music-making become sterilized (39:47) ====

'''S:''' I'm sorry. We have to move on to the next thing.

'''C:''' No, no, no. Steve, Steve, Steve. Did you remember?

'''S:''' Make the point.

'''J:''' People are going to take the easy road. That is what we do. When the washing machine came out, people didn't go, I still want to hand wash my clothes. We used the washing machine.

'''C:''' What the hell is wrong with that?

'''J:''' Nothing.

'''C:''' Why do you want me to hand wash my clothes?

'''J:''' That's perfectly fine.

'''E:''' People still hand wash their clothes.

'''J:''' Because there's no artistry in washing machines.

'''C:''' But here's the thing, here are the two things.

'''J:''' I want humans to continue to be artists, and this could sterilize that.

'''C:''' And Jay, although I hear what you're saying, you never composed yourself an 80s hip hop rap song ever in the existence of your life. You chose to do this now because it was easy.

'''E:''' Jam Master Jay.

'''C:''' You didn't choose to do this to take the burden off of all that hard work you've been doing all these years composing 80s hip hop rap songs. So I think you have to remember that when you make that argument about other artists. Because that's not the experience.

'''J:''' I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that. There's going to be people. There will always be people doing it, but I think what it's going to do is make it very boutique. Oh, and this was the thing I really wanted to say. We have Spotify and all these apps that let anybody, anybody publish music, right? Guess what's going to freaking happen in the next few years? Trillions of songs are going to be put on Spotify. It's all going to be crap.

'''C:''' It's going to disrupt the music industry.

'''J:''' It's going to rock a boat that has already been rocked in the last 10 years. And it's really going to get, it's going to get to the point where, cause I have to say this, and this is so integral to this whole thing. I told this to George. I know it's weird, but I was listening to Gene Simmons talk about the music industry and it was brilliant what he said. He said, there is no vetting process anymore, right? Go back to the sixties and seventies. You had to go through Dustin, tell me if this is accurate to what you experienced, but you have to go through multiple hoops to get anywhere in the music industry and you're constantly being vetted. Now, I know the vetting process could actually get rid of good people, but-

'''C:''' That's the same as saying there's no barriers to entry anymore. And you can see that as a good thing or a bad thing.

'''J:''' But I do think though that that vetting process is what brought out and made a lot of these really good artists actually be able to achieve their art. And without that, if you just, again, it's just like people publishing anything they want on the internet. It's what we learned when we gave people access to publishing their stuff to the world. This is why we have an absolute infusion of pseudoscience into the world today because the internet gave everybody a platform.

'''C:''' I think it's also why we have more black and brown and female, we have access to more black and brown and female ideas than we ever had before. And I really, really disagree with that view, that relying on old guard to keep up the barriers that they want to keep up. But anyway, the thing that was really important, the point that I think is really important here in all of this is that human, because I've seen this argument with like robot boyfriends and girlfriends and what happens when we can all have sex bots and we're never going to talk to each other anymore.

'''J:''' Well, I'm not complaining about that at all.

'''C:''' I know. I know. That's fair. That's fair. But the issue is that human beings psychologically at our core are fundamentally interpersonal creatures and we are fundamentally creative creatures who just like seek aesthetics. We need it. We crave it. It's part of our evolutionary process. We seek out art and music and things that give us emotional experience.

'''E:''' And the part of this we haven't touched on is the live performance of that music. Nobody's going to go see an AI perform live.

'''C:''' That is not true.

'''S:''' It's already happening.

'''C:''' That's not true. Yeah. I disagree with that.

'''S:''' It's already happening.

'''E:''' They're signing out concerts? People are going to AI concerts?

'''S:''' Yeah. There are AI entities.

'''C:''' They're called Vocaloids. It's a whole thing in Japan. It's really big.

'''J:''' Music industry owns fake people-

'''C:''' It's a whole conversation that we don't have time for.

'''E:''' What about the interpersonal comment you were just making? Isn't that part of this?

'''C:''' The comment that I'm making is that whether it be robotic or not, we're always going to keep coming back to real human experience.

'''E:''' I agree with that.

'''J:''' I hope you are right. I hope you're right.

'''C:''' We are.

'''J:''' But I got to tell you my experience having that app write that song and I actually liked the song and I asked George and Dustin that because it bothers me how much I like listening to the song. I listen to the song like two or three times a day right now. It's weird. I can't believe that it's not a human voice.

'''C:''' I think it's going to bother you how soon that's not going to bother you anymore.

'''J:''' Oh man. I don't know man.

'''G:''' Jay, it bothered me when you... We were did... Was it NECSS or something? And you made the audio of our voices?

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''G:''' And you played it back. Stuff that we had to guess. Was it us or was it the AI saying? That bothered me.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''G:''' Like that was just... And I didn't even realize it was bothering me as much as it was bothering me, there was this fundamental like to hear my voice saying something I hadn't said in the perfect Hrabian inflection.

'''J:''' But George, let's face it man. As soon as these apps exist in countries where there are no rails, because right now you can't tell this app, make me a Beatles song. We are going to be able to go, make me a Beatles album that was written in 1973.

'''G:''' Yeah. By Lou Reed.

'''J:''' And it will happen. It's going to happen.

'''G:''' Of course.

'''J:''' And this is what troubles me. It's taking... All right. I know we disagree on this, Cara. I'm just worried about it.

'''S:''' Well, can I just...

'''J:''' Go ahead.

==== New quality control for music/art (44:48) ====

'''S:''' We have to go on to the next news item. Just to button that up. I do want to say, Cara, I completely agree with you. I don't think anyone up here is fully arguing for going back to the old guard. That's dead and gone anyway. It's more about there's the good and the bad, as we talked about on the last show with it. And maybe we need to think about a new way to allow like quality to rise to the top. And so that there isn't so much crap.

'''DB:''' Maybe an AI that can decide.

'''J:''' I think the shitty, white, rich guys are going to take this and do exactly what George said. They're going to homogenize art. It's going to become...

'''S:''' I think that will create a thirst for something that's not...

'''J:''' I hope so, man.

'''C:''' There will always be a subversive underground. There always has been. There always will be.

'''J:''' But why does it have to be the underground? Back in the 70s and 80s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, and part of the 90s, because that's when I used to like music. There were so many creative people and so many awesome bands and so much variance in the music. And today, it also... We're already dealing.

'''S:''' Jay, are you making these kids today?

'''J:''' No. Hey, George.

'''C:''' But Jay, I think what you're not realizing is that was born out of a subversive underground and then record executives figured they could make money on it. You realize that, right? That's all there is.

'''G:''' The underground only comes to the surface as soon as someone thinks they can make a buck on it.

'''C:''' Yeah, once it's capitalized.

'''S:''' I'm not disagreeing. So here's the question.

'''J:''' Boy, Dustin, you dropped a shitstorm on us, man. ''(applause)'' Very good.

==== Is music getting worse? (46:20) ====

'''S:''' The question is, is music getting worse over historical time?

'''C:''' No, we're not.

'''S:''' George?

'''G:''' Yeah. Okay, so a bunch of researchers did... What do you call it? Research. I'm gonna just read the press here, because it's really interesting. Eva Zangerl and her colleagues analyzed the lyrics of 12,000 English language rap, country pop, R&B, and rock songs.

'''S:''' Did she use AI to do that?

'''G:''' 2,400 songs. Yeah, 2,400 songs released between 1980 and 2020. Okay, a big span, a large number of songs over a large span of time. The authors found that, in general, lyrics have become simpler and easier to understand over time, and that the number of different words used within songs has decreased, particularly among rap and rock songs. So this has been reported as songs are getting simpler, which, yeah, I guess. I guess they are.

'''S:''' Mathematically, yeah.

'''G:''' I had a number of... Oh, thank you. Cheers. Just a check, please. Yeah, if we can get it. I appreciate it. The authors also found that lyrics have tended to become more emotional and personal over time, which is curious and interesting. More emotional and personal. Lyrics of older... This was another interesting thing that they found, because they used this platform to post all the lyrics, and they found that lyrics of older rock songs tend to be viewed more than those of newer rock songs. So it's the man-yells-at-cloud crowd that goes and looks at the lyrics of the songs that they know, as opposed to younger listeners don't look at the lyrics of the songs that are popular, or are newer, or less aged.

'''C:''' Do you think that's a function of the fact that the lyrics are simpler, and so they don't need to be looked up as much?

'''G:''' Absolutely.

'''C:''' Interesting.

'''G:''' But what's curious is newer country songs tend to be viewed more than those of older country songs. So it's almost like the older country songs are more established, maybe, and you don't wonder what they are, as opposed to the newer country songs are more questioning as what's going on there. So I was wondering, if you were to do the same study with TV scripts, let's say, or novels, or movies, or comic books, or whatever, would the same things apply? I don't know.

'''S:''' I don't think so.

'''G:''' I don't think so either.

'''C:''' They have done this study with journal articles, and it's the opposite.

'''G:''' It's the opposite.

'''C:''' Journal articles are getting more difficult to read, and they're using more big and specific words to the field.

'''S:''' Makes sense.

'''G:''' Right. Yeah. They also found that the idea of repeated lines versus non-repeated lines, repeated lines have gotten more and more common, as well as choruses have gotten more and more common in more modern music. Now, it's very hard to put a qualitative judgement on this. Is this good, or bad, or better, or worse? Because there is a consumption of music, and popular music is consumed popularly, and it's hard to say that songs are worse now than they were when we were younger, or that they're better now, or that they're even simpler, because there is also this issue of slang that gets introduced. And as soon as you have some kind of algorithm that's searching for, I'm going to find all the sad words, let's say. You decide, okay, in these, whatever, 12,000 songs, we're going to find all the sad words. Well, are you sure that something like, they say the word slay would be seen as a negative connotation.

'''C:''' No. Slay is positive.

'''G:''' That's what I'm saying. Nowadays slay is a positive to slay something, but is the computer aware of that, and is it assigning this old meaning to a bit of slang? There's also the idea of sometimes clever lyrics, or lyrics that use language in a double or triple entendre, or ironically, can that also be found? So that when someone's saying I mean, Michael Jackson's album, Bad. Not a good record.

'''C:''' Or like, Saves the Day, which is like a pop-punk band. Their songs sound so happy, but the lyrics are... If you listen to what they're saying, you're like, whoa, that's dark.

'''G:''' One of my favorite things is when the lyrics have the opposite sort of emotional connotation of what this thing sounds like.

'''C:''' I love that.

'''G:''' So very dark sounding songs that are actually positive, and then very sort of poppy, happy songs that are very dark. I love that. I love when that happens. And that's hard to necessarily relate through some kind of algorithm that's just looking through the lyrics. So yeah, this sort of enters into the conversation we've just been having. It's very difficult to not fall into the trap of of what every generation says, which is our songs were better than the next generation's songs. And I have fought it vehemently. I always try to hear what's popular, what's coming up, and try to think, okay, I know this is not being designed for me as a 52-year-old guy. I know the stuff that's on the... I can't even say radio, but the stuff that's on the top Spotify playlists is not designed for me necessarily, so I can't take it in that context of, oh, this isn't as good as Soundgarden, or this isn't as good as Elvis Costello, because it's just different, you know?

'''S:''' It's just... Yeah. I think we have to look at it that way, that it's just different. Unless you're thinking that there is some systemic issue with the way it's produced and what rises to the top, a selective pressure in there, like corporate greed or whatever you think might be.

'''J:''' But I think it's actually the fact... I said it. I think it's because there is no vetting process anymore.

==== Attentions spans are shorter (51:44) ====

'''G:''' Well, Jay, okay, so the vetting process that does exist is people's attention span is much shorter.

'''C:''' Yes.

'''S:''' It's clicks.

'''G:''' It's clicks. So when you check out a song on Spotify or a YouTube or something like that, or even in the iTunes little preview that gives you 30 seconds or whatever, the ones that are going to get popular are the ones whose hook is shorter, the one whose chorus happens faster, because you're going to hear that important part of the song is going to be blasted into your cortex as many times as it possibly can in those 20 seconds, those eight seconds, those four seconds.

'''J:''' That's crazy.

'''G:''' This is something that floored me about my niece and nephew. They used to play me songs, and they would literally play me just eight bars of a song. They'd be like, oh, I got this great song I want you to hear. I'm like, yeah, play it for me. And they would be skipping ahead, skipping ahead, skipping. I'm like, let me hear the... Can I hear the song? No, no, no, it's just this part. And you get to the part, it's the transition into the chorus. Listen to this. And I'm like, okay. No, no, no, just hear that again. Hear that part again. There's eight bars again.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''G:''' You know there's like two minutes on each side of that thing that they really worked hard to do.

'''J:''' George, back, was it the late 70s, early 80s, Journey, Don't Stop Believing?

'''G:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' They don't say the chorus, don't stop believing, until like the last third of the song.

'''G:''' Sure.

'''J:''' We were very patient back then.

'''G:''' Yeah. Well, there's a wonderful... I talked about this on my cast, [https://youtu.be/0l3-iufiywU?si=xHhlcKurfpFGpqXE&t=9 two kids watching "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins]--

'''C:''' --[inaudible]

'''G:''' --so they've never heard this thing, and if you know the song {{w|"In the Air Tonight"}}, the drums don't come in until, like, the three-and-a-half-minute mark--

'''S:''' --That famous drum...

'''G:''' One of the most famous drum falls.

'''S & C:''' You're waiting for it.

'''G:''' [imitates drum fall]... And so these two, and they're kids, they're probably in their late teens, maybe early 20s, and they're listening and they're kind of like into it. They're digging it and digging it. And then Phil comes, and they're like, [https://youtu.be/0l3-iufiywU?si=jlEYgkqDsR_QEGjo&t=296 "Whoa! Whoo! Wow! They're dropping the beat three minutes in! They're dropping the beat three minutes--"] ''[Rogues & audience laugh]''[[File:979 TwinsthenewTrend phil collins reaction.jpg |right|400px|thumb|{{w|TwinsthenewTrend}} YouTubers' reaction to drum fall in {{w|Phil Collins}}' {{w|"In the Air Tonight"}}]] It's so exciting! It got, like, 5 million views, like millions of views. It was so popular that In the Air Tonight got back on the iTunes charts. It popped back up because, again, the people that own the copyright were smart enough to let the kids have it for that video. So it's like those things enthuse me and give me this idea that there is a general appreciation that can happen as long as the exposure happens. You know, as long as you're exposed to it. So video games now have these great classic rock tunes that are embedded. I mean, Guitar Hero, when that started, all of a sudden you had this whole new generation finding Carry on My Wayward Son. I mean, South Park did that great episode where the dad actually knows how to play it, and the kids are like, Dad, you're actually playing guitar? No, play the game. You've got to play the game. The game is way cooler. But again, it's younger ears. There's nothing special about our generation's music appreciation. Like, there's nothing that was embedded. And our parents, or whatever, those that were going in the 70s and hearing a 26-minute Yes song and being like, this is awesome, you know, they were, sorry, just as dumb as anybody else. They didn't have a great appreciation for music or have this great deep understanding of how music works. They were just exposed to it.

'''C:''' I interviewed a woman on Talk Nerdy who is like a multi-Grammy-winning record producer who has a career that spanned, like, so many stars. And then she went back to school to finish her PhD in neuroscience to study why we like the music we like. And they sort of put the... Her and her colleagues put it into categories. Like, some people are very lyric oriented. Some people really like this component of music. And it's always kind of a mix. Some people are into novelty. So some people are constantly looking for new music. And the first time they hear a song, they're like, that's it, that's great. But a lot of people aren't. A lot of people listen to the same thing over and over and over. And I think that phenomenon, along with, like, we've talked a little bit about ageing and sort of some of the phenomenons that come with ageing of, like, comfort and turning inward.

'''S:''' Well, there's also neural nostalgia. That's the term that they use where the patterns that get laid down in your brain between the ages of 12 and 22, particularly, that's your brain, right? That becomes, like, your baseline, your standard. And, like, so the music you're listening between those ages to you is the best music that there is.

'''G:''' I've always said that music that you choose when you're 12 is one of the very first autonomous choices you get to make. No one gets to say, you don't like this. You can't. You got to go to bed at a certain time. You got to do your homework. You got to be at the school. You don't have any choice in your life, but you can choose what music you like. And that's that first time where you're like, I like this. I am choosing this thing. And that just sticks with you forever.

'''C:''' And then there is this phenomenon called gerotranscendence that happens at a certain age where in older adulthood we do tend to start turning away from the popular culture. It's why we don't know who that actor is anymore. And all those young people look the same. And it's not because it's like I'm a crotchety old person. It's because those things stop mattering as much to us, and we start turning inward, and we're doing more meditation, and we're spending more time in nature, and we're focusing more on deep personal relationships. And we're just less focused on like commercial and societal things. And I think all those things play into the reason that kids these days and then our music is like, yeah, it's an epiphenomenon. It's an epiphenomenon, exactly.

'''S:''' Dustin, let me ask you a question.

'''C:''' Hey, the youngest person on this panel is 40 years old, by the way.

'''G:''' I know, I know. It's funny. Yeah, I know. That's so good.

'''S:''' Dustin, when you're composing your songs and trying to create an album, how much time do you spend thinking about how will this play on TikTok or like streaming?

'''DB:''' Recently when I've been writing in Nashville with other people, they've been mentioning TikTokable moments, but I had never before or since really considered it. But other people talk about the first seven seconds on Spotify. It's on the top of people's minds as they write, not me. But yeah, it's definitely a thing.

'''S:''' But you have creative control. Is there any part of your business where you get pressure from people to make TikTokable moments?

'''DB:''' Not directly. I was, I had a record deal before this one and I learned some things and I did a lot of upfront work and investment before this record deal. And well, I guess I'm on another one after that, but before the Star Set's first one, before Star Set's first one, and I made sure to maintain creative control. So the typical A&R artist relation or I would just repertoire, I don't even know what it stands for because I don't deal with them. But yeah, I don't have any of that, luckily.

'''S:''' Yeah. But you think, is that true for most new artists, you think, or no?

'''DB:''' I think it depends. I wouldn't entirely know because I would imagine a lot of new artists are coming with some foundation of a career built with these various platforms. So they might, if they're wise, enter with some creative control. And I think the labels still are filtering by, mostly by who's getting the most clicks. And so there's probably not as much necessity for creative control because they're picking the people that they think can sell. But yeah.

'''S:''' Yeah, yeah.

'''C:''' Right. It's like that Macklemore phenomenon, right? When they were developing their first album and then the record label's like, here's your cut, here's your... And they're like, we'll just do it ourselves. And they got to keep all the profits. And they were like, okay. I think it's that interesting thing where a record label, it's like they already have a built-in audience before we're starting to do this deal. We don't own them the way we used to. What do we do about that?

'''DB:''' Yeah. Labels are getting less and less useful, but they still have a use. And also if this onslaught of AI songs happens, maybe they will have a use again in some ways to be part of that filtering thing, unless the AI filters also do that.

'''S:''' Speaking of TikTok pressure though, I mean, even we feel it. Because with Ian and Jay, we're doing a lot of making TikTok videos. And there's a lot of discussion about how quickly you have to get to the meat and also how short they have to be. And let's try just doing you reacting to something. There's no actual intellectual content, but this really sells on TikTok, right? Where it's just like a purely emotional sort of response.

'''J:''' Ian published a video of Steve just having a facial reaction to something and it did really well.

'''S:''' It did really well.

'''J:''' And for people who know Steve, that to me is the most boring. Like watching Steve go, it gives you shit.

'''S:''' That's spot on, Jay. Spot on.

'''E:''' There's a hundred thousand clicks right there.

'''S:''' But I'm saying that the clicks are a pressure. And we have our tech guy Ian over there, right? Everyone has their Ian, their tech guy who's like, well, this is what's clicking. This is what's getting you the numbers on TikTok. Let's try this. And it's not necessarily what's optimized for our mission, for the content. But if we don't get people to watch the videos, then what's the point? It's the other thing. So it's an interesting, just once you're swapping out one set of pressures, maybe from the old guard to a new set of pressures from what gets the attention, what gets the clicks. And I do think that will be its own filter, which may, will be good and bad and different, lateral move or whatever.

'''J:''' We decided to start selling our own brand of vitamins. Don't judge us. Look, it's simply because we know it'll bring attention. It's not to make money or anything. We're making good money. It doesn't matter.

'''G:''' Steven Novella's manpower.

'''S:''' But that brings up a good point, actually, is that we are probably pretty far to the end of the spectrum of people who have an actual mission. Like we care about our content. We say no to money all the time on principle.

'''G:''' Wait, what?

'''S:''' I mean, seriously.

'''C:''' That sucks.

'''S:''' No, but seriously, but I do think, I imagine that what if I had no scrupules, right? You think about like what our behavior would be if we didn't, if our only mission were making money.

'''E:''' If we sold out a long time ago.

'''S:''' We're getting attention. Oh my God.

'''E:''' If we would use our powers for evil.

'''S:''' If we used our powers just for pure greed and attention rather than like caring about, the world. Yeah, you can totally see how easy it would be to just become all the crap that we're seeing on TikTok, right? It's very easy to see how that's the end stage and that's a lot of what we're heading for.

=== Aphantasia Spectrum (1:02:35) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://neurosciencenews.com/aphantasia-visual-imagination-25823/
|article_title = Exploring Aphantasia: The Mind Without a Mental Picture
|publication = nnn
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' But speaking of imagining, Cara, you're going to talk about aphantasia.

'''C:''' Aphantasia, such a fascinating phenomenon. It was first actually described by Galton all the way back in 1880. We're not going to talk about Galton. He was a eugenicist. He sucked. But then later, Professor Adam Zeman, or it might be Zeman, I'm not sure. So apologies if you listen to the show, at the University of Exeter, he sort of brought it back into discussion, actually in 2015 when he published kind of a landmark study on the phenomenon. So this is this idea that some people don't create mental images, like literally some people can't make pictures in their minds. And we've sort of thought about this in the binary for a long time since we started talking about it. But the new bit, which I'll kind of go through quickly, is that researchers have recently reviewed over 50 studies that have been published since we first started talking about this in 2015 to help deepen the understanding of this phenomenon. And it's really a spectrum. It goes all the way from aphantasia over here to hyperphantasia over here. And there's a lot in between. So some big takeaways from this study, and then I want to talk about something else that's really interesting. I'm excited. The first one is that, like I said, it's a spectrum that can affect visual imagination, but also that can then influence memory, because those things are linked, face recognition, what people choose to do for work. And because a lot of people who had aphantasia didn't know they had it, because remember, when you're born a certain way, that's just how you are. And it's not something that a lot of people verbalize. And so we often just expect that, well, my human experience is kind of like your human experience, right?

'''S:''' So that extends to everything. And so, for example, there are people who are born with profound numbness. They just don't feel anything, and they have no idea that's not normal. That's their world. That's normal for them.

'''B:''' Physical or emotional?

'''S:''' If you ask them, are you numb? Do you have any problems? They're like, nope, I'm fine. I'm perfectly normal.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' They're normal for them.

'''C:''' And it's especially hard when it's something that... And I don't like using this word because I think it puts a valence on it, and I don't mean it that way, but when it's something that's lacking. So something like you don't... Because there are people who can't feel pain, for example, and they don't know they can't feel pain because they can't feel pain. And so until that phenomenon is described, they're like, I didn't know other people had that. And that's a common experience. Maybe some people in the room who have synesthesia or different versions of synesthesia, right? Where your different sensory perception have mixed streams. So you might kind of smell color or see months or days in the calendar have different textures or different colors. People who have that experience, for whom it was really normal, very often when they first discovered, like, oh, your Tuesday's not crunchy. Like they're really surprised.

'''S:''' You can't smell numbers? What's wrong with you?

'''C:''' Wednesday's not yellow for me. And also music. Some people can't imagine music. Some people don't have an inner voice. So fascinating.

'''B:''' That's fascinating.

'''C:''' There are also familial patterns in both aphantasia and hyperphantasia. So hyperphantasia being the other end of the spectrum, which is really ultra vivid mental imagery. And then there are different more and more people, more and more people, a lot of these studies, they looked at 50 studies, are trying to dig deep into what's going on in the brain, right? Obviously, we want to understand what's going on in the brain. And sometimes not only are these things linked to different genetic factors, but we also see that they can be linked to autism spectrum. So it's really interesting that ASD and aphantasia we see sometimes existing together. So as I was doing some research on this study, I found a really cool paper or report that was done in the Conversation where three different researchers who themselves study aphantasia, who all three have aphantasia, described what it's like to have aphantasia. And I was like, oh, this is fascinating. One of the authors, her name is Lauren Boyer, cannot unscramble 3D shapes. She cannot, if she looks at an image, I know this is a podcast, deal with it. But if she looks at an image that has very distinct parts in it, like what I'm showing right now is a picture of a mop where the plastic part of the mop, the head of the mop is yellow, and the fibers of the mop are blue, that is not a mop to her. She cannot put those things together in her mind. So she can't sort of integrate a gestalt of an image.

'''J:''' That's crippling.

'''C:''' It's hard. Yeah, it's hard. And she doesn't have an inner visual imagery capability at all. And she has no inner voice. So they call that deep aphantasia in their paper. So she describes, and she writes books. So she describes that when she writes books, she's not narrating what she writes down before she writes it. The words just come, and sometimes what comes next isn't there, so she needs a minute, and then it just comes to her and she writes it next. But there's no pre-narration in her mind.

'''J:''' The way most people do it is you kind of say it in your head before you type it.

'''C:''' I assume. I don't know. That's what's normal to me. Is that what's normal to you?

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Say it in your head before you type it, sure.

'''J:''' What are you saying?

'''C:''' I don't know. Like I'm saying, my normal might not be normal.

'''B:''' What about people like that and also people who can't create the visual, the imagery, the mental imagery? What do they dream? Can they hear dreams? Can they see in dreams? Because if you can dream, I would think you could.

'''C:''' So some people who have what they call mental blindness or blind mind, they don't recall dreaming, and they don't think that they dream. Others do, but they can't describe their dreams visually. So they might look like they're dreaming on EEG, but that's not their experience of dreaming. They might describe a different sensory experience of dreaming. Like there's a narrative in their head, like they remember a plot, but it doesn't have...

'''E:''' Do they have rapid eye movement?

'''C:''' Yeah. Yeah.

'''B:''' There is REM.

'''C:''' Yeah. They might on EEG look like they're dreaming. They can't describe to you that they saw pictures in their brain.

'''E:''' But those parts of the brain are firing, the dreaming parts, right?

'''C:''' Well, I'm describing brain waves. I'm not describing parts of the brain, so I'm not sure about that.

'''E:''' Okay.

'''J:''' Now, is this something that they perceive as being like detriment or uncomfortable or a block in any way?

'''C:''' So that was a question that I thought was curious, because a lot of them didn't even know they had it until they was pointed out.

'''G:''' How do you test that? Yeah. How do you like test?

'''C:''' It's self-report, but some researchers have developed scales where they ask very specific questions that evoke specific answers that help get to the heart of it. So it's like, I'm going to ask you to imagine, how does that look? And then it's like, I can't do that. Or when I do it... Because again, it's a spectrum. Sometimes when people try to imagine visual images, they're really, really simplistic or they're lacking a lot of detail. And other people, when they do it, they're really rich and beautiful. So some people, for example, and I know you've brought this up before, will say, I don't like reading fiction, because I can't see it. Like I don't see the story in my head. And people who don't have interior voices might not hear different actors in the story. When I read a book, I can hear the different characters' voices. And if a character has been described as like an older Scottish man, that's how he sounds in my head. And I know that I can do that in my mind, even if my mouth can't... I can't do an older Scottish man voice for you guys right now, but I can hear it in my head.

'''J:''' Please give it a shot.

'''C:''' No, I can't. That's what I'm saying. I am...

'''G:''' Oh, go for it, Lassie. Go for it. Come on, let's go.

'''C:''' That's in my head.

'''G:''' Oh, speak to me, lady.

'''C:''' So maybe I have a little hyperphantasia, because I can do more in my head than I can recreate. I can see images in my head I could never draw for you or like... But yes, one of the people in this article talked about how it is difficult, let me find it here, for her to have story time with her daughter. So it does get in the way a little bit. And also, aphantasics can often be frustrated at others' attempts to explain our experiences. I'm sorry, you guys. I didn't mean to. And so, yeah, because oftentimes in the early literature, people would suggest that they probably still have the experiences, they're just not good at explaining what they're experiencing. But they're like, that's really condescending. We are researchers in this field. We know how to describe our inner world. This is not what my inner world is like. I know what perception is. I've studied this phenomenon, and that's not what I have. Oh, and I love this example, okay? Because it says in here, the confusion can go both ways. They were trying to design an experiment to test for this. And one of the researchers said, okay, what if we ask people to imagine a black cat with their eyes closed? And another researcher who also had aphantasia was like, I think that'll be really hard for people because how are they going to see a black cat in their mind against the black background of their mind? And the other person laughed and they were like, that's not hard for me to do. I can see a black cat in my head, even though it's dark in there, you know? And so it's like, it's so funny that they just could not share that experience. I know.

'''S:''' I mean, it's one of those examples that just brings out the fact that everything that your brain does, that you mentally do, your mind does, there's somebody who can't do that, right? And we consider it normal or abnormal or pathological or whatever, that's just all subjective. We tend to functionally define it as, well, if it gives you an inability to do something useful that most people can do, we'll call that a disorder. But that's, again, that's just a subjective choice that we're making about it. And of course, I always remember the Jonathan Swift story, one of the Lilliputian Islands, I believe. They chose their rulers by who was most acrobatic, right? And so being an acrobat was the most important skill that one could have. And if you had a normal cerebellar function, normal balance, that was a dysfunction in that culture, but it was a completely subjective one, cultural one. So, like, the ability to read is a disorder in our culture, but it wouldn't be in a culture that doesn't depend on the written word very much. And so, and of course, we evolved without any of that stuff, right? Without any modern culture.

'''C:''' And that's, like, the argument about kind of terming deaf culture as being a culture of disability, right? And calling it a lack or a problem, and it's like, we have a rich language, you guys, just because we can't hear. Like, we communicate really well, and this is who we are.

'''S:''' But I do wonder, like, people who have aphantasia, so again, what is the neurological correlate of that? And is it that, is their part of their brain better at doing something else or dedicated to something else? Do they have anything that is better because they're not wasting their time being able to imagine things?

'''C:''' Well, it's, I mean, and that's the thing, too, because these are different perceptual, so I don't want to say sensory, but perceptual streams. So if somebody has, like, aphantasia, but it's purely visual, are they filling their head with a verbal or auditory narrative all the time? But would that affect, then, their neural architecture much? Because when their eyes are open, their visual system is still stimulated all the time. You know what I mean? So it's not the same as somebody who's not ever getting visual cues.

'''S:''' But there may be something else, though, that could, because visualization is really complicated. You have to be able to see things. You have to be able to remember seeing things. And we have to be able to tell the difference, which is important. And we also have to be able to imagine things. We don't have to. It's one of the other related abilities. And also, when you're seeing things, as we've discussed many, many times, and we go over in on the extravaganza, you're constructing every single aspect of it. And it really is this constructed illusion that has so many different layers to it. And then we assign emotion to it, if it's something that we think deserves to have emotion assigned to it, meaning it has agency. And there are people who lack that, who can't.

'''J:''' Is the spectrum of, like, so take Stevie Wonder, for example. He will hear songs in his head. He's not noodling. He'll hear it in his head. And then he'll write the song. So that, to me, is almost like on the opposite side.

'''C:''' Hyperfantasia?

'''J:''' Hyperfantasia.

'''C:''' Yeah, it could be. I definitely think Mozart was definitely hyperfantasic, right, because he could compose an entire symphony without even writing it down. He could hear the parts, almost like visualize the bassoons coming in, visualize it, and then write it down. Whether he could compose without, I mean, he didn't have tools. He's drafting. Yeah, but in the movies, George.

'''J:''' In the movie, George.

'''G:''' In the movie he's great.

'''E:''' What are you saying? Hollywood said differently.

'''C:''' That's when he was dying.

'''G:''' No, no, no. That's a little bit of a...

'''C:''' When was his very first composition?

'''G:''' I mean, they say it was seven, but it's not very good, though.

'''J:''' Let me tell you.

'''G:''' No, honestly. Honestly.

'''C:''' I wouldn't think it would be his best work.

'''G:''' It's a rudimentary... I mean, because he had been playing since he was five.

'''C:''' Right. But you also think about Beethoven, who couldn't hear anymore.

'''G:''' Beethoven is a good example. Beethoven is a good example, yeah.

'''C:''' So once he was losing his hearing, he was still composing. So he no longer has the sensory input, but he's imagining the way that it sounds in his mind. And granted, I think any composer, when they've been doing it long enough, is going to start to be able to develop that.

'''G:''' That's the thing. It is an achievable skill that you can do.

'''C:''' But it might also be self-selecting. As they said, many people with aphantasia or hyperphantasia tend towards professions that are self-selected.

'''G:''' Right.

'''C:''' So you might see that composers tend to be hyperphantasic. They hear music in their heads a lot. But there are people who are aphantasic for music, and that makes me sad. But maybe they don't... It's not a deficit to that.

'''S:''' But they don't get earworms.

'''C:''' Yeah, that's true. Can you imagine never having a song stuck in your head? That would be nice.

'''J:''' But those people, are they non-emotionally reactive to music?

'''C:''' No, they can hear music. They can't evoke music in their minds when it's not playing.

'''J:''' Oh, okay.

'''C:''' They cannot mentally imagine music. But they can hear music. All we're talking about here is mental imagination of vision or sound or whatever, even sensations. Some of us can evoke what it feels like to touch something. We can evoke cold in our minds or warm in our minds. And some people can't do that.

'''G:''' And, Cara, is this from... I mean, not from birth, but from the development of...

'''C:''' There probably are examples of acquired versions because there's...

'''G:''' Injuries or whatever.

'''C:''' Brain injury is fascinating. Read some Oliver Sacks. He probably wrote about it at some point, right? But there's probably an example of acquired ones. But I think what we're mostly talking about here are congenital forms of this.

'''G:''' So there's no point where they may have been able to see something and it faded away.

'''C:''' Maybe if there's a degenerative process in the brain that affected that.

'''G:''' Oh, so we don't know.

'''C:''' There could be disease states that do affect that.

'''S:''' If there was a lesion that did it, that would be fantastic. Because then we would know that lesion causes it, right? That's how we learned a lot about what the brain does, by what happens when you damage part of it and what goes away.

'''G:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' I don't know. I'd have to look it up.

'''C:''' Yeah, we'd have to look it up.

'''S:''' Acquired aphantasia would be fascinating.

'''C:''' Really helpful.

=== Nova and Comet Compete with Eclipse (1:18:33) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240322-visible-nova-explosion-is-coming
|article_title = Move over, solar eclipse: Scientists predict a once-in-a-lifetime nova explosion in the coming months
|publication = BBC
|redirect_title = 
}}
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/04/02/solar-exclipse-horned-devil-comet-april-8/73147667007
|article_title = The solar eclipse and the horned devil comet: Two good reasons to look up on April 8
|publication = USA Today
}}
'''S:''' All right. One more news item. Bob, you're going to... There's other astronomical events happening around the eclipse.

'''B:''' Yeah. Finally.

'''G:''' That you can ruin.

'''B:''' Back to some astronomy. Finally. I'm really excited about an astronomical event that's coming up. And it's not the eclipse. A nova is going to appear in the night sky, visible to the naked eye. At some time from now to September. And I'm so excited about this. This happens every 80 years or so with this specific case. The system is the T. coronae borealis system. It's 3,000 light years away. It's a red giant and a white dwarf star, binary pair, that explode. They work together and they explode every 80 years. It's one of the five recurring novae in our galaxy. So this doesn't happen that often in our galaxy. Now, nova... We know supernova is big, exploding stars and other things. But a nova is like a smaller version of that. But it's actually a misnomer. It's not really technically accurate. Tycho Brahe, you may have heard of him. He wrote in his book De Novi Steli, which means concerning the new star. And that name took. It was nova. A nova was his example. But it's not really... The name that astronomers will use are cataclysmic variables. That's the true name. It's much more accurate. So what happens is that for a cataclysmic variable, you've got a system that will brighten at a time and then go quiescent for... It could be years, decades, or even centuries. And it typically consists of a white dwarf star, which is like a cinder of a sun-like star, and another type of secondary, like donor star, like a red giant, like our star. The sun will be in millions or billions of years. The process is interesting, because you've got this binary system of a white dwarf and a red giant, and they're in orbit, and the white dwarf is kind of siphoning off the hydrogen. So the hydrogen swirls down into orbit into an accretion disk around the white dwarf, and then eventually it falls onto the surface. What happens is you've got increased temperature and density of this hydrogen. Maybe sometimes there's helium in there. And this runaway hydrogen fusion happens. This is what is actually exploding and causing the brightness. Now, you would think 3,000 light-years away, you've got a runaway fusion reaction. How bright could that really be? But we're talking... I actually found out what the megatonnage is. A million trillion megatons. That's a lot. So, of course, I had to change that into different ways to present that. So a million trillion megatons is one septillion tons of TNT, right? That's the convention. 10 to the 24 tons. Huge amount. It's also a trillion trillion tons. That's another way you can say it. I like comparing it to the Tsar Bomba?

'''E:''' Tsar Bomba.

'''B:''' Soviet Union. Yeah, it does.

'''G:''' Tsar Bomba.

'''B:''' The biggest...

'''G:''' Tsar Bomba, baby.

'''B:''' The biggest bomb ever exploded ever on the earth. 50 megatons. This was... When did they do that? 60s?

'''E:''' 64?

'''B:''' So a white dwarf, this nova, is 200 million million times more powerful than that bomb. I mean, that's why we can see it from 3,000 light-years away.

'''G:''' So don't look directly at, without your glasses.

'''B:''' So don't look directly at it with your naked eye.

'''S:''' Bob, how much brighter is it than our sun? In absolute magnitude.

'''C:''' Not to us.

'''S:''' In absolute magnitude.

'''B:''' You don't want to get close to this baby. I mean, I don't know. I don't know what the distance would be. At this distance, it's equivalent to the sun. I don't know. But nobody...

'''S:''' You didn't find that number in your research, like what the absolute magnitude is?

'''B:''' No.

'''J:''' So you didn't find that out, Bob? You don't know? ''(laughter)''

'''G:''' Just to reiterate. So Steve, what are you saying? And Jay, what are you saying about Bob's research? Is what? He didn't do it?

'''J:''' Yeah, I mean, Bob, what did you actually do?

'''B:''' All right. Let's go over what I did find out. Not your lame questions that...

'''G:''' He's actually playing Tetris right now in here. I don't know if that... I'm sorry. I shouldn't say that.

'''B:''' All right. Jay and Steve. This is a scientific opportunity. There's NASA and lots of people are looking at the eclipse tomorrow. Of course, but a lot... Almost every... Not almost every, but many, many worldwide telescopes are going to look at this because this is an event. This is huge. And this is kind of an anomaly. This is a... It's a nova. It's a cataclysmic variable, but it's kind of weird. This is a weird one because this one gets brighter for 10 years before the explosion. It gets a little brighter. This doesn't normally happen. Also, it gets a little dimmer, I think, a year before the explosion, which has already happened. That doesn't really happen to many other novas. It's really like an anomaly. This one sticks out. So the idea is that the more we learn about this anomalous cataclysmic variable, the more you'll learn about what exactly is going on. The one thing that I like for this explosion is that two months later, it gets brighter again. Not as much... Not as bright as it was during the explosion, but it gets brighter, and that shouldn't happen. So the theory is, which is really fascinating, is that say George is us, and the nova goes off here. Here's the white dwarf, and here's the red giant. They think what happens is that the white dwarf explodes, and it kind of sizzles one side of this star here. Then as it rotates around and presents itself to the Earth, then we see another brightening. It's not because the white dwarf is doing anything. It's because this red giant has been kind of fried from the explosion, which is a fascinating idea. That's one theory. We're not sure.

'''J:''' I'm not joking here. How can a red giant get fried?

'''B:''' Well, when you've got a trillion trillion megatons going off nearby, you're going to fry almost anything that's nearby.

'''J:''' It's hydrogen, isn't it? What's happening in the world of physics here?

'''C:''' It's a big bomb.

'''B:''' What do you mean? You have runaway fusion happening. You've got hydrogen pouring onto a white dwarf.

'''J:''' Okay, all right, I get that.

'''S:''' Is the red giant that's getting exposed to the increased brightness from the white star, is that inducing more burning of hydrogen fuel? Does that side of the star get brighter? They're saying it gets brighter.

'''B:''' It gets brighter because it's been fried.

'''S:''' Because it's burning more of its own hydrogen on that side?

'''B:''' I don't think they know. I mean, I've not read about anyone modeling what happens to a red giant when it's near a white dwarf.

'''S:''' They didn't say what the reason. They just said some reason we don't know. By some mechanism we don't know. Maybe it's brightening that side of the star.

'''B:''' But doesn't it make sense that because a white dwarf exploded right in front of it that its face is kind of like fried for a while and it's going to be turning around and looking? Yeah, that makes sense. They didn't go into it. Steve, that was just a little minor point that they mentioned.

'''S:''' Bob, you don't have to get mad. We're just asking questions.

'''C:''' I think they're asking, did the article use the term fried?

'''B:''' No.

'''C:''' Okay. What term did they use?

'''B:''' It used, let me see. Oh, it used sizzled. All right, you happy now? I changed a word. I don't like your questions. Think of some better shit, please. So viewing, you could view this. This is going to be as bright as Polaris, as the North Star. You're going to be able to see this. This is wonderful. So it's in the constellation Corona Borealis is the constellation, also known as the Northern Crown. It's kind of like a U-shaped constellation. It's between the Hercules constellation and Bootes. Bootes, is that how that's pronounced?

'''C:''' Bootes.

'''B:''' You sure?

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''B:''' It's between those two. It's just like a U-shaped constellation.

'''C:''' Is it white like the other stars in the sky? Will it look the same color as any other star?

'''B:''' Yeah. I don't think you're going to discern too many different colors.

'''S:''' Oh, you like her questions.

'''B:''' Yeah. Think about it, Steve.

'''C:''' Simple question.

'''B:''' Okay, so it's going to be bright. This is what I want. This is what I'm going to do. I'm not familiar with the Northern Crown constellation. I want to find it, look at it, and get used to seeing what it looks like. Then you've got to listen to the news because it's going to be on TV. Like, holy crap, a nova has exploded. Then you go back, and then you look at it, and you're like, holy crap, that's a new star that's right there that I didn't see before. Then you can really appreciate the difference. Otherwise, you're like, yeah, okay, fine. If you're used to it, then it's going to be more dramatic.

'''G:''' You said before September it's going to happen?

'''B:''' Yeah, between now and September.

'''G:''' So how do they know that?

'''B:''' They know because it's gone off every 80 years going into history.

'''G:''' See, boys, that's how you do a question.

'''B:''' Yes. See? He kind of made me feel bad because, and it's a good question, because I should have said previously this has gone off five or six times. We have records of it going back. So that's a very good question.

'''S:''' Yeah, but, George, you made Bob feel bad.

'''B:''' Good question. Very good. No, that's good. I'm glad he mentioned it.

'''C:''' I'm curious about, is that how, is it, does it, or, oh, you said it was a misnomer completely. So it doesn't nova until it supernovas.

'''B:''' It's not supernova.

'''C:''' They're not related.

'''B:''' That's interesting.

'''C:''' Or are they?

'''B:''' That's interesting because this is a recurrent nova because it accumulates a hydrogen, explodes into a nova, and then if it's a recurrent nova, it'll happen again. But they think that if some of the hydrogen remains or if it goes past what they call the Chandrasekhar limit, then there's so much hydrogen that the whole white dwarf explodes, the whole thing, and there's no recurring after that.

'''S:''' And then show over, yeah.

'''B:''' But then that's a supernova 1A. That's the thing that we have been, that we've looked at in the past. And because it's a standard candle, because everyone they think it's the exact same brightness. So then you know how far away it is. And they use that to track the expansion of the universe and therefore dark energy. I mean, so that's a, that's a whole other beast. And it's really interesting. This could become supernova 1A at one point.

'''S:''' So that's then we'll know what's absolutely magnitude?

'''B:''' Then we would absolutely. Yes. So what else do I got here? I think that's it. That's good.

'''S:''' All right. ''(applause)''

'''G:''' Got your own applause break. Look at that.

'''S:''' Yeah. All right, everyone. It's time for science or fiction.

'''B:''' Good questions. I appreciate it.

{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:29:01) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = Texas

|item1 = Texas has the road with the highest speed limit in the US, at 85 mph.
|link1web = https://www.briggsfreeman.com/blog/posts/2021/08/19/the-funny-14-facts-about-texas-that-may-surprise-you/
|link1title = The Funny 14: Facts About Texas That May Surprise You
|link1pub = Briggs Freeman

|item2 = The largest single employer in Texas is Amazon.
|link2web = https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/economic-profiles/texas/
|link2title = Texas - State Economic Profile
|link2pub = IBISWorld

|item3 = Six Flags amusement park gets its name from the fact that Texas has been part of six nations throughout its history.
|link3web = https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/six-flags-the-countries-texas-belonged-to/
|link3title = Six Flags Over Texas: All The Countries Texas Has Been A Part Of
|link3pub = Culture Colectiva

|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = largest single employer
|science1 = highest US speed limit
|science2 = flags of six nations

|rogue1 = dustin
|answer1 = flags of six nations

|rogue2 = Evan
|answer2 =flags of six nations

|rogue3 =jay
|answer3 =flags of six nations

|rogue4 =cara
|answer4 =largest single employer

|rogue5 = bob
|answer5 =largest single employer

|rogue6 = george
|answer6 =highest US speed limit

|audienceanswer = largest single employer
|
|host =steve 

|sweep = 
|clever =y 
|win = 
|swept = 
}}
''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''

'''S:''' Each week, I come up with three science news items or facts, two real, one fake. And I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. There's a theme this week. And the theme is Texas.

'''E:''' Taxes?

'''G:''' Slow down.

'''E:''' Taxes? I'm good.

'''G:''' Dollars. Taxes.

'''S:''' Taxation.

'''C:''' It's Texas.

'''S:''' It's Texas. But this is on a previous episode that I might have recorded earlier today. The theme was more like Texas ancient history and geology and stuff. This is just modern-day Texas stuff.

'''G:''' Yeehaw?

'''S:''' Okay. Is everyone ready? Cara, are you ready?

'''C:''' Probably not. I don't. I don't. Yeah. It's been a while.

'''S:''' Item number one. Texas has the road with the highest speed limit in the U.S. at 85 miles per hour. Item number two. The largest single employer in Texas is Amazon. And item number three. Six Flags Amusement Park gets its name from the fact that Texas has been part of six nations throughout its history. Dustin, we're going to start with you.

<big>'''Dustin's Response'''</big>

'''DB:''' The one that I think is false. Six Flags.

'''S:''' You think Six Flags is false?

'''DB:''' That's the false one.

'''S:''' Do you have a reason for thinking that?

'''DB:''' Six nations. I mean, I know Mexico and Texas would think it's its own nation. And you've got U.S., so we're up to three. Cherokee, maybe.

'''S:''' All right.

'''DB:''' Wait. Is it the ones that rode the horses? What is it? Is that Cherokee? The Indian nation?

'''J:''' Yeah. We're getting close to six.

'''DB:''' Yeah, I know. The horizon. Six just seemed a little high.

'''S:''' All right. All right.

<big>'''Evan's Response'''</big>

'''E:''' Okay. So Texas having the road with the highest speed limit in the U.S. I always thought that was Montana, maybe. Don't they have roads either in Montana or Utah where there's no speed limit in the daytime? But they could have thrown that out and stopped that. There was a time where I think there was no speed limit during the day in one or two of those states. But perhaps that's past. And, therefore, 85 miles in Texas could be the highest speed limit. The largest single employer in Texas is Amazon. I suppose that would make sense, given its size. You would need to have a lot of these stations located all around. And that takes a lot of people to get your stuff there. And then Six Flags Amusement Park. I don't know. Does it really get its name from that? Never heard that before. And then, jeez, I thought at some point there was something about amusement parks. Like there was 13 flags or something. And something in my memory is clouding this one. And what the heck? I will agree with our guest and say the Six Flags Amusement Park is the fiction.

<big>'''Jay's Response'''</big>

'''J:''' Okay. The first one about the Texas speed limit. So I just found out yesterday. We have a 15-passenger van. And in Connecticut, the speed limit is usually 55, right? Some places it might be up to 60. So I'm driving 60 miles an hour. And I told Ian, oh, my God, everyone's crazy. They're driving crazy fast here. He goes, Jay, the speed limit is 70, and you're going 60. I'm like, oh, that explains everything. I'm the idiot. Okay. I just don't think. I don't know. Well, I guess so. I mean, Texas is huge. At home there's a Starbucks like literally every block. And here there's miles between them. So you want to drive.

'''C:''' Such an observation.

'''E:''' You've got to drive 70 to get there.

'''J:''' I think that the second one, yeah, absolutely. Amazon is the largest single employer. I mean, Amazon is freaking huge. I think the six flags one is the fiction. And I think the reason is because there's six of them. That's what I think.

<big>'''Cara's Response'''</big>

'''C:''' I'm going to get caught. See, I know we're not supposed to say if we have absolute knowledge, but now I'm gaslighting myself because I thought I had absolute knowledge. But I know Steve, and when he thinks I haughtily know something, he probably looks it up and goes, ah, she's wrong. So Texas, I think they're all correct, right? So Texas has the road with the highest speed limit in the U.S. at 85. I will say I have absolute knowledge of 80-mile-per-hour speed limits all over Texas because I've driven from Texas to L.A. multiple times.

'''B:''' And the sign says speed limit 80?

'''C:''' 80 for sure. Like when you're in the Permian Basin, 80 is standard on the freeway. So like when you're midland Odessa out there, it's high. But maybe there's 85. I mean, I don't know. I was going like 90. So I think – I do remember being like this feels unsafe. But I think that that could be science. The largest single employer in Texas being Amazon feels like it could be science. We have a lot of big corporations in Texas. Like I grew up in Plano. Frito-Lay, Texas Instruments, Raytheon. Like there were huge corporations. There's Aerospace. Even though Amazon, yeah, but I don't know. This one's kind of bothering me a little bit. And then Six Flags. I mean, I was sure that the reason it's Six Flags over Texas, the first Six Flags in Arlington because of Six Flags. Let's see if we can name them. You already got a head start on us. Mexico. Spain. Texas, sadly. The Confederacy. The United States. And I know – is it France? Were we part of Louisiana Purge? Okay, you guys.

'''J:''' Justin said Cherokee Nation.

'''C:''' Oh, I don't – sadly. Come on, it's Texas. I don't think they included any indigenous flags in there. I don't think so, sadly. But I do – I thought I had absolute knowledge about that, but now I'm gaslighting myself. But I think I'm still going to go with the largest single employer being Amazon, and I'm going to be so embarrassed when I'm the one, the only one who gets this wrong. But I've got to go with my gut.

'''B:''' I have no idea what to pick now.

'''C:''' I know. He does this. He makes you, like, question your own sanity during this game. It's very manipulative.

'''B:''' George.

'''G:''' Bobby.

'''B:''' Bobby.

'''G:''' Bobby. Pick one of these three. Make sure that it's the fake one. He'll try to screw you. He does it every time. Every time. Stevie does it every time.

'''C:''' George, what did you get in the drive-thru last night?

'''G:''' Oh, I got me a Dr. Pepper milkshake. This was delicious. It was Dr. Pepper and ice cream put together in a cup. Bobby, it was delicious.

'''B:''' I wouldn't know. You didn't give me any.

<big>'''Bob's Response'''</big>

'''B:''' I'm going to say Amazon. I think that's the one that Steve's like, oh, yeah, they're going to think, of course, Amazon's the biggest, but I think it's some other employer.

<big>'''George's Response'''</big>

'''G:''' All right. I think Steve has done an excellent job, as he always does. I think the speed limit probably is 85 somewhere in Texas, but I think it's higher somewhere else in the United States. So I think that is the twist, the trick, the zhuzh. That's what I think he did, because Amazon is going to be and Six Flags is going to be. So what I am saying is that the speed limit at 85 is the fiction.

'''C:''' So no sweep.

'''S:''' No sweep.

'''G:''' That's my guess. I'm probably wrong, but that's my guess.

<big>'''Audience's Response'''</big>

'''S:''' Okay, so now we're going to poll the audience. We're going to do the single clap method. You're going to watch George's hand. If you think that the Texas speed limit at 85 miles per hour is the fiction clap. ''(a small amount of claps)'' If you think that Amazon being the largest employer is the fiction clap. ''(a lot of claps)'' And if you think that the Six Flags is the fiction clap. ''(a small amount of claps)''

'''J:''' Oh, no.

'''G:''' Oh, man. Oh, man.

'''E:''' Ouch.

'''G:''' That was one of them small claps, man. I never heard that. I always got clapped. Two little claps. Nobody clapped there. I never heard nobody clap for that one. It was like three people clapping in the back of the room. That was clapping for something different. It wasn't even a question they were clapping for.

'''J:''' George, you having an aneurysm? What's going on?

'''C:''' That's Boomhauer. Boomhauer.

'''G:''' Tell you what.

'''S:''' All right. I guess we'll take it in reverse order then. Go with the audience.

=== Steve Explains Item #3 ===

'''S:''' Six Flags Amusement Park gets its name from the fact that Texas has been part of six nations throughout its history. The left side over here, Jay, Evan, and Dustin think that is the fiction. Everyone else, including most of the audience, thinks that one is science, and that one is science.

'''B:''' Nice.

'''C:''' You are making me question my entire childhood, my sanity.

'''S:''' You did get the sixth one correct.

'''C:''' I did? It was France.

'''S:''' It was France.

'''G:''' France was the sixth one?

'''S:''' Yeah, and it's nations with flags. That's why the Cherokee Nation, whatever, doesn't have flags.

'''C:''' But also Texas.

'''S:''' But also, yeah, racism.

'''C:''' We know why.

'''S:''' Yeah, so that's it.

'''G:''' If you guys had a flag, we'd totally be into it. You don't have a flag. It's not us. If you had a flag, our whole history would be very different.

'''S:''' Non-Texans may forget or not know that Texas was its own country for 10 years. So, yeah, they had their own flag. And while we're talking about it, yeah, the Lone Star State, right? How does it get its name? The flag of Texas is, do you know this, Cara? It's red, white, and blue. And by Texas state law, those colors have to exactly match the colors of the American flag.

'''C:''' Doesn't it have to fly at a certain height?

'''S:''' I don't know.

'''C:''' I think it can't be lower. There's some weird rules about how high it can fly.

'''S:''' So if you look at the flag, it's the American flag as if there was only one state, right?

'''C:''' Oh, yeah.

'''S:''' That's the flag. That is the configuration.

'''C:''' It's very us.

'''J:''' That's pretty narcissistic.

'''C:''' That's Texas.

'''E:''' With two stripes, not 13 stripes.

'''S:''' They had to have the three colors. So if you could translate it, like if you had to configure that flag for one state, that's what they figured it would look like with the Lone Star. All right. We'll keep going backwards.

=== Steve Explains Item #2 ===

'''S:''' The largest single employer in Texas is Amazon. Bob and Cara, you think this is a fiction. Most of the audience think this one is the fiction. And this one is the fiction.

'''E:''' Oh, heck.

'''G:''' Nicely done.

'''S:''' So Amazon is number three.

'''C:''' Number three. Oh, is it Walmart?

'''S:''' It's Walmart.

'''C:''' Walmart.

'''B:''' Of course.

'''S:''' Walmart is number one. And now this is like for really extra points. What is number two?

'''C:''' Oil? Is it an oil company?

'''G:''' Is it a hospital?

'''C:''' It's not oil.

'''B:''' Amazon.

'''S:''' Not hearing it.

'''J:''' It's the Alamo.

'''S:''' Not power.

'''C:''' Cracker Berrel.

'''S:''' Not Cracker Barrel.

'''B:''' Phone daddies.

'''S:''' I don't believe I've heard the answer.

'''G:''' Dr. Pepper.

'''S:''' Does anyone really think they know the answer? No. You're kind of close, but it's not the U.S. government.

'''C:''' Oh, prison. Some sort of prison.

'''S:''' It's not prison. It is the University of Texas University System.

'''J:''' What?

'''B:''' Whoa.

'''S:''' That is number two.

'''C:''' There's so many. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That makes sense.

'''G:''' Wow.

'''C:''' There's so many different UTs.

'''J:''' That is semi-unbelievable.

'''C:''' Oh, it's massive. UT is massive. There's so many campuses.

'''S:''' Number four is the United States Postal Service.

'''C:''' Oh, that's interesting.

'''S:''' Five is Home Depot.

'''C:''' Oh, they're corporate. The offices are very, yeah. Oh, that's cool.

'''G:''' So Amazon's not even top five?

'''C:''' No, it's three.

'''G:''' Oh, it's three.

'''S:''' Yeah. It's three. Amazon's three.

'''G:''' Oh, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Interesting.

=== Steve Explains Item #1 ===

'''S:''' So Texas has the road with the highest speed limit in the U.S. at 85 miles per hour is science.

'''G:''' Wow.

'''S:''' So there's a couple of ways that could have been wrong. So in the United States, there's no federal speed limit, right? There was for a time. Who here is old enough to remember 55 saves lives?

'''G:''' Carter.

'''S:''' So that was the only time, whatever, the only modern time where we had a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour. Everybody hated it, even though statistically it does save lives. But show us 45 miles per hour. Are we going to drive at 45 miles? I don't think so. So eventually, they didn't replace it. They just got rid of the federal speed limit. And so therefore, we're back to the states, right? So you might have thought, Cara, I thought you were going to go here, like maybe 80 miles per hour is the Texas state's speed limit.

'''C:''' Oh, I didn't think we had one.

'''S:''' Yeah. But there is just one stretch of road.

'''C:''' Yeah. Is it around Austin?

'''S:''' The state highway 130.

'''C:''' Oh.

'''S:''' Texas state highway 130 is a toll road that circumvents the highly congested Interstate 35 between Austin and San Antonio.

'''C:''' That's interesting. That's a weird place to have that.

'''S:''' 41-mile stretch. 41-mile stretch of road at 85 miles per hour.

'''C:''' That's fascinating. Yeah, that is a weird place to have it.

'''S:''' And that is the fastest in the country.

'''G:''' And if you drive below 85, they shoot you.

'''S:''' They shoot you. All right. So, Cara, you redeemed yourself as a Texan.

'''G:''' Nicely done.

'''C:''' That's good.

'''S:''' As a daughter of Texas.

'''C:''' Both, both times.

'''G:''' Daughter of Texas.

'''C:''' Would have been bad.

'''G:''' Learned tootin'.

'''S:''' And I think it's fair to say you dragged most of the audience with you. You convinced them.

'''C:''' Thanks, thanks, thanks.

{{anchor|qow}} 
== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:43:05) ==

{{qow
|text = As the sun eclipses the stars by his brilliancy, so the man of knowledge will eclipse the fame of others in assemblies of the people if he proposes algebraic problems, and still more if he solves them.
|author = {{w|Brahmagupta}}
|lived = c. 598 – c. 668
|desc = Indian mathematician and astronomer
}}
'''S:''' All right. Evan, do we have a quote?

'''E:''' Oh, yeah. We've got a quote. What's happening tomorrow?

'''S:''' Tomorrow? Monday.

'''E:''' It's a regular Monday. April 8th. Right? Eclipse time. Right? Here's a quote. "Once upon a time, I was falling in love. Now, I'm only falling apart. There's nothing I can do. A total eclipse of the heart." No, actually, that's not the quote. I had to sneak that into the show somehow. Here's the quote. "As the sun eclipses the stars by his brilliancy, so the man of knowledge will eclipse the fame of others in assemblies of the people if he proposes algebraic problems and still more if he solves them." And that is a quote from Brahmagupta, who was, Brahmagupta, was an Indian mathematician and astronomer from the 6th century.

'''S:''' Sounds like it.

'''E:''' Yeah. He's known for two early works on mathematics and astronomy within a name I absolutely cannot pronounce. It's about 55 characters long. But he's credited with the first clear description of the quadratic formula, which we're familiar with, among some other mathematical principles that are still applied today.

'''S:''' Cool. So he was basically saying that mathematicians will be more famous if they propose and solve mathematical equations.

'''E:''' That's what he said. And he wasn't wrong. Einstein, right?

'''S:''' Yeah, Einstein.

'''E:''' Sure.

'''S:''' Absolutely. He did predict some things, too.

'''E:''' Among others, yes.

== Signoff ==

'''S:''' All right. Well, this has been a fun show. Dustin, thank you for joining us.

'''G:''' Thanks, Dustin.

'''J:''' Thanks, Dustin.

'''S:''' George, always a pleasure to have you with us as well.

'''G:''' Always great to be here. Thanks, guys.

'''S:''' Thanks to all my fellow Rogues.

'''G:''' Thanks, Seth.

'''S:''' Thank all of you for coming here as well.

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 
''(applause)''

{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
}}

SGU Episode 1000

2024-09-10T23:33:13Z

Xanderox: quick first pass

{{transcribing all
|date = 2024-09-11
|transcriber = xanderox
|time = 0015
|}}
{{Editing required
|transcription = y
|proofreading = 
|time-stamps = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y 
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{UseOutline}} 
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 1000
|episodeNumDisplay = 💥✨ 1000! ✨💥
|episodeDate = {{month|9}} {{date|7}} 2024

|verified = 

|episodeIcon = File:1000 SGU1000.jpg

|caption = Celebrating 1000 episodes of '''The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe''', recorded live in Chicago

|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|Evan =y
|George =y

|qowText = QUOTE
|qowAuthor = AUTHOR, _short_description_  
|downloadLink = {{DownloadLink|2024-09-07}} 

|forumLinktopic = 56829.0 
|}}

== Introduction, 1000th episode! ==
''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

== "Looking Back" News Items (12:52) ==

'''S:'''

'''B:'''

'''C:'''

'''J:'''

'''E:'''


''(laughs)''
''(laughter)''
''(applause)''
[inaudible]

{{anchor|news#}} 
=== News_Item_1 (13:54) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_2 (29:31) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_3 (48:36) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_4 (1:12:28) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

=== News_Item_5 (1:31:03) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}

{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:44:34) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = The number 1000

|item1 = _item_text_from_show_notes_
|link1web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link1title = _article_title_ 
|link1pub = _publication_ 

|item2 = _item_text_from_show_notes_
|link2web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link2title = _article_title_ 
|link2pub = _publication_ 

|item3 = _item_text_from_show_notes_
|link3web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link3title = _article_title_ 
|link3pub = _publication_ 

|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = 
|science1 = 
|science2 = 

|rogue1 = 
|answer1 = 

|rogue2 =
|answer2 =

|rogue3 =
|answer3 =

|rogue4 =
|answer4 =

|rogue5 =
|answer5 =

|host =steve

|sweep = 
|clever =y 
|win = 
|swept = 
}}
''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''


<big>Evan's Response</big>

<big>Bob's Response</big>

<big>Jay's Response</big>

<big>Cara's Response</big>

<big>George's Response</big>

<big>Audience's Response</big>

=== Steve Explains Item #1 ===

=== Steve Explains Item #2 ===

=== Steve Explains Item #3 ===

{{anchor|qow}} 
== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==

{{qow
|text =
|author = 
|lived = _birth_year_-_death_year_ 
|desc = 
}}


== Signoff () ==

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 
''(applause)''

{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
|Forgotten Superheroes of Science =
|Women in History =

}}

File:1000 SGU1000.jpg

2024-09-10T23:14:58Z

Xanderox: congrats on 1000 episodes, Rogues!

== Summary ==
congrats on 1000 episodes, Rogues!

Template:EpisodeList2024

2024-08-28T17:00:20Z

Xanderox: tiny updates

<noinclude>
=== Description ===
This style of template is for collating a year's list of episodes into a table sortable by date and other notable SGU episode features. The column headers for episode features are listed left to right in order of the typically most common occurrence. That is, the most common episode feature is at least one special "non-news" segment, followed by a SoF game with a theme, followed by interviews and guest Rogues.

'''To add entries, insert the code that follows. Note: each line's indents will appear aligned in the edit window.'''

<pre>
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =
|date = MM-DD 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
</pre>

Previous year: [[Template: EpisodeList2023|2023 - Episodes 913-964]]

Following year: [[Template: EpisodeList2025|2025 - Episodes 1017-1068]]

''Note: This table's columns will "fill out" when episode features are added, widening them to more or less match previous years' tables.'' <hr></noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2024 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 965-1016)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1003
|date = 09-28 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1002
|date = 09-21 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 1001
|date = 09-14 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 1000
|date = 09-07 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 999
|date = 08-31 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =998
|date = 08-24 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =997
|date = 08-17 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =996
|date = 08-10 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =995
|date = 08-03 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =994
|date = 07-27 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =993
|date = 07-20 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =992
|date = 07-13 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =991
|date = 07-06 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =990
|date = 06-29 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 990#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_990#theme|Technology news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =989
|date = 06-22 
|status = 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 989#tiktok|Free energy murders]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =988
|date = 06-15 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 988#quickie|Quickie with Evan]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =987
|date = 06-08 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 987#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 987#theme|GMO news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =986
|date = 06-01 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 986#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_986#theme|''"Good news, everyone!"'']]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =985
|date = 05-25 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 985#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_985#theme|Armor]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =984
|date = 05-18 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 984#special| Steorn Free Energy update]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_984#theme|Battery materials]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =983
|date = 05-11 
|status = proofread 
|other =n
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_983#theme|Animal eyes]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_983#interview| Robert Bartholomew]], sociologist
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =982
|date = 05-04 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 982#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_982#theme|Deciphering jargon]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =981
|date = 04-27 
|status = proofread 
|other =n
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_981#theme|Medical risk]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =980
|date = 04-20 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 980#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =979
|date = 04-13 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 979|Live from Dallas]] [[SGU Episode 979#special|Eclipse science]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_979#theme|Texas]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =[[SGU_Episode_979|Dustin Bates]], [https://www.starsetonline.com ''Starset'' rockstar]
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =978
|date = 04-06 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 978#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_978#theme|Eggs]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =[http://www.jonesrooy.com Andrea Jones-Rooy,] political, social, & data scientist
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 977
|date = 03-30 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 977#special|AI-created music]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_977#theme|Power & energy news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 976
|date = 03-23 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 976#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_976#interview|Dante Lauretta]], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cybp21DcWPg "The Asteroid Hunter"]
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 975
|date = 03-16 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 975#special|Tax scams]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_975#theme|Equinoxes]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 974
|date = 03-09 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 974#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_974#theme|Daylight Saving Time]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 973
|date = 03-02 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 973#quotable|Potent Quotables]] [[SGU Episode 973#alabama|Alabama SC decision]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 972
|date = 02-24 
|status = proofread 
|other =n 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_972#theme|Eclipses]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_972#interview|Chris Smith]], virologist & podcaster
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 971
|date = 02-17 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 971#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]] [[SGU Episode 971#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =n 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue ={{w|George Hrab}}, musican & skeptic
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 970
|date = 02-10 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 970#wtw|What's the Word?]] [[SGU Episode 970#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_970#theme|SGU Shark Week]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 969
|date = 02-03 
|status = proofread 
|other =n 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_969#theme|Animal emotions]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_969#interview|Dustin Bates]], [https://www.starsetonline.com ''Starset'' rockstar]
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 968
|date = 01-27 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 968#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|theme = [[SGU_Episode_968#theme|The Ice Age]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 967
|date = 01-20 
|status =proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 967#quickie|Quickie: TikTok recap]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_967#theme|''Hidden Theme!'']]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_967#interview|Robert Sapolsky]], neuroendocrinology researcher
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 966
|date = 01-13 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 966#dumbest|Dumbest Thing of the Week]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_966#theme|Positive global trends]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 965
|date = 01-06 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 965|2024 Psychic Predictions]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 965#theme|The worst countries]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2024 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 965-1016)
|}

SGU Episode 991

2024-08-23T17:05:18Z

Xanderox: first pass clean up

{{transcription-bot}}
{{Editing required
|proofreading = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y
|}}
{{InfoBox
|verified = 
|episodeNum = 991
|episodeDate = {{900s|991|boxdate}}
|episodeIcon = File:991.jpg
|caption = Using the tension in the residual lower leg muscles, this prosthetic can smoothly adapt the ankle flexion during walking. Click for image credit
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-myDivision">Song et al, Nature Medicine 2024 (CC BY 4.0); Rumman Amin/Unsplash</div>
|bob = y
|cara = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|qowText = Rarely do the advocates of cleanses explain what is meant by toxins. It is one of those nebulous pseudoscientific terms rolled out by people deliberately avoiding the specificity required for a science-based analysis. It’s the modern-day equivalent of "evil spirits," vague enough to mean just about anything while retaining the ring of scientific legitimacy.
|qowAuthor = {{w|Timothy Caulfield}}, Canadian law professor
|downloadLink = {{900s|991|download}}
|forumLinktopic = 56705.0
|}}

{{anchor|intro}}
== Intro, fireworks, Bob's birthday, Hurricane Beryl ==

'''S''':Born on the 4th of July. Always a big event in a Novella household.

'''E''':Oh, yes.

'''B''':Yes.

'''C''':What are you guys doing?

'''B''':Having about 30 people over, and we're going to have lots of food. Going to have some amazing cake. She's making me, right now, a peanut butter ice cream cake. It's going to be epic. And to prevent other people from eating it as much as they normally would, I bought a cake, like a classic birthday sheet cake, you know, a sheet cake. So I'm hoping a lot of people gravitate towards that and not so much towards the peanut butter one. They can eat whatever they want, but I'm just playing the odds.

'''C''':What's the fireworks itch like in Connecticut where you all live?

'''B''':Well, basically, a lot of towns, all the major towns will have a display. So you may, when I used to live in Danbury, and you could see from my deck, like six or seven different towns in the distance, you could see literally like four or five different, decent sized displays going up. These are like town size, nothing like, you know, Disney sized or New York sized. But so yeah, so the towns do it and then there's lots of people. I'll hear fireworks at my house. Yeah, lots of people.

'''C''':How are the illegal fireworks?

'''S''':Yes, technically not legal, but it's not really policed. They don't do much about it yet.

'''C''':L.A. is known for our loot. I mean, it's already started, right? It must be nuts.

'''S''':Oh, and it started here, too.

'''C''':Yeah. And every year, I'll sometimes scan around the horizon with my binoculars for trees. That are on fire. It's so bad. It's like, what are you doing?

'''S''':Bob, we're bringing a tabbouleh salad. That's been our contribution for the last 20 years or so. So that's a parsley-based salad. But here's the thing. I love the tabbouleh salad that we make. But it's very labor-intensive because you have to pull all the stems off of the parsley.

'''B''':But there's a quick way to do it. There isn't. There really isn't.

'''S''':No, there really isn't. It depends on what your tolerance is for stems. If you want to just pull all the big stems off and you're okay with the little stems, yeah, that's the cheaty way to do it. But if you want even the little stems gone, you have to do more than that. You have to almost pull them all off individually. You could sometimes do them like a little clusters, you know, but like what restaurants do is they just chop it all up, you know, but then you get the little bits of stem and stuff and you don't want to pull them out.

'''J''':The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe is hosted by Steven Novella, Bob Novella, Cara Santa Maria, and Evan Bernstein.

'''B''':It just says Bob in this really cool font, and on the bottom it says my birth year, and then nothing. I was going to do goofy stuff, but I'm like, I'm just going to do... It's not finished yet, obviously. No way. And it looks really good. It looks really old. It looks like a tombstone that's been sitting out in a field for like 300 years. It looks awesome.

'''S''':Proud of you.

'''E''':So am I. Bob, you've got hundreds of years to go, what with... Technology is going to save the day and reverse aging. All that stuff is coming right around the corner.

'''B''':That would be nice. I think we're going to just miss that technology, unfortunately.

'''E''':Right? Oh my gosh. It's sad to think about the things we're just going to miss.

'''S''':Well, it depends on how you define just. But yeah.

'''C''':There's also probably a lot of things you're going to miss that you should be happy about.

'''E''':Well, that's true too.

'''B''':We'll be right back. Oh my God.

'''J''':I mean, we had a horrible one seven years ago. It was bad. I remember that.

'''C''':Isn't there a horrible hurricane that's like, maybe not the earliest, but that's like unseasonably early, battering Jamaica right now?

'''E''':Right now, yeah. Is that the one that will eventually hit Texas, they were forecasting?

'''C''':Yeah, I think it's a category five already.

'''B''':I think that was the earliest category five ever. Oh, okay, yeah, I knew it was early.

'''E''':It's very early.

'''C''':But I didn't know it was the earliest.

'''B''':I read it was the earliest cat five ever. Yay, warming ocean. That's our life. Can you can you imagine? I can't even imagine when it's gonna be like 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now. Steve, did you see that news item where they're saying that their their temperature predictions now are just like, going to be ridiculously off. And now they're looking at five, six degrees. It was by 2100 or something. It was I couldn't even finish the article.

'''S''':This is like, oh, my God.

'''E''':How will the food supply not collapse?

'''S''':Six degrees Celsius is extreme, right? That's when you start to hit multiple tipping points where the Earth's climate has changed for thousands of years.

'''E''':Right, in which crops can't sufficiently grow to feed people.

'''S''':They'll move. They'll shift, yeah. But it will have a massive impact on our ability to grow food.

'''E''':Oh my gosh, the disruption will be... We'll see.

'''B''':The big problem is going to be climate refugees. People will have to... I've got to leave my country now because it's actually too hot to live.

'''E''':Get away from the center.

'''C''':It's not just hot, it's because it's underwater. It's because of all these different things. And Bob, the hurricane, I just looked it up, it's broken like multiple records. Eastern most to form in the tropical Atlantic in June. Earliest category four hurricane on record in the basin, strongest June hurricane as measured by wind speed, and earliest category five hurricane on record.

'''E''':I can't remember a June hurricane. I mean, not in my lifetime.

'''S''':Yep, and 2024 is on track to be either the warmest or second warmest year on record. Oh, man. So it's still happening.

'''E''':It's still happening for second warmest.

'''S''':And, you know, it's not going to stop.

'''C''':Yeah, this is not something that's going to happen in the future. It's going to get worse in the future, but it is happening.

'''B''':But tomorrow, the weather will be nice for Bob's birthday.

'''E''':That's right.

'''B''':Let's get back to Bob. Are you sure I saw little sprinkles later in the day? No, no, no.

'''E''':Those are for the ice cream later, Bob.
{{anchor|quickie}}
== Quickie with Bob: Simulating Black Holes (07:24) ==

{{shownotes
|weblink = https://phys.org/news/2024-07-cosmic-simulation-reveals-black-holes.html
|article_title = Cosmic simulation reveals how black holes grow and evolve
|publication = phys.org
|note=not
}}

'''B''':Three orders of magnitude in one simulation. That's pretty awesome. Their biggest discovery so far is that black holes are more dominated by magnetic fields than they ever thought. So when they ran the simulation, they zoomed in really tight into a supermassive black hole. And this is where theoretical astrophysicist Phil Hopkins said, in our simulation we see the accretion disk form around the black hole. We would have been very excited if we had seen just that accretion disk, but what was surprising was that the simulated disk doesn't look like what we thought for decades it should look like. Now, I've described black hole accretion disk many times, and I always basically say, oh, this is a flat disk, right, that goes around the black hole. It turns out it's not as flat as we thought. These researchers describe it as fluffy like angel cake, angel cake accretion disk around a black hole. So what the simulation showed was that the amazing heat pressure that exists in an accretion disk is not the dominating force that we thought, the pressure from the magnetic fields are actually 10,000 times greater than the heat from the gas in the disk. It's the boss. Magnetic field is the boss. Hopkins said again, so the disks are almost completely controlled by the magnetic fields. The magnetic field serves many functions, one of which is to prop up the disks and make the material puffy. So this can have a dramatic change in the predictions that they make about accretion disks, like how massive are they, how dense they are, how fast the hot gas moves from the disk into the black hole, and even their very geometry. So the next time you look at a black hole accretion disk, don't think pancake, think fluffy angel cake. This has been your Quickie with Bob. Back to you, Steve.

'''E''':Now I'm hungry.

'''B''':I wonder how fluffy they are though. I mean, how, I mean, how far above and below the, that ecliptic. It's a bit nebulous. If you would.

'''E''':Thanks.

'''B''':But, uh, it's interesting. Imagine you zooming like, holy crap, that does not look like we've thought it looked like for like forever. Right? It's always pictured as a flat disc orbiting the black hole.
{{anchor|news1}}
== News Items ==
=== DNA Nano-Killbot (09:58) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://theness.com/neurologicablog/dna-nanorobot-kill-switch-for-cancer/
|article_title = DNA Nanorobot Kill Switch for Cancer - NeuroLogica Blog
|publication = theness.com
|redirect_title = 
}}

'''S''':But we've taken a big step here. Here's the actual paper, a DNA robotic switch with regulated autonomous display of cytotoxic ligand nanopatterns. All right, so what does all that mean? So first, let's talk about DNA origami. I know we've talked about it on the show before, making robots or nanomachines or whatever, just little nano shapes out of DNA is a technology that's been in the work for a couple decades at least. And the idea is that, you know, DNA is a complicated molecule that you could, you know, because it has the four different base pairs, you can actually structure it, right? You could design the sequence so that it will take on a certain three-dimensional shape, right? DNA origami refers to not only that, but the ability to change shapes, right? So now you have a DNA nanoscale, quote unquote, robot that can alter its shape. That's a DNA origami. Get it? Yes. All right, so what the researchers were trying to do is come up with a DNA nanobot that would kill cancer cells. There's another little background concept here. When we tried to kill cancer cells, one of the big approaches, conceptually speaking, is You ask, well, what's different about the cancer cells than healthy cells? And can we use that, whatever it is, to target the cancer cells, right? Chemotherapy is premised on the notion that cancer cells have a higher reproductive rate, a higher dividing rate than normal healthy cells. And so if you use drugs that target rapidly reproducing or rapidly dividing cells, it will disproportionately affect cancer cells over healthy cells.

'''C''':Well, early chemo does that. Not all chemo does that. But that's, yeah, that's how chemo started.

'''S''':That's one basic concept that, you know, behind a lot of, especially the classic, yeah, chemo therapies. But then there's other ones that's like, well, they also need more blood supply, so we'll target things that grow more blood vessels. And now we're looking at more molecular targets. Yeah, well, they have this genetic difference or this whatever. Whatever we can identify that is different about cancer cells, you can target it, right? This research targets not something about the cancer cells themselves, but the environment of solid cancer tumors. And what that is is that the pH is lower. They tend to be more acidic. So it's like, OK, so can we design a DNA origami that will be in one shape at a normal pH, a normal body pH, that's not dangerous, and then another shape at the acidic pH of a solid cancer tumor that will be deadly? So they use what they call death receptors, DRs, death receptors.

'''E''':Don't let the name scare you.

'''S''':And so this is a ligand of about six amino acids. These exist on—these are ubiquitous. They exist on all healthy cells, right? But when they're sufficiently clustered together, they trigger apoptosis. Apoptosis is programmed cell death.

'''E''':Death.

'''S''':A death switch, a kill switch, right? I.e. death receptor. So what they did was they created a hexagon of clustered death receptors in the middle of this DNA and at normal pH it's folded up and it covers it and then at acidic pH of a tumor it opens up, that's the DNA origami, revealing the cluster of death receptors and then triggering apoptosis.

'''B''':So then that would interface with the cell wall and trigger apoptosis?

'''C''':Yeah, how does the cell itself then undergo apoptosis?

'''S''':It binds to the death receptors on the cells, right?

'''C''':Yeah, but the problem that I see with this, I mean, I see it being helpful, is that one of the eight hallmarks of cancer is that they resist apoptosis. Even if you try to induce apoptosis, they're probably going to develop a resistance to that pretty quickly.

'''S''':But that's why they had to develop a like really strong signal, right? It's not just one death receptor, it's a cluster of death receptors.

'''E''':Ooh, an array.

'''S''':You know, resistance is another issue, right? That's... Well, resistance is futile.

'''C''':Sadly, and cancer resistance is really good.

'''S''':Cancer has a few exceptions.

'''C''':It's an interesting, the thing that always worries me about all these, it doesn't worry me, it's huge and it's super important about all these new approaches to utilizing things that cells know how to do to die is that cancer cells are by definition evolving a way not to do that anymore.

'''S''':All right, so they tested it, right? Good in theory, but of course, does it work? So they had a mouse model of induced human breast cancer, right? They basically gave mice human breast cancer. And then they had control mice and mice that they treated with these DNA killbots. And the tumor growth was reduced in the treated group by 70%. Whoa.

'''E''':OK, that's not insignificant.

'''S''':Yeah, it's pretty good. Not 100%, but it's by 70%. And that's out of the gate. So they're hoping they can get that figure higher. So here's the next step is that they want to include on the outside of the DNA receptors that are specific for the individual tumor type, which is another thing that is happening in the cancer world is like you were figuring out how to To find out this cancer, your cancer has this receptor, this marker, this DNA sequence, whatever. We're going to target that specifically. So that will increase the concentration of these killbots in the cancer and decrease the concentration outside of it.

'''C''':Yeah, did they determine what areas these killbots, because like, you know, obviously, as you said, early chemos target rapidly dividing cells. So that's why you see hair loss. That's why you see, you know, problems with your fingertips, neuropathy, all that kind of stuff. What areas have that high pH?

'''S''':The low pH.

'''C''':Or sorry, that low pH, like what off target sites

'''S''':Thanks for watching! Thank you for watching. So, it's an interesting idea. It's a novel approach. I like utilizing multiple different high-tech thingies in order to kill cancer cells in this novel way. I always like you read about these new cancer treatments, and it looks like it should just eviscerate the cancer, but it's always like 50% reduction, 60% reduction, whatever. It's always a partial treatment, partly for the reasons you say, Cara, that cancer's good at evading it. But the thing is, you add a bunch of them together, and then you beat the cancer back far enough that the immune system could do the rest, right?

'''C''':Maybe. That's the thing that's so scary about cancer is, I'm not saying 70% is no percent. It's not like an eclipse, right? Because every intervention— It's all about survival, right? Yeah, it gives you more time. But ultimately, if there's any cancer left, it's going to divide and come back. That's just how cancer works.

'''S''':Right, but that's why you want to kick it when it's down, right? So first of all, we're going to remove the bulk of it. Then we're going to use radiation therapy and chemotherapy. And now we're also going to hit it with this kill switch. Maybe that will get rid of whatever mop up whatever's left. That's the idea. You keep hitting it over and over again with multiple different things. And then even if it's either you cure it or you put it, you knock it back so far that it's going to be 10 years before it comes back or whatever. So you're just trying to extend life as much as possible.

'''C''':The hope is that you can always remove it completely. It's always interesting to me when I have a new patient who has a new diagnosis and there's like, why can't they just give me this drug? Why do they have to do surgery? It's like, oh, you're a candidate for surgery? This is a good thing. It is always a good thing if they can cut the cancer out of your body. It's actually one of the only really, really curative things.

'''S''':Yeah, although, blood-borne cancers are very curable these days. Yeah, that's true too. And there's no solid tumor, but that's just for different reasons. Yeah. But yeah, we have to think of each of these cancer treatments as a partial treatment, as incremental. Right, in an arsenal. Every year, cancer survival improves by about 1%, and it's because of this kind of stuff. Nothing is a cure for cancer. It's a home run. We just keep making these steady incremental advances, one more thing to knock cancer back on its heels. It's not in every type of cancer for everyone. This one is more about solid tumors. Other ones are better at blood. You know, born cancers or whatever. Some are better at metastatic cancers or whatever, or preventing metastasis or preventing recurrence. Yeah, it's just one more tool. And I think, you know, it's been very encouraging. The immunotherapies, I think, are the real, you know, the recent immunotherapies against cancer. They've been amazing. Amazing.

'''C''':Some of them have fully reversed. It is really interesting to see them do things that we didn't know was possible.

'''S''':Right. Again, not an abject cure, but it's like a solid, solid progression in treating cancer. So, yeah. But of course, this news item is more than just about treating cancer. It's also just exciting to see how good we're getting with the DNA origami robot. What else can you do with it? Yeah, because there's a lot of potential applications for that, not just in medicine, but also in manufacturing as well.

'''B''':And assassinations, too.

'''C''':Find that with some sort of nano or tiny robot, maybe not nano but micro, maybe nano, that targets the drug. Now we're really cooking with fire.

'''S''':Yeah, it could also be opening up and releasing targeted chemotherapy or whatever. Yeah, there's lots of things you can use this for. Bob, this is actual nanotechnology, you know, this kind of stuff. It's the real thing, Bob.

'''B''':Absolutely. Yeah, Bob.

'''E''':You should be more excited than you are right now.

'''B''':I mentioned it on a recent podcast is that nanotech is really just taking pre-existing bio-nanotech and tweaking it, you know, from bacteria to DNA to our own cells, taking that and tweaking it and bending it to our will. That's where nanotechnology is really going to flourish for a while.

'''S''':I also wonder if these DNA origami robots, especially if they're targeted with some kind of specific surface receptor, could be a good vector for CRISPR or some other genetic modification across those streams. A lot of interesting stuff happening.
{{anchor|news2}}
=== Bionic Leg (21:55) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/health/bionic-leg-ami-neuroprosthesis/index.html
|article_title = Bionic leg restores natural walking speeds and steps: ‘I didn’t feel like my leg had been amputated’ | CNN
|publication = www.cnn.com
}}

'''J''':A couple of interesting things. First, guys, how many Americans do you think are suffering from limb loss right now?

'''E''':Oh, gosh.

'''C''':A lot.

'''J''':Almost 2 million.

'''U''':1%.

'''E''':Wow.

'''J''':Almost 2 million. Yeah, it's a significant number of people. It significantly changes the person's life in lots of different ways. Of course, the limb that they lost is a factor. You also what happened to them to lose the limb because it's not just losing the limb. They could have been injured in other ways. It's a big deal. It's a very emotional thing to go through and it's a very hard thing to deal with on the other end of that. Unfortunately, through these statistics that I was reading, they were saying that this number is expected to double by 2050. Wow. There was a recent study at MIT that involved a new neuroprosthesis controlled entirely by the nervous system. The new bionic leg that they developed, when paired with the newly developed amputation technique, which is called agonist-antagonist myoneural interface, or AMI, they reported that this preserves muscle and brain signaling, pre-existing muscle and brain signaling. Which provides the wearer a more natural movement sensation. And this is very important. So what they did was they took 14 existing amputees. These are not people who, you know, they weren't getting their leg amputated for this. It was people that had already had the amputation surgery. They took seven of them and they said, OK, these are going to be the control. We're going to let them use the new bionic limb, but we're not going to give them the specialized new surgery technique that they came up with. And of course, the other seven got the new surgery technique. That's the AMI. So what they ended up doing with this new surgery technique is they changed the anatomy of the amputation site. And this preserved the communication between these two muscles. What were those two muscles called, Steve?

'''S''':The tibialis anterior and the gastrocnemius.

'''J''':It's so interesting.

'''C''':We always pronounce that gastronemius. We didn't pronounce the cuh. Do you think that's a regional difference?

'''J''':It might be.

'''C''':Interesting.

'''S''':And we always say gastroc for short.

'''J''':So those two muscles, guys, they are the agonist and the antagonist muscles. That's what the name of the procedure is called because those two muscles actually communicate with each other. They designed a new cup that the leg goes into that has pressure sensors in it. So the person that's using it, the leg muscles are actually feeling the movement of the limb with more clarity, right? And that sends information back to the brain. So just the operation site and the cup are where all the magic is happening. So typically, with more recent artificial limbs, they would be using artificial intelligence to create these pre-programmed movements that simulate the movement or mimic the movement of a human leg movement, say for example. But that isn't really coming from the person that's operating the limb. It's coming from like a program and they have to kind of ride on top of that. Which is odd. So what they realized was they have to let the person control the limb and their goal was to try to get them to make the limb feel more normal. To feel like it's a part of their body. So they're in control. They're not like being controlled by software. They are actually in control of the limb. So here's how it works. So the neuroprosthesis uses sensors that are placed between the amputation site and the bionic leg, right? That's in the cup, like I said, and these transmit electrical signals from the brain. Now, this setup allows the prosthetic to sense its position and its movement, like, you know, how fast is it moving, what position it's in oriented in 3D space, and this sends information back to the patient. This perception of your limb movement is called proprioception, and it's very important To have a functioning proprioception in order for you to know where your body is at all time. You move your fingers independently from each other and you understand exactly where your hands and fingers are in 3D space because you could feel it and that information is coming back from the limb or the finger or whatever going back to your brain. This is what they did. They were able to send information back to the brain that previously was Much less, right? So now, they were able to get it up to 18% of what a natural proprioception would be like.

'''S''':I think it was just 18% more than the control group.

'''J''':Bionic limb could be controlled using just 18% of natural proprioception. That's what the article said.

'''C''':Is that what the scientific article said or the write-around said?

'''J''':No, I think the actual study said that the bionic limb could be controlled using just 18% of natural proprioception.

'''C''':And that's all it takes for them to be able to kind of, I guess here, here's an interesting question, Jay, like, when I think about case studies where somebody has lost proprioception, like because of a weird brain thing after anesthesia or something like that, they have to physically look at their limbs in order to control them.

'''S''':Yeah.

'''C''':And so, you know, I can imagine that that maybe the the individuals in the control group had to look down at their legs when they would move them. Do these can these individuals walk without looking down?

'''S''':Yeah. Jay, to clarify, this is a very technical article. I didn't even read the writer out. I went right to the technical article because the other one was hopeless, in my opinion. But here's right from the abstract. In a cohort of seven leg amputees, the interface is shown to augment residual muscle afferents by 18% of biologically intact values. So it's augmenting by 18%.

'''J''':So what that was able to do, so that 18% gave the amputees that had the surgery It increased their walking speed by 41% and that matches the walking speed of people that don't have amputations. So that's profound because it puts them right back to a normal level of walking speed which gives them, you know, they have enough sensation and control and understanding of where the limb is to a degree where they are moving what would be considered to be a typical movement of someone that doesn't have an amputation. And interestingly, the person who led the study, Dr. Hugh Herr, he's the principal investigator. He noted that this is the first bionic leg that's fully controlled by the nervous system to achieve natural walking speeds and gait patterns. And he happens to be a double amputee. He had a hiking accident happen, and I think he lost both of his legs. So, he said, this is a quote from him, it feels natural as if the limb were made of flesh and bone. And that's a pretty big thing to say.

'''B''':That's amazing, right there, that quote.

'''J''':I really enjoyed reading some quotes from people that were in the study. One person said, I didn't feel like my leg had been amputated. It was the happiest moment of my life. When she first walked on it, that was her emotional response to it, like, I feel like I have a leg. So it's a big deal. Now, again, this was a study that took place. They came up with a new technique on fixing the amputation site to augment it, to make it work better with the prosthesis. They could take this a lot farther. This was the first step that they took. Now, it was novel, absolutely. They just completely broke new ground here. But they clearly are on to the absolute right direction to go in.

'''S''':Yeah.

'''J''':Again, there is an amputation site, meaning that it's going to still have pressure pain and all of the things that they have to do, you know, because you're putting weight on a part of your body that wasn't meant to support weight, right?

'''C''':But they're doing that anyway if they're wearing prosthesis.

'''J''':Yeah, definitely.

'''C''':Yeah, that's not a change.

'''J''':No, no. What I'm saying, though, is like they're still dealing with an amputation. They're still dealing with normal things that people have to deal with. This isn't like replacing their leg and everything's good and they're all good to go now. It's still a thing that they strap to their body.

'''C''':But it seems like this would reduce, I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but does this have the dual benefit of almost being like a very high-tech mirror therapy where it would reduce phantom limb pain because they feel like the limb is actually an extension of their body?

'''B''':Oh, it sounds like it would get rid of it.

'''C''':I don't know about getting rid of it, but because, you know, the way the mirror test works is you're looking at it and that makes you think, you know, it tricks your brain. But if you're feeling it in this way, maybe you could then, I don't know, scratch your leg or you could you could do the things that you might need to do to relieve that pain.

'''J''':They also said the future work that they're going to do, they're going to try to have more tactile information sent back to the brain, which is great. I mean, look, we want people to be thinking out of the box and to try these crazy ideas because every once in a while, like they pan out and something incredible happens.

'''C''':Yeah, sensors on the bottom of the feet or like, yeah, I could see a lot more information coming up.

'''J''':It's, it's definitely hopeful. I mean, if, if I were an amputee, I would want to be on this immediately. You know, it sounds to me like it solves a lot of the problems that these people are suffering from. And you know, I mean, I can't, the sci-fi geek in me is like, you know, we're one step closer to having like, you know, at some point they're going to make something and it'd be like, this is even better than a human leg.

'''E''':You know what I mean, Bob? Transhumanism.

'''J''':But very good. You know, MIT again, knocking it out of the park, like just wonderful work that they're doing.

'''S''':Well, it's a great proof of concept. I was very interested in the idea that doing this kind of approach, where the user is affecting the function of the robotic limb, even with just a little bit of sensory feedback, performs better than using AI, which is basically learning, this is how people move their legs when they walk, and now we're going to replicate that movement. Thank you for joining us today. You could certainly imagine just iterating this to when you do the amputation, you do it with this in mind. Now we're going to modify it. We're going to almost do it at the same time, like integrate the amputation with the prosthesis. That's one procedure.

'''C''':Or you customize the prosthesis based on the available undamaged tissue. Like, these nerves are preserved, these are going to be the things that we connect and we maximize.

'''S''':And we have to note this is a below-the-knee amputation, not above-the-knee amputation. Below-the-knee amputations are a lot easier to deal with because you have a knee, you know? And these people had the tibialis and gastroc muscle available. Usually that's the flap that you make, right? You know, when you're the cushion at the bottom. So that was already there. But in any case, this wouldn't necessarily apply to every amputee, right? One other thing you didn't bring up, Jay, that's I think an important aspect of this. Lower extremities are a lot more difficult than upper extremities for prosthetic limbs. And the reason is, is that just neurologically it's more complicated, right? Upper extremities, it's basically mostly voluntary control, right? But when you're walking, it's this weird mix of reflex, spinal reflex, subcortical walking reflexes, and voluntary control. And getting that mixture just right is what was very challenging, even for the AI-driven prosthetic limbs. And that's what this does better, is integrate those different levels of neurological control that are happening when you're walking. Right? Does that make sense? So that's actually why this is such a huge step forward, because this is working in a leg with walking.

'''C''':But as you mentioned, it's working in a leg that still had a lot of intact... Well, yes, yes. They're picking a low-hanging fruit, but still... The gastrocnemius is your calf, and it connects to your Achilles. It does a lot of work in your leg.

'''J''':They were also reporting that the feeling of putting the prosthetic toes on a staircase and going up It felt completely natural where previously it just didn't feel like it was a part of their body and now it just seems more natural to them.

'''S''':It crossed over some kind of barrier in terms of closing that sensory motor feedback loop. All right, thanks Jay.
{{anchor|news3}}
=== Neanderthal with Downs (35:23) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://neurosciencenews.com/neandertal-down-syndrome-care-26382/
|article_title = First Neandertal with Down Syndrome: Evidence of Altruistic Care in Prehistory - Neuroscience News
|publication = neurosciencenews.com
}}

'''C''':When I was, I tend to use a reader sometimes when I'm prepping for SGU because it's like on a very busy day. So I'll have the article in front of me, but then I'll have my phone read the article to me. And it kept saying neendertal That's how I was pronouncing the word Neanderthal.

'''B''':Oh my gosh.

'''C''':Mean durdle.

'''B''':Yeah, right.

'''C''':I was like, Oh, no, this is very distracting. So I will not be talking about neanderthals. I'll be talking about neanderthals. And they, a group of scientists in Spain, they dubbed a little girl, what do I call it? I hate calling it a specimen. Like she was a person, you know, so they dubbed her remains Tina. And they found out that Tina was around six years old. And Tina had a pathology in her inner ear that is associated with Down syndrome. So they did a lot of cool things in this study. They use some really interesting imaging techniques to look at the inner ear and compare that to To typical anatomy, they were able to see that this congenital pathology, which is associated with Down syndrome, often results in hearing loss and vertigo. And so using those scans, they discover that. Then you add to that that they were able to kind of age this individual. And they said, OK, this is the first time that we've seen this type of pathology, which is associated with Down syndrome, This individual lived to the age of six. This is potentially the first example of something very interesting among the Neanderthal fossil record. So there have been previous studies that have shown that Neanderthals were able to Thank you so much. That would require care. Were they doing it as some sort of a quid pro quo? Like, I scratch your back, you scratch my back, I help you in this way, you help me in that way. But the fact that they found the remains of a six year old kind of changed their narrative a little bit. And so some of the researchers directly involved in the study are saying that this may be, and I'm going to copy it, I'm gonna say may because it also, you know, it's an interpretation. It may be the first example of Neanderthals providing purely altruistic care, right, because you're not really going to get much from a six year old in terms of like contributing to the kin or contributing to the group's hunting capability or, you know, whatever the sort of positive outcome from behavior would be. Really, this is a six year old child who had needs, who probably couldn't hear and very likely wasn't able to walk very well or stand up very well without extreme dizziness. And so this is an individual and also potentially some of the other things that come along with Down syndrome. So this is an individual in the community that would have required caretaking and she lived to be six, which shows that she was cared for. And so that's pretty, it's a pretty interesting takeaway. Obviously, it does require some assumptions. But I don't know, it doesn't sound like it's outside of the realm of possibility. What do you guys think?

'''S''':Well, I think the fact that she was six cuts both ways, because I wonder like, how dramatically different was it from just caring for any kid? You know what I mean?

'''C''':Interesting. Yeah, yeah.

'''S''':Well, if she lived to adulthood, that would have been way more impressive.

'''C''':And then it becomes the double edged sword of... Well, yeah, maybe they would have been able to show that that specific pathology had to be congenital, even in adulthood, or maybe that I don't know if there's an acquired version of that. But But yeah, you're right. If they had, if this child had lived much longer, it would have shown increased, I guess, evidence of that type of altruism. Although in some ways, I think it's, it's a little bit unsafe, or it's a little bit unfair to say that an adult individual with Down syndrome and yes, hearing loss and yes, Bob Novella, Cara Santa Maria. Yes, there is historical evidence of individuals with severe debilitating injuries that really shows good evidence that people within the group cared for those individuals. And so that really was their question. But was that person previously an elder? Was that person somebody who had a lot of knowledge and wisdom that they were passing on? Did they want to protect them and care for them because of what they contributed to the group? And so the argument here is how much is a six-year-old really contributing to the group? But you're right, Steve, it's an interesting question. How much has any six year old contributed? Except for the potential that they would grow up, right? And that they would be able to contribute. I also am super curious, and I don't, I don't know what the evidence of this looks like. I didn't do this deep a dive. How quickly were young Neanderthal children weaned? How fast were they already starting? Because I have a feeling that they were quicker to mature and that maybe a six-year-old child, although probably still dependent, may have been more independent than a six-year-old, you know, human child in 2024.

'''S''':Yeah, it's an interesting question. We don't know.

'''C''':It's hard to know. And so so there's another study that's sort of in this, not really in the same vein, but related, that was published in Nature just today, called Narrative Cave Art in Indonesia by 51,200 years ago. And this is this is also kind of a new dating of something that we previously had identified. This is art, cave art, rock art, In an Indonesian cave in Sulawesi, I'm probably pronouncing that wrong, so I apologize, where the scientists used a new approach. It's a type of uranium series analysis. Looking at the deposits of calcite that were inside of those limestone caves, they used a new approach, something called laser ablation U-series imaging to redate some of the things that had previously been dated. And when they redated them, they found out that they were older and they were able to make a more accurate assessment of the age of these I don't want to Thank you for joining us today. There is narrative, what they call narrative composition. So these are human-like figures and pig-like figures that are engaging together. And so they're calling this the earliest known example of visual storytelling in the world. Because even though there is Neanderthal cave art, there's cave art going before modern humans. It was not apparently representational. It wasn't telling a story. You didn't have characters interacting with one another. And so and you didn't have like these anthropomorphic figures and animals doing something together. And, you know, the researchers, they kind of talk a lot about how this may be a fundamental part of human evolution, the ability to abstract, the ability to pass on narratives to tell stories. And we don't see that in Neanderthal art, we just see kind of these individual, concrete etchings. So this is really interesting because it pushes it back even farther than we thought. And perhaps maybe there's even older ones out there that have yet to be seen.

'''B''':Cool. Why did they keep calling that the pig, right? There was a pig. They kept saying a warty pig.

'''C''':Yeah, it's the type of pig. It's a warty pig.

'''B''':Okay. I don't see any warts on it. What's going on?

'''C''':Yeah, I think that's the name. It's actually got a name beyond that. It's called a... Oh, no. It's called a Sucellabensis, which is a warty pig. That's the name of the pig. And also there were some Buballus, which were dwarf buffalos. They called them anoas. And so warty pigs and anoas were present in this representational art. Pretty interesting.

'''S''':All right. Thanks, Cara.
{{anchor|news4}}
=== Festival Fail (48:51) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://loudwire.com/capulet-fest-2024-third-day-canceled/
|article_title = Festival Implodes With Third Day Canceled, Statements Released
|publication = loudwire.com
}}

'''E''':Several magazines and online blogs and other things have picked this up. Now, it's a topic I don't think we've really covered directly on the SGU before, and I really like the opportunity to get a chance to talk about something different. Now, Cara, you and I, and I'm sorry for invoking your name here, but I happen to know this about you. We love documentaries about Fyre Fest.

'''C''':Yes, we do.

'''E''':And I know it's this, you know, it was a terrible thing and all, but at the same time we have a good laugh with it because... Oh, it's such a schadenfreude moment.

'''C''':Everything about Fyre Fest was just, it was like Tiger, it just hit right at the right time, you know what I mean?

'''E''':Oh, totally, totally. And against, you know, a lot of privileged people who, you know, Basically, could afford to be scammed out of this stuff. If you don't remember, though, Fyre Festival, a fraudulent luxury music festival organized by Billy McFarland. You remember that guy. His cohort was American rapper Ja Rule. They created it with the intent of promoting their Fyre app for booking music talent. This was back in, what, 2017 is when it took place. It was supposed to be a festival out in the Bahamas. And it was a total failure. People got out there and actually no festival took place whatsoever. People were swindled. And it was a fraud.

'''C''':It wasn't just that they failed. They just didn't. Yeah.

'''E''':Yeah. Fire fraud is ultimately what it became known as. And the next year, McFarland pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud to defraud investors. And what, six years in prison? Twenty-six million dollars. So I think of all the infamous concert festival disasters, fires, probably the one that's most on people's minds. There have been other ones though, plenty of them. Altmont in 1969, Woodstock 1999, Glastonbury 2005, and AstroWorld Festival 2021. That's just to name a few, and those were cases where people died, and many more were injured, and there was damage and destruction as far as the eye can see in some of these cases. The festival that my daughter Rachel and I attended this past Friday here in Connecticut was called Capulet Festival. And this is the third year that they're running this festival. And it features a very respectable lineup of metal and metalcore bands. And among them certainly was August Burns Red, which was the reason Rachel wanted to go, because that's her favorite group. So we decided to buy tickets for the entire festival. This was earlier in the year, around February, we decided this was going to be our summer trip. Instead of going away to another state somewhere for a week or taking a flight somewhere, we decided this was going to be our summer. Fortunately, we're right here in Connecticut, nice and easy, happening on June 28th, June 29th, and June 30th at an outdoor venue that can accommodate 12,000 people. Respectable sized festival. We go ahead and we bought the premier ticket packages. And those are the ones that give you the VIP meet and greets with several of the headlining bands, and you get the premier parking and special access to areas of the festival that other people don't have access to. You get a campsite if you wanted to come and bring your tent or your trailers or your camper. The cost was about $750 per ticket. But there was a lineup of over 50 bands over a three-day period. And the amenities, that's actually a reasonable deal. So that's what we did. We bought those tickets, two of them. So June 28th, right, first day of the festival. On June 27, yeah, 24 hours before the start of the event is when the facade began to come down. Rumors online started to swirl that the festival would not be taking place at the original site for 12,000 people. Oh no. It was going to be moved to a small concert hall in Hartford, Connecticut. With a maximum capacity of 1,200 people. And I'm reading. There's no changes. All the original information is there. And I go to their Facebook page. Same thing. Nothing official, no official word. This is just some rumors being passed around. Okay. I sent an email as fast as I could to the people, to the festival organizers for an update. And then not long after I sent my email, the official word came, did come down about the venue change. And sure enough, the power of social media, that meant the floodgates opened. There was talk of cancellations. First it was some of the supporting acts, and then some of the main artists were being rumored to have pulled out of this festival. This is 24 hours before it's ready to go, and we're finding this out. Oh my gosh, fans spreading information via back channels, sharing text threads that they have with some of the members of some of these bands. They'll actually take a screenshot of their phone with the text thread. Before opening day, it opened up at that point. Once the crack formed, it came spilling out, drinking from the fire hose as it was. I spent the whole Thursday night just reading updates about what the heck was going on here. Was there actually going to even be a festival at this point? Oh my gosh. Well, Rachel's band, August Burns Red, they were still going, so we decided, all right, we're going to go. All right? We're going to go. But not without my reservations, obviously. I had to- So you made reservations? Well, you know, I had a specific- Hi-o. I had a specific fear about this, because the rumor was circulating that the concert was way undersold. There were about 3,000 tickets sold, right, for 12,000. Thank you for watching. I wasn't the only one really asking those questions. Other people were concerned about this. You go up there, you get squeezed into this venue that can't hold 3,000 people, and it's an angry crowd of people, frankly, to begin with, who are pissed off that all these changes are happening last second, and some of their favorite artists are no longer performing at this thing. But we decided to go. We would give it a chance, and if we felt it was too dicey, we were going to just leave after that. It's only Hartford, Connecticut. Not too much for us. Say that to the other people who actually drove from North Carolina or flew in from Florida or Wisconsin and so many other people. I felt much worse for them. Those fears wound up being unfounded. By my estimate on Friday, there were about 500 people at the show. No. One of two things happened. The thing was way undersold, even to a Lower extent that I had, you know, understood it, you know, where they were saying maybe 3000 people or just people were so mad that they decided to just forfeit the damn thing and walk away from it.

'''J''':What about getting a refund?

'''E''':Yeah. So refunds, right? If you go to their website, obviously they have a policy in which they say there will be no refunds issued for things like exchange, like exchanges or, you know, bands dropping out and the, and these sorts of things is basically what they said. I will get to that because at the end of this news item is when basically some other people come along and say, nah, that doesn't hold water. I'll get to that, Jay. I'll tell you what happened. We went there Friday night. This venue had two stages, a small room that holds 200 people with a small stage, and the main room, which holds about 1,000 people. They alternated the stages. About nine acts, I think, wound up performing on Friday. Okay, fine. But it was a cluster. They didn't know where anything was going to ... Where were they going to put the vendors? Where were people going to drive their campers into the middle of downtown, basically downtown Hartford? It's not going to work. So there was all kinds of things going on in which it was a total cluster, total cluster, and everyone was certainly really mad about it.

'''J''':Why did they lose the original venue?

'''E''':The reason ultimately why they lost the original venue is because they did not secure the correct insurance for the festival. It's called the Thompson Motor Speedway here in Connecticut. And when they couldn't provide it with 24 hours, they basically said, okay, you lose rights and you're not coming in. We can't do this, right? They're not gonna take it on the chin for them. I don't even know why they really let it go that far. But yeah, they couldn't get the insurance is what I heard. So Friday night happens, really weak turnout, everyone's kind of down. The next day, this is Saturday, June 29th, it was a lackluster day. I think about 12 or 13 artists performed. The last act on the small stage was performing Saturday night. And then what happened is they got cut off. The venue officials stepped in, they cut the mic, and they sent everybody out. They're kicking everybody out before the music ended on Saturday night. It was it. It was over right then and there. No completion of the second day of music. And there was going to be nothing on day three. One of the original rumors was basically saying, hey, guys, beware. We think that Sunday is outright canceled. But the promoters were promoting Sunday as Saturday was unfolding. They said, we're going to have a great lineup on Sunday because they were still trying to sell more tickets, even though they seem to have known. That Sunday was a total, total bust. Now the reason that the venue stepped in and cut it and stopped the show was because the venue did not get paid. They were promised that they were gonna get paid, and they did not get paid. And so they pulled the plug in the middle, basically, of the event. And that was it. So, I mean, look, some good, some okay things about, you know, nobody got hurt. There were no injuries, physical injuries that I'm aware of of any kind. Nobody died, right? So, I don't think you can put this on a list of other festival disasters in which people actually lost their lives in these massive crowds and things, but that did not stop the people from being so mad, so mad. You should have read the social media going on during this whole thing. It was something.

'''C''':Well, do you think that they'll, does this qualify as like a Ponzi? Like, do you think that what they did was, you know, expect all these ticket sales to pay for things that they hadn't paid for?

'''E''':Well, and this is when we get to the attorney general of the state of Connecticut, who on July 2nd, not only, not only announced, made a, what, a public announcement, right? He had a, he had a press conference as well about this very thing. His name is Attorney General William Tong, and here's how the letter reads. Today, July 2nd, he's opened an investigation into Capulet Entertainment following dozens of consumer complaints. It's up to hundreds of now, by the way, regarding the abrupt collapse of the three-day Capulet We've received dozens, now hundreds, of complaints from frustrated ticket holders. Fans paid hundreds of dollars in booked campsites, overnight accommodations, and traveled for this three-day festival. This is not what they got. The Capulin entertainment people need to explain exactly why things went wrong and provide prompt refunds to every consumer that they let down. An official investigation has been opened By the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut looking into this. Yeah, so I definitely registered my complaint. There's an official form you go to their website and you fill out and you provide them with all the details of what you've got. Plus, they obviously had no idea that I was going to be there and that I'd be talking about this on my podcast concerning skepticism.

'''S''':Evan, I wonder how much of this was just incompetence?

'''E''':Yes, that's what they're going to investigate, to determine if this person was, you know, just, right, incompetent, or did he try to perpetrate a fraud from the get-go? Or did it evolve into a fraud?

'''S''':That's what I think, it evolved into a fraud. They were in over their head, it wasn't going well, they were underselling tickets, and then the fraud kicked in to cover their asses, right? Rather than do the right thing, whatever that would have been.

'''E''':Pulling the plug a month ago or whatever when you realized you didn't have the sales and the money to back this entire thing up, you should have shut the whole thing down. I think people and artists and even vendors would have been disappointed but understood, but certainly to let it go to this extent, now you've got people who are frothing and lighting torches and carrying pitchforks and wanting Thank you for joining us today.

'''C''':Well, and I don't I don't want to get into the legal weeds here, but does fraud require intentionality?

'''E''':Yes. Yeah, I think so. Yeah.

'''C''':Because I mean, why is it legal? Or is it legal to say, I want to do a thing that I can't afford to do. And I'm going to hope that the money that the people who are going to come to the thing will pay me will cover the thing I plan to do. Without having done the appropriate financials and having, you know, checked all the boxes. Like it seems, I guess that's American, you know, entrepreneurship, but it seems very dangerous. It seems like you need to have enough money in the bank to cover all your bills. Otherwise, you're just step one of a Ponzi scheme.

'''E''':And people thought that this person, because this is the third year he was doing it, knew what he was doing. He's not a total rookie.

'''C''':Unless it finally caught up to him. Unless he's been paying his debts with the new money that's supposed to be paying for the things today, but he's paying for yesterday with today.

'''E''':And there's the Ponzi aspect that you brought up. And thank goodness our Attorney General is actually going to now be investigating this, and we will eventually. Find out exactly how it happened, why it happened, and if there's going to be any sort of, you know, what, refunds issued and people made whole by this, and if anybody is criminally liable for anything. But I was caught up right in the middle of it all. It was unfolding right before my eyes. It was like, wow.

'''S''':Well, it is a good example of how incompetence bleeds into fraud, you know what I mean? And like as Cara was saying, this is why you need regulations, too. And I know it's, you know, because we've done events and like, oh, my God, we got to get this insurance and that. It's burdensome. It's absolutely burdensome. But there's a reason for it, because otherwise, you know, jerk offs like this. You know, try to pull something off, they fail, and then at the end of the day, hundreds, maybe thousands of people get defrauded, even if it wasn't the original intention. That's what happens.

'''C''':And this is a service, it's a luxury, it's not a necessity. If it's too burdensome for you to do the job right, you're not the person to be doing this job. Right? Don't take it on if you're not willing to do the work. And I don't know, it's like you think about Elizabeth Holmes, I think that's a perfect example. It was incompetence that turned into fraud. She legit thought she had a good idea that was working. And once she realized it wasn't, she covered her tracks. And I think you see that story a lot.

'''E''':Sure, sure.

'''C''':Some fraudsters set out to commit fraud from the get-go, but I think a lot of fraudsters, they end up committing fraud because they get in over their heads.

'''E''':You know, because you brought up Elizabeth Holmes in some of the interviews and the stories I've seen in documentaries about Elizabeth Holmes is that when she did bring this to initially two people, there were some that told her, This is not right. This can't happen.

'''C''':Some people told her it's impossible and others said it's a great idea, let's do it.

'''E''':Right, right.

'''C''':And it was people with equivalent credentials, sadly.

'''E''':Sure, yeah. Yep. So whenever there's an update on this, I'll be sure to give it to you.

'''J''':Evan, are you going to try to get your money back?

'''E''':Oh, yeah. I mean, if there is money to have to be gotten back, that's the other part of this, Jay, is like, what kind of assets does this person have? I looked him up. I believe it's a sole member LLC, and it basically has no protection against For that, against them going after his personal assets. If he has a house or something, he might have to sell it.

'''S''':Is there a vent insurance that you can get? If this goes a bust, it covers any liability? I don't know.

'''E''':My guess is yes.

'''C''':Or maybe if you bought it with your credit card? Like, I think some credit cards have protections built into them.

'''S''':But I mean like insurance for the event operators, like, you know, you have to take out quote unquote event insurance. I don't know.

'''C''':Maybe, but he didn't even take out insurance on me.

'''S''':If you bought your tickets using a credit card, go to your credit card.

'''C''':Yeah, I would try that too.

'''E''':I could definitely try that. That would be a good step. Yep.

'''S''':All right. Thanks, Evan. Yep.
{{anchor|news5}}
=== Kugelblitz Black Holes (1:04:00) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.sciencenews.org/article/black-hole-light-quantum-physics
|article_title = A black hole made from pure light is impossible, thanks to quantum physics
|publication = www.sciencenews.org
}}

'''B''':A Kugelblitz is a geon. Well, what's a geon? It goes back to the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler. Quite a guy. I was an amazing scientist. Wheeler came up with the concept of a GEO in 1955 in a physical review paper. GEO stands for gravitational electromagnetic entity. And the idea flows from general relativity and its idea of mass and energy. And here's the critical bit. If a giant star could collapse and concentrate so much mass that its gravity wraps space-time completely around itself, becoming a black hole, then so could energy itself, because energy and mass are kind of interchangeable. So heat or radiation or light, they should all be able to form a black hole as well, as long as you have enough of it in a small enough place. So that's kind of what General Relativity was saying about that. So nowadays we call it not a geon, but a kugelblitz. Which is German for ball lightning. And it really is fascinating. I've read a bit about it. And you obviously can't just dismiss predictions from general relativity, right? I mean, you can't dismiss them out of hand. Its track record is too ridiculously good. Hello, gravitational waves. So kugelblitzes have even seeped into popular culture. Steve, if you saw the show Umbrella Academy, I think it was season three, there was a guest star and it was a kugelblitz in that show for a lot of episodes. Of course, it had some artistic license. More subtly, Star Trek Next Gen had an episode called Timescape, where a Romulan warbird's power source was revealed to be an artificial quantum singularity, almost certainly a kugelblitz. So and there's actually been real discussion over the years about how advanced civilizations might be able to create a kugelblitz and as a power source since small ones tinier than a proton could theoretically emit literally petawatts of usable energy. They would be amazing if they existed. So those were the good old days. Then this damn research came out like, oh, crap. The researchers looked at Kugelblitz's through a quantum mechanical lens, just like Hawking did for black holes. When Hawking did it decades ago, he famously concluded that black holes can in fact emit radiation, Hawking radiation. So that was obviously a really huge discovery. So when theoretical physicist Eduardo Martin Martinez and his colleagues did the same thing, they looked at Kugelblitz's through this Welcome to the show. Thank you for watching. To precipitate the formation of an event horizon, we argue that the dissipative quantum effects coming from the self-interaction of light are enough to prevent any meaningful buildup of energy that could create a black hole in any realistic scenario. So it turns out that enough of these particles are created, these antiparticles, that soak up the energy, essentially, and then they escape, and that prevents any chance of a black hole forming. And there's even a name for it. It's called the Schwinger effect. And this has been confirmed in the lab and even in neutron star observations. So the confidence level is very, very high that their conclusions are true. I don't know how you would calculate that with something as theoretical as the Kugelblitz, but they're very confident because of their confidence in quantum electrodynamics. Okay, and when they say that it can't happen in any realistic scenario, they really mean it. Their calculations showed that even laser light intensities 10 to the friggin fiftieth times more powerful than state of the art lasers could not overcome this effect and create a kugelblitz. 10 to the 50th, that's 100 quindecillion. That's also 100 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. So even something that powerful could not create this black hole because the particles and antiparticles would just bleed away. The most luminous objects among the most luminous objects in the universe, quasars, are far too dim to create one. They even looked at kugelblitzes that were incredibly small. Maybe we can create a really, really tiny kugelblitz, a hundredth of a quintillionth of a nanometer And then they also calculated all the way up to 100 million meters and no dice. You can't create one even within that range. And if you tried to go even smaller or bigger than that, a huge range, they still say it would still be very, very unlikely. Not looking good. There is a tiny loophole. They threw us a little bit of a bone in their paper. The researchers say that there is tiny hope that one could have been created, but don't get your hopes up here. Apparently, there's a possibility that in the first millionth of a second after the Big Bang, during the inflationary period, it might have been possible that energy collapsed into a Kugelblitz to form primordial black holes, which you've mentioned on the show many times. That would be cool, but unfortunately, a black hole Made from mass would look the same to us as one made from light. So yeah, thanks a lot guys. Even if there is one out there, and there might be one out there, these primordial black holes that have survived for billions of years, we would never even be able to tell the difference because they would look the same. All right, whatever. So bummer for me. It's kind of depressing because there are theoretical things that you could have created with a Kugelblitz. Like I said, you could have made a power source, an amazing power source. People have come up with ideas to power spaceships using these artificial singularities. That really could have been amazing, far better than even Thanks for watching! Yeah, but hey man, General Relativity predicted it, so I was like, alright, okay. That's a decent one. It's a damn good track record, but this one, no. Einstein, you messed up.

'''E''':Yeah, what a failure he's been.
{{anchor|wtn}}
{{anchor|futureWTN}}
== Who's That Noisy? + Announcements (1:12:00) ==

'''E''':You tend to think noises are animals. It did, actually. It had the rhythms.

'''C''':Very animalistic and... Rhythmic. ...episodic. Yeah, rhythmic, exactly.

'''J''':Somebody definitely wrote in something like that, Cara, so let me read these for you.

'''C''':Because that's what it sounds like.

'''J''':I got so many guesses this week. Listener named Emily Markwell said, the Tasmanian devil, right? Here we go, Cara. My partner Andrew is a huge fan and avid listener. We are currently driving back down to the Australian East Coast from Byron to Bellingen and love arguing over what the noisy is. We hope we are right this week. You are incorrect, but Cara agrees with you. Another person wrote in Richard Smith, he said, this week's noisy sounds a bit like a bunch of Tasmanian devils sharing a meal.

'''Voiceover''':Wow.

'''J''':Which it's interesting because people are hearing this Tasmanian devil. So I tried to find a noisy of a Tasmanian devil. They don't make this noise at all. They don't sound like this. The other listener named Zachary Dorma said, a Cybertruck windshield wiper that needs recalling. I thought that was so clever. So clever. Listen, it does kind of sound like a really crappy windshield wiper. Listen. The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe And I've seen those. They exist. He's not joking. And I labeled this as the close guest because there was a key word in there that he used. The key word was bicycle. We have one last guess. Guess why I put it in here. This is from Peter. He said sawing an ice fishing hole. Jerky question mark. So any reference to the jerky boys you're going to get me. All right, guys. Nobody won, but this this one has something to do with a bike. So tell me what it is.

'''S''':It's a flat tire.

'''J''':It's a flat tire. It's rolling a bike with a completely flat tube over asphalt. Now, I've heard this noise as a kid. I've heard this noise as a kid. I recognized it when the listener sent it in.

'''C''':Yeah, I've definitely heard that more often than Tasmanian devils doing it.

'''J''':But it definitely has its own sound. There is a scrunching rubber sound in there. Listen. You know, like that almost sounds like a Star Wars alien talking. I just thought that was cool. There's everyday sounds around us, weird sounds that that many of us would experience that you might not stand out when you hear it, like, you know, a flat tire on a bicycle. But when you hear it up close like this, it has a unique sound profile. And again, I say this all the time. Sounds sound like other sounds. It's context is everything when it comes to noises. Have you guys noticed that? All right, guys, I got a new noisy, another fun one for you. This was sent in by a listener named Vigot Telesfsen. T-E-L-L-E-F-S-E-N, Telesfsen. That's only his middle name. His last name is Wivstad. He's going to email me. I guarantee it. Dude, I'm sorry, Vigo.

'''C''':You got to include the phonetics, man.

'''J''':Vigo, my friend, Vigo. If I had Vigo as a friend, every time I see him in person, I'd go, Vigo. Definitely. All right. Here we go, guys. Wait for it. So many clues, so many clues in there. It sounded like so many things. If you guys think you know what this week's noisy is, if you also, if you heard something cool, you work in weird places, right? There's got to be people out there that work in all sorts of different factories and everything. Come on. There's noisies all around you. Email me at WTN at the Skeptic's Guide dot org. Steve, I've got so much to say to you right now. One of them is, lately I've been asking our listeners, if you are interested in supporting the work that we do, the Skeptic's Guide has been going on for 20 years. We started in 2005. We have been doing this program for 20 years. We are going to be recording our 1000th episode in August of this year. If you enjoy the work that we do, if you think there's any value to the work that we do, please seriously consider becoming a patron of the show. You would enable us to do more, reach more people. There's so many things that we'd like to do that we can't just because we don't have the time and material to do it. So becoming a patron can really help. And also if you do become a patron you can join our wonderful community of awesome friends. They are the super friends. You can join our Discord. And of course, you know, then you can meet them in person at the next Nauticon, which is going to be happening in 2025. More details coming soon. I'm just trying to get past the current show that we're doing because it's a big one. I got so much stuff I'm doing. But go to the patreon.com forward slash Skeptic's Guide to learn more about becoming a patron of the show. If you are interested, every week we send out an email. It has everything that we've done over the past week. You can just join that on our website, theskepticsguide.org. There's a button on there for you. You could also give our show a rating or tell a friend. Both of those things can help new people find the show, which would be wonderful. We have tickets available. We have two shows coming up that tickets are available at. We will be doing a extravaganza. This is our stage show. This is a show where we teach you how you cannot trust your senses. And there's a lot of improv comedy. The Skeptic's Guide is hosted by Steven Novella, Bob Novella, Cara Santa Maria, and Evan Bernstein. The 1000th SGU show. There are not many tickets left. I had to cut tickets off because I wanted to give people, everybody a wonderful view of the stage and the screen and everything that we're doing. So I decided to whack back the numbers a little bit. So right now there's not many left, but there's still some tickets left. You can go to theskeptic'sguide.org. There's a button there. That show will be happening on August 18th. Yes, Cara will be there. People are asking.

'''C''':Oh yeah, I'll be there.

'''J''':Will Cara be there? Everybody wants to know where Cara is, what she's doing, what she had for dinner. I don't tell anybody anything about you, Cara.

'''C''':Except that I'll be there.

'''J''':She will be at the show, though. You can ask her yourself. And there's something else I decided to do. I was talking to Ian today. You know, we get emails from listeners where they tell us, you know, hey, I really appreciate the show, you know, because of you, blah, like something happened in their life. And it made me think, you know, we have our 1000th show coming up. I thought it would be cool if you're interested, there's a button on the homepage now where you can click it and you can tell us if the show had an impact on you in any way. I'm looking to find some interesting ones that I could read during the 1000th show. It's important to us to hear these types of things because we basically operate in a vacuum here. You know, 99% of the time, it's just the five of us here talking to each other. You know, we're not doing that many live shows a year, so we don't really get out and get to talk to people as often as we'd like. And I just think it'd be great, like, if the show had an impact on you or helped you make a decision or, you know, anything along those lines, please do drop us a quick note. Just understand that I might play it on the 1000th show. So if you want to leave your name out or personal details or anything, But that's that. So you can go to the SGU, theskepticsguide.org. Again, that's our website. Please join us into the future. It's going to be a rough one, guys. We need critical thinking now more than ever. I tried to clone Steve. It failed. It didn't work.

'''S''':Miserably. Try again.

'''J''':It was a failure. I wanted to make a young Steve to go on to the next generation. We don't have the technology. I got close. I got close, but I didn't get all the way. So, the only other thing you could do is join us in this effort.

'''S''':Thank you, Jay.
{{anchor|ntlf}}
== Name That Logical Fallacy (1:21:32) ==
Topic: Is there is a term for a pattern of behavior from religious individuals, they seem to divorce themselves for the responsibility of convincing others and instead make it a problem within the audience, if your heart wasn't hardened the proof would be evident. I even see this in texts, the parable of Lazarus has someone asking Abraham for help convincing his family to believe and he gets rejected. Randy

'''S''':Randy. Okay, so what Randy's asking is, is this a logical fallacy, and if so, what is it, to say, well, if you don't believe, it's not because the proof is not self-evident or there isn't proof, it's because you have a hardened heart, or you lack faith, right? That's the most common one. You lack faith. Or I've been told personally, you're just blind to the truth of the Bible. That's it. You're just blind.

'''C''':Or have you ever, have you ever had a, I think this follows the same structure when it's like more of a pseudoscience claim and they're like, you're just not open-minded enough.

'''S''':Yes. Yes. Open-minded and lax faith are basically the equivalent of a claim from a logical perspective. So what do you guys think?

'''C''':I'm so bad at these. I can never remember all of the informal ones.

'''S''':Well, so if you're saying you're having a disagreement with somebody and you're saying that basically you're wrong, but it's because of some negative feature that you have, what is that? Well, that's an ad hominem. That's an ad hominem. So there's definitely that is in here, right? It's like you lack faith. You aren't open minded. You are blind. Right. And that's the problem here. Not my, not the power of my arguments or the quality of my evidence or the validity of my logic. It's that you are the problem because you are blind or whatever, lack faith. So that's an ad hominem. But there's another thing going on in here, I think.

'''C''':Is it special pleading?

'''S''':No, I don't think so.

'''C''':You know, because it's kind of like, I don't know, like the way I understand it is that it's like making up exceptions when like you can prove that That it's not true. It's like, yeah, but yeah, I guess it's not really because it's not like the Bible says so. Yeah. Because then that would also be like some appeal to authority stuff. And it's not a burden of shifting the burden of proof.

'''S''':So Randy goes actually on to speculate about it. I didn't want to say it because it kind of gives it away. He says he thinks it could be some sort of unstated major premise. And I agree, I think that's in there as well. The unstated, but the unstated major premise is that there is proof, right? Or that there is a solid argument for it. So it's not that unstated, but it's definitely implicit instead of explicit. Like, there's the assumption that if you weren't blind, you would be convinced by the evidence, right? Or you didn't have some kind of failing of faith or open-mindedness or whatever. So again, I think it's mainly an ad hominem, but I think it's feeding into this unstated premise of because the argument that there is proof or whatever that the evidence is convincing or it is compelling.

'''Voiceover''':Sounds good.

'''S''':But I think the 99% are here is the ad hominem.

'''Voiceover''':Yeah, true.

'''S''':And you absolutely right, Cara. I wrote a whole article about this, that saying that you're not open-minded is exactly like saying you lack faith.

'''C''':It makes me so angry. I get so frustrated when that is the claim.

'''S''':It's also wrong. I always like to flip it. I'm open to any outcome here. I'm open to this being real, to it being not real. I will follow the evidence wherever it leads. I'm just doing that. I'm following evidence and logic. You're closed-minded because you're closed-minded to the possibility that you're wrong. You're closed to the possibility that this is self-deception or whatever, that there's some alternate explanation. I can't tell you how How many times I've had true believers say to me, you'll never convince me that this isn't true. It's like, yeah, you're pretty much admitting that you're closed-minded. In the same breath that they're accusing me of being closed-minded, they're like, because you'll never convince me. It's like, well, you could convince me. You just are not because the evidence is crap. It's shite.

'''C''':And it's such a weird, it's such a weird mental gymnastics. It's kind of like saying, OK, you're not open minded enough. And then you're saying, no, I am open minded. I'm looking at the evidence. The evidence says the evidence has disproven that. Let's say we're talking about something really obvious, like iridology. The evidence has disproven these claims. Yeah, but what if you're wrong?

'''S''':What if there are unicorns?

'''C''':Exactly. It's like, OK, but what if you're wrong?

'''S''':We're all wrong, right? It's all about being less wrong by following logic and evidence. Yeah, it's just, you're right, it's mental gymnastics. And it does turn into special pleading at some point. That process leads right to special pleading.

'''C''':Yeah, because they just keep kind of changing.

'''S''':Yeah, because you're starting with the answer. So this is what you do when you want to maintain the answer. Okay, let's move on to science or fiction.
{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}}
== Science or Fiction (1:26:52) ==
{{SOFinfo
|theme = None

|item1 = In a sample of almost 10 thousand people, smoking was found to correlate with lower personality scores in Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and higher Extraversion scores.
|link1web = https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0305634
|link1title = Hit me with your best puff: Personality predicts preference for cigar vs. cigarette smoking | PLOS ONE
|link1pub = journals.plos.org

|item2 = Researchers find that the standard pasteurization process eliminates 100% of H5N1 bird flu virus from infected milk.
|link2web = https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240702/FDA-commercial-pasteurization-process-kills-H5N1-bird-flu-virus-in-milk.aspx
|link2title = FDA commercial pasteurization process kills H5N1 bird flu virus in milk
|link2pub = www.news-medical.net

|item3 = A new study finds that introns (non-coding segments of genes) can affect protein folding, independent of their effects on splicing.
|link3web = https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2400151121
|link3title = Reassessing the exon–foldon correspondence using frustration analysis
|link3pub = PNAS

|}}
{{SOFResults

|science1 = Item #1

|science2 = Item #2

|fiction = Item #3

|rogue1 =
|answer1 =
|rogue2 =
|answer2 =
|rogue3 =
|answer3 =
|rogue4 =
|answer4 =
|rogue5 =
|answer5 =
|host = steve
|sweep = 
|clever = 
|win = 
|swept = 
}}

'''S''':That's obviously in the ocean construct, you know, the five personality types. 2. Researchers find that the standard pasteurization process eliminates 100% of H5N1 bird flu virus from infected milk.

'''U''':3.

'''S''':A new study finds that introns, non-coding segments of genes, can affect protein folding, independent of their effects on splicing. Genes, right? A gene codes for a protein. They have exons and introns. The exons are the part that codes for the protein. Introns are bits that are cut out and thrown away. They don't contribute to the final protein. They're non-coding.

'''B''':But you wouldn't call them junk DNA, though?

'''S''':No, because they're not junk. They used to be considered junk DNA, but they're not. They're non-coding DNA, but they do affect things, right? I'm not going to get into much more detail there, but they're non-coding but not irrelevant. Like, for example, they affect splicing. That's why I had to say that as a caveat, independent of their effects on splicing. All right, Evan, go first.

'''E''':Well, okay, 10,000 people. Smoking was found to correlate with lower personality scores in conscientiousness and agreeableness and higher extraversion scores. Okay. I mean, smoking, there's a ton of chemicals going on in smoke. I'm assuming we're talking about cigarette smoking.

'''S''':Cigarettes and cigars.

'''E''':Thanks for watching! The second one about pasteurization. It eliminates 100% of bird flu virus from infected milk. That would be good. I hope that's true. That's a positive one, very much so. I mean, sure, but does it? That is a binary one right there. It either is or it isn't. I really hope it is. And then this last one. Oh boy. Introns, my first introduction to this word I think, or I've probably read it and didn't know what I was reading. They can affect protein folding independent of their effects on splicing. Well, obviously this is the one I know, I just don't know anything about this. So I really don't have a sense for it. I have a good sense for number two. I have a decent sense for number one. I have no sense for this last one about the introns. So what will I do? I have to kind of just make a guess here. I will say that the introns, I'll go with the introns ones being the fiction.

'''J''':Okay, Jay. This goes from easy to hard. The first one here about the smokers and the fact that they score lower on conscientiousness and agreeableness, I think that one is science. Researchers, for number two, the researchers find that standard pasteurization process eliminates 100% of H5N1 bird flu. I mean, I don't see why it wouldn't kill 100% of it, because once you get up to a certain temperature, the virus is going to die and that's it. I'm not sure. I don't know if they treat it chemically. I don't think that they do. I think it's all a matter of pressure and temperature. So I think that one is science. I can't see that they would be I can't see that that pasteurization process wouldn't be doing that. And then three, the last one here, the one about introns. I mean, you know, this is a toughie because I don't have a good working knowledge of this stuff. So I'm just kind of using my gut here. So we're saying that these non-coding segments of genes can affect protein folding. I don't know why that is significant, meaning that this has to be independent of their effects on splicing.

'''S''':The introns are already known to affect splicing. What that means is one gene can code for multiple different proteins based on how it gets spliced up, and that is controlled by the introns. And of course, that would affect folding, right, if the ultimate protein is spliced from different segments. Does that make sense? I mean, the resulting protein would be different, and so therefore it would fold differently. This is saying even without that, like it's the exact same protein, but it's folding differently based upon the introns.

'''J''':I would have liked to have heard from Cara and Bob.

'''E''':Sure. Me too.

'''J''':Yeah, right? I mean, look, you know, Evan and I know where we're at. OK, I am going to deviate from what my gut told me, which was to think this one was the fiction. And I'm going to say the milk one is the fiction. I don't know why. There's a thing in there. There's a little doodad in there that makes me think that this one is the fiction. I'm going with that one. Okay, Cara.

'''C''':You probably can't answer this, but like, for the smoking and the big five, are we talking, is this like a new study? Yeah. Because this has been studied a million times. And historically, yeah, I think it's, I think it's low conscientiousness, agreeableness, Hi, I'm Cara Santa Maria. But that's so hard with science or fiction, because when you're like, a study says, well, yeah, any study can say anything. But the literature shows that what you are listing there is science. Researchers find that the standard pasteurization product 100% is a hypothesis. But I have a feeling that this one is science, because I don't know, I feel like I've been covering bird flu a lot lately. And we would have heard if a bunch of people were falling ill from drinking milk, because we know it's in the milk. But if it's then killed, then who cares if it's in the milk? So I think that one is science. Otherwise, I think we would have more deaths, or at least more infections. And then introns affecting protein folding, independent of their effects on splicing. Oof. So I know they're removed prior, and I thought that they affected like ribosomes, but I could see there being some sort of indirect effect on protein folding. God, are they all, can they all be science? No. So, I think the devil's going to be in the details with this. My guess is that either this new study actually showed a difference in what previous study shows about smoking, and maybe it's because smoking has changed over the years, and maybe we're seeing, I don't know, lower extraversion scores now or something, because it's no longer a social, what do you call it, behavior. That while introns can affect indirectly protein folding, it's not independent of their effects on slicing. It's a function of their effects on slicing. So it's one I think it's one of those two things. So I'm going to say it's the intron one that is the fiction and it's because it's due or related to their effects on splicing.

'''B''':And Bob. Yeah, the smoking one kind of makes sense, although I agree with Cara's angle on it, like what's new. Maybe it has changed because the culture has changed. Ah, man, pasteurization. Yeah, it makes sense. That seems reasonable to me that pasteurization could impact it. And yeah, we would have probably heard something about it. Probably would have caused a milk panic. Yeah, this intron one, I mean, I could see that there's some subtle influence that we hadn't seen before, but this is the one that's the most dodgy. I'm going to have to say, I'll say the intron one's fiction as well.

'''S''':All right, so you guys are all agreeing on the smoking ones. We'll start there. In a sample of almost 10,000 people, smoking was found to correlate with lower personality scores and conscientiousness and agreeableness and higher extraversion scores. You all think this one is science, and this one is science. Yep, this is basically confirming prior studies, Cara. That's why it's like 10,000 people, you know, it's a huge sample. The neuroticism, lower neuroticism and higher openness was found among cigar smokers only, compared to both cigarette and non-smokers.

'''C''':So maybe that is a shift.

'''S''':Yeah, it's a little bit of a shift, but conscientiousness and agreeableness being lower and higher extroversion was found in just smoking in general. And the interpretation is that the extraversion one is that it's a social behavior. People do it because it enhances their social interactions. And that conscientiousness, given that basically it's impulsive, it's not really good decision making for their health and whatnot.

'''C''':It's also not a conscientious thing to do around non-smokers.

'''S''':Right, and that's where the agreeableness comes in, just saying, yeah, you're basically a jerk. Yeah, but not surprising. And Evan, it's not that the smoking is causing these personality changes, that these personality changes are causing the smoking, right? What are these differences? That people with these traits are more likely to engage in smoking because they're less conscientious about the health effects in other people. They're less agreeable in terms of not being disturbing to other people. They're more interested in the social aspects than they are in the health aspects.

'''C''':Yeah, the big five are thought to be traits, not states. So they tend to be persistent throughout the lifespan.

'''S''':Yeah, they're remarkably persistent. And refractory to interventions.

'''C''':Yeah, like you can bump them a little, but yeah.

'''S''':Right, they can be mitigated, but not changed. I guess we'll just take these in order. Researchers find that the standard pasteurization process eliminates 100% of H5N1 bird flu virus from infected milk. Jay, you think this one is fiction. Everyone else thinks this one is science. Yeah, 100%. That's a really high bar. But functionally, it means that it was undetectable by whatever mechanism we use to detect it. The mechanism that they used to detect it, if you're interested, was PCR, which is very, very sensitive. This one is science. Not necessarily, because the inoculum is low enough that your immune system can handle it. I guess, but I don't want to be drinking live. You're right, it's certainly reassuring to know that the standard FDA pasteurization process leaves no functional virus behind. There were fragments of virus, but not intact functional virus. Yeah, so that's good to know. And you're right, that's probably why there hasn't been massive H5N1 outbreaks going on.

'''B''':Thank goodness.

'''C''':At least in people.

'''S''':In people, right.

'''B''':But raw milk is still okay, right?

'''S''':But give it time. Raw milk, man. Don't drink raw milk.

'''B''':Gosh, have you ever tasted that? Reason number 37.

'''S''':Steve, if you took raw milk and you just boiled it on your stove top, would that do it? No, I don't think boiling is enough.

'''C''':Maybe for some things, but also, like, wouldn't it weird your milk?

'''S''':Yeah, you gotta, you know, why DIY that? You know, just let them know what they're doing, do it correctly, you know? Okay, they got it down to it, they're literally down to a sign, just let them do it. You don't have to get angry with this.

'''E''':Bad advice, Jay.

'''S''':This means that a new study finds that introns, non-coding segments of genes, can affect protein folding independent of their effects on splicing is the fiction. I just wanted to talk about this news item because it's cool. It has nothing to do with protein folding.

'''B''':You used us. You just wanted to say intron over and over.

'''S''':No, this is actually pretty, what they were looking for, it's a little subtle and I couldn't, the thing they were actually looking at was too subtle to make into a science or fiction, so I just made something else up and made that the fiction. But here's the question. So again, I gave you the backstory about what introns and exons are. So like the whole gene is comprised of coding and non-coding segments. The entire gene gets transcribed, right? It gets turned into messenger RNA, like a pre-messenger RNA. And then the messenger RNA gets chopped up to remove the intron segments to create the final mRNA, which then makes the protein only from the exons, right? So only from the coding, by definition, regions. And so by definition, the introns are the non-coding regions of the genes themselves. Now, they have been found to influence things like gene expression, right? How much of the protein are you going to make? The introns may influence that. They also are involved in regulating alternative splicing, so you could actually make multiple different proteins from the same gene by which of the exons you splice together, right? But here's the question. This is a very interesting question. Are they randomly placed in the gene? Or are the exons functional units?

'''C''':The introns are sort of like the scissors in CRISPR.

'''S''':Are the exons these modules, a part of the protein? And so one of the things that might, practically what that might mean is that, you know, different amino acids and different sequences of amino acids have different effects on protein folding. Some segments of the protein fold and some don't, right? And so they fold in different ways. So, is an exon coding for a part of the final protein that has a specific folding functional unit that therefore evolutionarily functions as like this module that can be exchanged or moved around or whatever, right? So that's the question. So to address that question, they looked evolutionarily at different species, etc. They wanted to say, if you look at the foldability of exons, is it varying randomly or is it varying not randomly? And what they found was that the answer was basically yes or no, but depending on whatever, the gene and the species or whatnot. But that definitely for some exons, there is a non-random distribution of the foldability to the point where they're calling some exons, I think, are foldons. As they use that term, it's a foldable unit of the protein. And so evolution is basically like, all right, I'll take one of these and two of those and we'll put them together. It's like, we'll just take these exons and they will switch them around. That does happen. Exons do themselves get sort of swapped evolutionarily to different proteins and whatnot. Here's the thing, not all exons are conserved evolutionarily, but some exons that have a specific folding anatomy, folding structure, do get conserved more than you would predict at random. That's what they found. So, for some exons, they basically evolved into this foldable module that then gets preserved as its own little subsection of a protein. Does that make sense? It's pretty cool. Not all exons are foldons, but some are. From an evolutionary perspective, I thought there's a whole idea I find very neat. But it was hard to get science or fiction out of that, so I just made it the fiction and just made it something else. But yeah, then I looked, I said, do introns affect folding? And it's always hard to prove a negative. As far as I could tell, with the time I had to search, I did multiple, multiple queries. I couldn't find anything, but it might just be because the way I was searching was just getting diverted to other questions. You know what I mean? Sometimes Google just makes certain matches and doesn't get to the money that I'm trying to get to. So if somebody out there knows of a study which says that some intron affects the way proteins are being folded, let me know. I could not find that anywhere. Rarely do the advocates of cleanses explain what is meant by toxins.

{{anchor|qow}}
== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:45:38) ==
{{qow
|text = Rarely do the advocates of cleanses explain what is meant by toxins. It is one of those nebulous pseudoscientific terms rolled out by people deliberately avoiding the specificity required for a science-based analysis. It’s the modern-day equivalent of "evil spirits," vague enough to mean just about anything while retaining the ring of scientific legitimacy.
|author = {{w|Timothy Caulfield}}
|lived = 1963-present
|desc = Canadian professor of law
|work = ''Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?: How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty & Happiness''
}}

'''E''':It is one of those nebulous, pseudoscientific terms rolled out by people deliberately avoiding the specificity required for a science-based analysis. It's the modern-day equivalent of evil spirits, vague enough to mean just about anything while retaining the ring of scientific legitimacy. Timothy Caulfield from his book, Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? One of the famous cel-less elixirs of health, beauty, and happiness. And yeah, you're right, Jay. The answer is no. I mean, yes. Yes. Yes, she is wrong about it. No, she is wrong. No, yes, right. Yes, she is right.

'''S''':Yeah, that's a very good quote, very pithy way of saying it. We talk about that a lot on science-based medicine, the toxin gambit, as we call it. He's exactly right. I do love the analogy to evil spirits.

'''C''':Yeah, it's like miasma.

'''S''':Yeah, it's miasma.

'''E''':I love that word, miasma. It's so quaint. Love it. Timothy Caulfield will be, as will we, at Sci-Con 2024, this coming October, out in Las Vegas, Join him. Join us. Come on out. Join us, Bob.

'''S''':All right, everyone. Well, thank you for joining me this week. All right. See you next week. Bob, happy birthday.

'''B''':Thank you. Happy birthday, Bob. Thank you, peoples.

'''S''':And until next week, this is your Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.
{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
}}

Episode skeleton

2024-08-23T16:54:27Z

Xanderox: missed some spaces

{{SkeletonHeader}} 
{{Episode|{{CURRENTMONTH}}|{{CURRENTDAY}}|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
{{Editing required
|transcription = y
|proofreading = 
|time-stamps = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y 
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{ThisOutline}} 
{{UseOutline}} 
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 1000 
|previous = 999 
|next = 1001 
|episodeMonth = M 
|episodeDateNumber = D 
|episodeYear = YYYY 


|verified = 

|episodeIcon =File:SAMPLE_icon.jpg 

|caption = [[Special:NewFiles|Click for the gallery of uploaded files]] Add an appropriate caption here for the episode icon


|bob = 
|cara = 
|jay = 
|evan = 
|george = 
|rebecca = 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|multiplequotes = 

|qowText = QUOTE



|qowAuthor = AUTHOR, _short_description_  

|downloadLinkYear = YYYY
|downloadLinkMonth = MM
|downloadLinkDate = DD





|forumLinktopic = 
|}}

== Introduction ==
''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

{{anchor|tis}} 
== This Day in Skepticism (m:ss) ==
{{Page categories
|This Day in Skepticism = 
}}
* _Event_ 


{{anchor|fss}}
{{anchor|wih}} 
== Forgotten Superheroes of Science (m:ss) ==
{{Page categories
|Forgotten Superheroes of Science =
|Women in History =

}}
* _Person_People_Group_ 


{{anchor|510}} 
== "5 to 10 Years" (m:ss) ==
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|note = 
|redirect_title = 
}}


{{anchor|wtw}} 
== What's the Word? (m:ss) ==
{{Page categories
|What's the Word? = 
}}
* Word_Topic_Concept

{{shownotes email 
|text = 
|sender =
|location = 
|}}

{{anchor|number}} 
== Your Number's Up (m:ss) ==
* _Number_Topic_Concept_ 


{{anchor|quickie}} 
== Quickie with _Rogue_: _title_ (m:ss) ==
{{shownotes 
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|note = 
|redirect_title = 
}}


== COVID-19 Update (m:ss) ==

== News Items ==

'''S:'''

'''B:'''

'''C:'''

'''J:'''

'''E:'''


''(laughs)''
''(laughter)''
''(applause)''
[inaudible]

{{anchor|news#}} 

=== News_Item_1 (m:ss) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}


==== _example_sub_section_ () ====

=== News_Item_2 () ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}


=== News_Item_3 () ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}


=== News_Item_4 () ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}


=== News_Item_5 () ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}


{{top}}{{anchor|interview}} 
== Interview with ___ () ==
{{Page categories
|Interview = 
}}
* _Interviewee_Topic_Event_ 


{{anchor|puzzle}} 
== Skeptical Puzzle () ==
* Answer to last week's Puzzle: _brief_description_ _perhaps_with_a_link_

=== New Puzzle () ===

{{anchor|wtn}}{{anchor|futureWTN}} 
== Who's That Noisy? () ==
{{wtnHiddenAnswer
|episodeNum = NNNN 
|answer = _brief_description_of_answer_ _perhaps_with_a_link_
|}}


{{anchor|previousWTN}} 
=== New Noisy () ===


[_short_vague_description_of_Noisy]

{{wtnAnswer|NNNN|short_text_from_transcript}} 

== Announcements () ==


{{anchor|dumbest}} 
== Dumbest Thing of the Week () ==
{{shownotes
|weblink = 
|article_title = 
|publication = 
|redirect_title = 
}}


{{anchor|ntlf}} 
== Name That Logical Fallacy () ==
{{Page categories
|Name That Logical Fallacy = 
}}
* _Fallacy_Topic_Event_ 
{{shownotes email 
|text = 
|sender =
|location = 
|}}


{{anchor|followup}}
{{anchor|correction}}
{{anchor|email}} 

== Questions/Emails/Corrections/Follow-ups () ==
=== Question_Email_Correction #1: _brief_description_ () ===
{{shownotes email 
|text = 
|sender =
|location = 
|redirect_title = 
|}}


=== Question_Email_Correction #2: _brief_description_ () ===
{{shownotes email 
|text = 
|sender =
|location = 
|redirect_title = 
|}}


{{anchor|quotable}} 
== Potent Quotables () ==

{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (h:mm:ss) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = 
|hiddentheme = 

|item1 = _item_text_from_show_notes_
|link1web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link1title = _article_title_ 
|link1pub = _publication_ 

|item2 = _item_text_from_show_notes_
|link2web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link2title = _article_title_ 
|link2pub = _publication_ 

|item3 = _item_text_from_show_notes_
|link3web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link3title = _article_title_ 
|link3pub = _publication_ 

|item4 = _item_text_from_show_notes_ 
|link4web = url_from_SoF_show_notes 
|link4title = _article_title_ 
|link4pub = _publication_ 
|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction = 
|fiction2 = 

|science1 = 
|science2 = 
|science3 = 

|rogue1 = 
|answer1 = 

|rogue2 =
|answer2 =

|rogue3 =
|answer3 =

|rogue4 = 
|answer4 = 

|rogue5 = 
|answer5 = 

|host =steve 

|sweep = 
|clever = 
|win = 
|swept = 
}}
''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''


<big>'''_Rogue_'s Response'''</big>

<big>'''_Rogue_'s Response'''</big>

<big>'''_Rogue_'s Response'''</big>

<big>'''_Rogue_'s Response'''</big>


=== Steve Explains Item #_n_ === 

=== Steve Explains Item #_n_ ===

=== Steve Explains Item #_n_ ===

=== Steve Explains Item #_n_ === 

{{anchor|qow}} 
== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==

{{qow
|text =
|author = {{w|_try_to_use_a_wikipedia_article_title_here_|_alternate_display_text_for_name_}}
|lived = _birth_year_-_death_year_ 
|desc = 
}}


== Signoff ==
== Signoff/Announcements () ==

'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 


{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
|Year in Review =

|Other =
|Randi Speaks =
|Skeptical Puzzle =
}}

Mars simulation (992)

2024-08-07T17:38:04Z

Xanderox: mars category!

#REDIRECT
[[SGU_Episode_992#news1]]
[[Category:Mars]]
[[Category:Astronomy & Space Science]]

Mammoth meatball (925)

2024-08-07T17:34:36Z

Xanderox: added category

#REDIRECT
[[SGU_Episode_925#meatball]]
[[Category:Meatball mention]]
[[Category:Nature & Evolution]]

Mammoth meatball (925)

2024-08-07T17:33:16Z

Xanderox: Xanderox moved page Mammoth Meatball (925) to Mammoth meatball (925) without leaving a redirect: sentence case, not title case

#REDIRECT
[[SGU_Episode_925#meatball]]
[[Category:Meatball mention]]

Template:EpisodeList2024

2024-08-07T07:02:35Z

Xanderox: tiny missed exclamation

<noinclude>
=== Description ===
This style of template is for collating a year's list of episodes into a table sortable by date and other notable SGU episode features. The column headers for episode features are listed left to right in order of the typically most common occurrence. That is, the most common episode feature is at least one special "non-news" segment, followed by a SoF game with a theme, followed by interviews and guest Rogues.

'''To add entries, insert the code that follows. Note: each line's indents will appear aligned in the edit window.'''

<pre>
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =
|date = MM-DD 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
</pre>

Previous year: [[Template: EpisodeList2023|2023 - Episodes 913-964]]

Following year: [[Template: EpisodeList2025|2025 - Episodes 1017-1068]]

''Note: This table's columns will "fill out" when episode features are added, widening them to more or less match previous years' tables.'' <hr></noinclude>

{|class="sortable wikitable sortable mw-collapsible" {{SGU list headers
|year = 2024 [[#jump|[↑]]]
|range = (Episodes 965-1016)}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1003
|date = 09-28 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =1002
|date = 09-21 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 1001
|date = 09-14 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 1000
|date = 09-07 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 999
|date = 08-31 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =998
|date = 08-24 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =997
|date = 08-17 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =996
|date = 08-10 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =995
|date = 08-03 
|status = 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =994
|date = 07-27 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =993
|date = 07-20 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =992
|date = 07-13 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =991
|date = 07-06 
|status = bot 
|other = 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme = 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee = 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue = 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =990
|date = 06-29 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 990#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_990#theme|Technology news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =989
|date = 06-22 
|status = 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 989#tiktok|Free energy murders]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =988
|date = 06-15 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 988#quickie|Quickie with Evan]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =987
|date = 06-08 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 987#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 987#theme|GMO news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =986
|date = 06-01 
|status = 
|other =[[SGU Episode 986#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_986#theme|''"Good news, everyone!"'']]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =985
|date = 05-25 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 985#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_985#theme|Armor]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =984
|date = 05-18 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 984#special| Steorn Free Energy Update]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_984#theme|Battery materials]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =983
|date = 05-11 
|status = proofread 
|other =n
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_983#theme|Animal eyes]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_983#interview| Robert Bartholomew]], sociologist
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =982
|date = 05-04 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 982#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_982#theme|Deciphering jargon]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =981
|date = 04-27 
|status = proofread 
|other =n
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_981#theme|Medical risk]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =980
|date = 04-20 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 980#wtw|What's the Word?]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =979
|date = 04-13 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 979|Live from Dallas]] [[SGU Episode 979#special|Eclipse science]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_979#theme|Texas]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =[[SGU_Episode_979|Dustin Bates]], [https://www.starsetonline.com ''Starset'' rockstar]
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode =978
|date = 04-06 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 978#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_978#theme|Eggs]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =[http://www.jonesrooy.com Andrea Jones-Rooy,] political, social, & data scientist
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 977
|date = 03-30 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 977#special|AI-created music]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_977#theme|Power & energy news]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 976
|date = 03-23 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 976#quickie|Quickie with Steve]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_976#interview|Dante Lauretta]], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cybp21DcWPg "The Asteroid Hunter"]
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 975
|date = 03-16 
|status = proofread 
|sort_other = zz
|other =[[SGU Episode 975#special|Tax scams]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_975#theme|Equinoxes]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 974
|date = 03-09 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 974#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_974#theme|Daylight Saving Time]]
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 973
|date = 03-02 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 973#quotable|Potent Quotables]] [[SGU Episode 973#alabama|Alabama SC decision]]
|theme =n
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 972
|date = 02-24 
|status = proofread 
|other =n 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_972#theme|Eclipses]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_972#interview|Chris Smith]], virologist & podcaster
|rogue =n
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 971
|date = 02-17 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 971#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]] [[SGU Episode 971#quickie|Quickie with Bob]]
|theme =n 
|sort_theme =zzz 
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue ={{w|George Hrab}}, musican & skeptic
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 970
|date = 02-10 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 970#wtw|What's the Word?]] [[SGU Episode 970#ntlf|Name That Logical Fallacy]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_970#theme|SGU Shark Week]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 969
|date = 02-03 
|status = proofread 
|other =n 
|sort_other =zzz 
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_969#theme|Animal emotions]]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_969#interview|Dustin Bates]], [https://www.starsetonline.com ''Starset'' rockstar]
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 968
|date = 01-27 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 968#swindlers|Swindler's List]]
|theme = [[SGU_Episode_968#theme|The Ice Age]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 967
|date = 01-20 
|status =proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 967#quickie|Quickie: TikTok recap]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_967#theme|''Hidden Theme!'']]
|interviewee =[[SGU_Episode_967#interview|Robert Sapolsky]], neuroendocrinology researcher
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 966
|date = 01-13 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 966#dumbest|Dumbest Thing of the Week]]
|theme =[[SGU_Episode_966#theme|Positive global trends]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|-
{{SGU list entry
|episode = 965
|date = 01-06 
|status = proofread 
|other =[[SGU Episode 965|2024 Psychic Predictions]]
|theme =[[SGU Episode 965#theme|The worst countries]]
|interviewee =n 
|sort_interviewee =zzz 
|rogue =n 
|sort_rogue =zzz 
}}
|}
|-
|style="border: 1px solid darkgray;background:#F8F9F9;text-align:left;background:#CCD9EA;" |  <big>'''2024 [[#jump|[↑]]]'''</big>   (Episodes 965-1016)
|}

SGU Episode 985

2024-08-07T07:00:53Z

Xanderox: /* Steve Explains Item #1 */ added pic

{{Editing required
|transcription =
|proofreading = y 
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y 
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 985
|episodeDate = {{900s|985|boxdate}} 

|verified = 

|episodeIcon = File:985 Canola.jpg

|caption = Canola field in spring bloom. (Photo credit: R. Myers)

|bob =y
|cara =y
|jay =y
|Evan =y
|qowText = It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

|qowAuthor = {{w|Yogi Berra}}, American baseball catcher
|downloadLink = {{900s|985|download}} 

|forumLinktopic = 55586.0
|}}


== Introduction, Jay's kitchen cabinet ==
''Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the {{SGU|link=y}}. Today is Wednesday, May 22nd, 2024, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella...

'''B:''' Hey, everybody!

'''S:''' Cara Santa Maria...

'''C:''' Howdy.

'''S:''' Jay Novella...

'''J:''' Hey guys.

'''S:''' ...and Evan Bernstein.

'''E:''' Good evening everyone.

'''S:''' So, Jay, how's your kitchen doing over there? I saw some disturbing pictures.

'''J:''' Very funny.

'''E:''' What?

'''J:''' Yeah, I sent you, I texted all you guys some pictures. So I had something extraordinarily weird happen today in my house. So my kids just got home from school and I'm like downstairs I'm working up all day and then when they get home, that's when I'm like, okay, I'll go down. I'll spend a couple hours with them or I might have to prep dinner. I hear like the sound that plywood makes when it starts to buckle like that crinkly cracking.

'''C:''' Mm-hmm.

'''J:''' And it has a very specific sound and I'm like, so I turn around, my plywood is breaking. I turn around.

'''E:''' Is that like the boat in Jaws when the shark is in the boat or something kind of like that?

'''J:''' So I see a cabinet of mine that's to the right of my sink, like in mid fall.

'''C:''' ''(gasps)''

'''J:''' Yes. Yes.

'''C:''' And these are the high cabinets.

'''J:''' These are the high cabinets.

'''C:''' Not the low cabinets.

'''E:''' The one that's above the counter.

'''J:''' So this cabinet holds my plates, my bowls, and all of my cups for coffee and tea and all my coffee paraphernalia that my wife and I have collected over the years because we've become like we're like, we have an espresso machine. Like we have, it's my brother-in-law's fault. It's a long story anyway. So I see this, now what, guys, you know me. What's the first thing that I do? Like immediately, I have a second to react. What do I do?

'''S:''' Throw your hands up in the air. I'm screaming like a monkey.

'''J:''' So I plug my ears because I have hearing loss from being in a band for 20 frickin' years. So I'm very protective of my ears I'm like, I don't want to hear anything too loud. So I'm immediately like, ah and I plug my ears and I totally missed it. Like I didn't hear like the high volume, but the sound was so unbelievably loud that both of my kids immediately just decompressed. They start crying.

'''C:''' Aw.

'''J:''' So they, they're freaking out. So I knew what happened. I didn't even have to see it happen. Like I'm like, I watch it and then I run in because I hear my kids crying and I run in and I'm like hugging them. I'm like, it's okay. It's okay. Don't worry about it. I'm like, the only thing that matters is none of us got hurt. It's no big deal. Who cares? It can all be replaced. It was just a loud noise but it's scary. They were really shaking, you know.

'''C:''' It's just out of the blue?

'''J:''' Yeah. Out of the blue. I mean, that's it. Like, but there's weird circumstances around this. Like this is all coincidence. I'm a skeptic. I don't believe anything is going on, but, but I will tell you that.

'''C:''' But you have a ghost.

'''E:''' But those ghosts. Those ghosts.

'''J:''' But two days ago, my wife, well, my wife and I had been talking for the past month about stuff we want to get done around the house, right? So she says to me two days ago, as a follow-up to a conversation we've been having about our kitchen, because we were thinking about, like, extending the island in our kitchen and getting some, like lower cabinets and then maybe build a coffee bar so that we could decouple the coffee from everything else and just have it in its own space, right? But to me, there's, we're, this is fantasizing we're not 100% on any of this stuff. She says to me, Jay, you see that cabinet? The cabinet that fell off the wall, right? You see that cabinet? We should just get rid of that cabinet and extend the window in the kitchen so we have more light in the kitchen.

'''C:''' And your house was like, I'll make it easy for you.

'''J:''' Yeah. I haven't cleaned it up yet because I called a company that we used to do mold remediation for us. They do restoration. And the guy's like, don't touch anything. You know, he was like, you could sweep up, like, the outskirt debris, but leave it all. I'll be there tomorrow morning. I'll take the pictures for you and I'll talk to your insurance company for you. So it's all there right now. And of course, like, it's freaking me out because I'm like, the mess must be cleaned, you know?

'''C:''' Put some drop cloths over it or something.

'''E:''' No, you treat it like a crime scene. Throw some yellow tape.

'''C:''' Little cones.

'''J:''' But a few things. One, builders buy the cheapest, absolute cheapest stuff they can get their hands on. When you buy a house from a builder, if you're not, like, talking to them directly about the budget and you're telling them, I want these cabinets, they buy the cheapest, like, absolute, like, toothpick quality cabinets, you know?

'''S:''' It's literally called contractor grade.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' If you go to Home Depot, there's, like, I remember there was in the lighting section and they had, like, one of these just outdoor light fixtures and it literally said, like, contractor light and it costs, like, five bucks. And I noticed it because the same light I have on my house, which I was replacing because it's a $5 piece of crap. But yeah, if you get your house on spec, where, like, they basically just build it and you buy it as is, it's all the cheap shit.

'''C:''' That's what I did. I've been having to replace so many things in my house.

'''S:''' If you get a custom where you're, like, I want this fixture, I want that, then, of course, you pay for every single thing you upgrade.

'''J:''' Yeah. I mean, look, let's face it. Like, if you buy hardwood cabinets, like, real hardwood, they're super expensive. You know, $50,000 plus for a normal size kitchen to put nice higher end cabinetry in there. Yeah. So these cabinets were made out of press board like that. It paints fine. You know, it looks good.

'''C:''' Press board? Is that what you guys call MDF?

'''J:''' Yeah. MDF.

'''E:''' Particle board?

'''J:''' Particle board, press board.

'''C:''' I've never heard the term press board in my life. Is that an East Coast, like, colloquialism?

'''J:''' It's old school.

'''B:''' No, it's not.

'''J:''' That's from the 70s. Oh, it's old school.

'''C:''' Oh, okay.

'''J:''' That's old school.

'''B:''' I never even heard of that. Particle board is what we call it.

'''S:''' We used to call it particle board.

'''C:''' So, Jay. When I was living in an apartment when I first moved into LA with my old roommate, in the middle of the night, we heard that same sound because this piece of furniture that was mounted to the wall, it was kind of like a wall-mounted cabinet to put, like, my roommate's wine glasses and wine bottles and stuff in, crashed to the ground during an earthquake. And it's like this, and then there's glass everywhere, just like your kitchen looks. I mean, yours is worse because that was like a huge cabinet. But it scared the living shit out of me. Like being woken up or just hearing that sound out of a blue, because I don't often hear, I don't feel the shakiness of earthquakes very often. They have to be pretty bad for me to feel them.

'''S:''' But Cara, you're used to being woke, right?

'''C:''' I'm used to being woke? And getting up by broken glass. Yes, both. But yes, it's scary. It's really scary. I may have had the same reaction as your children.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''J:''' Well, it's a thunderous, percussive sound. There are bass notes in this. It's not like, la, la, la. It'll rock the house. The floor shook. I felt the floor shake.

'''C:''' Yeah. It sounds like something's crashing through your walls.

'''J:''' Yeah. Yeah. And you know what sucks about that type of flatware? It's made out of porcelain. They're coated in porcelain. The inside's probably clay. But Jesus, when that stuff cracks, it flies everywhere.

'''E:''' And flakes.

'''J:''' It flakes and goes everywhere.

'''S:''' So one time, not too long ago, I asked myself, all right, it's 20-whatever, 2020, what kind of space-age dish material science are we working with now, right? What is the cutting edge? I want unbreakable but pretty Chinaware. And the cutting edge is still Corningware. It's still this 50-year-old material science or whatever that is, 60-year-old, whatever that is.

'''C:''' I think there have been improvements in the plastic ones.

'''S:''' Well, there's the melamine was the other one. It's not great, and it's not dishwasher-safe officially. But it's fine.

'''C:''' There's a new one that's like, I can't remember, it's made out of wheat fibre or something like that, that looks like melamine, and it looks more high-end. But it still feels like plastic, so it's not what you would want for your dishes.

'''S:''' Yeah, it doesn't have the look and feel of stoneware, but you're like, we can't make unbreakable plates in 2024. I mean, come on.

'''E:''' Titanium.

'''C:''' I mean, metal plates, I guess.

'''B:''' Steve, I don't know about you, mine's made out of chrome metal, man.

'''S:''' Yeah, chrome metal will do it.

'''J:''' Well, so three things survived the crash.

'''E:''' Okay.

'''J:''' Okay.

'''S:''' You're digging it?

'''J:''' My wife and I have had, we used to have, a lot of really awesome mugs that we've collected throughout the years. Like I had, Bob, I know this is going to make you very sad, I had a mug of Bob's daughter when she was a baby, basically like, it was like an uncle mug I love you, you're my uncle, that type of thing. I bought Courtney an ElfQuest design that I made, I bought it on like, I made the mug myself I ordered it special with an ElfQuest design on it for my wife. That's gone.

'''B:''' You had somebody else make it for her.

'''J:''' And then I had all of these Star Wars mugs that you can't get anymore.

'''E:''' Oh.

'''J:''' You know, and they're all obliterated. So here's what survived. A really hokey looking Star Wars mug that has Baby Yoda and the Mandalorian, like, it's like basically like a triangular pattern of their heads. I don't like it. It's like a really stupid design.

'''C:''' You may not like it, but you're going to be drinking out of it.

'''J:''' That frigging mug came out like a champ.

'''E:''' Bad mug shot.

'''J:''' And then, and then what was the other frigging mug? I hate it. It's like this teal blue Stormtrooper mug. I'm like, oh my god.

'''E:''' I hate Mondays.

'''J:''' I had two jars of honey that are still there underneath everything. Like they're literally flattened by this. Like, so I don't know what it's doing on my hardwood floor, but I got to leave it. Yeah, it sucks.

=== Steve's Starlinked cabin, etc. (10:04) ===

'''S:''' So quickly, guys, I got Starlink.

'''C:''' Oh, cool. For your house?

'''S:''' Well, not for my...

'''B:''' You're supporting those satellites?

'''S:''' Not for my main house. My wife and I bought a summer cottage in New Hampshire from her cousin. Basically keep it in the family kind of thing her cousin was going to sell it. They didn't want to leave the family. So we agreed to buy it. But anyway, so it basically there's no internet at this place. And there's no option for internet.

'''C:''' Yeah, I have a friend in rural Scotland. He had to do Starlink for that reason. It's amazing.

'''S:''' It's amazing. I got it.

'''C:''' It's like, it's really...

'''E:''' Damn it.

'''S:''' I got it. And I had to test it out because I'm going there this weekend. I needed to know if I'm going to be able to upload the show on Saturday, you know?

'''C:''' Right.

'''E:''' Right.

'''S:''' So I tested it out. And at least here in Connecticut, I think it should be the same everywhere. It shouldn't matter where you are. That's kind of the point is that I had 50 megabytes per second download and 25 upload, which is perfectly fine. And it's just this thing I set on my deck, you know what I mean? It's very, I have to say, it's very impressive.

'''C:''' It's portable too. I know a lot of people I got into like souping up my truck and the roof tent and all that. I know a lot of people who put Starlink on their like vans or their trucks so they can just have internet wherever they are.

'''S:''' I know. It's 90 bucks a month in my location. Some locations have 120. I think it depends on how highly or low served you are or something. So it's between 90 and $120 a month. But here's the thing, no contract. You do it monthly. You just pay for it when you want to pay for it, which is perfect because we're only going to be there for three months a year or whatever. I don't have to pay for it or turn it off or anything.

'''B:''' Wow. How big is it?

'''S:''' It's not big.

'''C:''' It's like a satellite dish, right?

'''S:''' No, no. It's flat. It's flat.

'''C:''' It's flat. Okay.

'''S:''' And it's like a cookie pan. You know what I mean? Kind of size, like maybe like twice the size as a sheet of paper kind of thing or four of them.

'''C:''' I was just about to Google it, Steve. Do you guys ever do this? I was about to Google Starlink receiver and I wrote cookie link receiver.

'''S:''' Yeah. Your brain crosswires. I do that all the time. Sometimes I think faster than I type a little bit and I'm starting to type a word I'm thinking of like in the middle of a sentence.

'''C:''' So silly.

'''S:''' But yeah. And I was thinking of that very thing. It's like it would not suck to just have this in your car because-

'''C:''' Yep.

'''E:''' Right.

'''C:''' Because you will always have internet.

'''S:''' I know. I know.

'''E:''' If you can afford it.

'''S:''' Seriously, if you're going on a long road trip, I would 100% put that in my car for a long time.

'''B:''' Oh, yeah.

'''C:''' Especially if you're only having to pay for it.

'''S:''' Yeah. You pay for it for the month.

'''C:''' When you're using it.

'''S:''' Or whatever.

'''C:''' Yeah. That's nice.

'''E:''' And how long did it take you to get after you bought the subscription?

'''S:''' Five days.

'''C:''' Yeah. I think it's a lot easier now than it was when it first came out, it was a whole thing. They were only serving areas that were like had the need.

'''S:''' Yeah. It's not the whole world yet, but it's getting close. It's all of North America is covered.

'''C:''' And a lot of rural areas around the world.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Which is nice.

'''E:''' Well, that was the point, right? To service places that can't have it.

'''S:''' Yeah. And it is a valuable service. I remember when we were visiting Hawaii, like we were on one of the islands, and they're like, this half of the island has no internet. Like it just has no internet.

'''C:''' Yep.

'''S:''' But now it does. All right. Let's get started.

{{anchor|wtw}} 
== What's the Word? (13:28) ==
{{Page categories
|What's the Word? = 
}}
* {{w|Zooxanthellae}}<ref group="v">[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Zooxanthellae Wiktionary: zooxanthellae]; single-celled dinoflagellates that are able to live in symbiosis with diverse marine invertebrates</ref>

'''S:''' Cara, you're going to start us off with what's the word?

'''C:''' Yeah. So the word this week is zoas. Oh, shit. I got to listen to it again. Give me a second.

'''S:''' I was going to say, did you look up how to pronounce it?

'''C:''' I did. And I've already forgotten.

'''E:''' Pronunciation.

'''C:''' The word this week is Zooxanthellae. And this word was recommended by my friend, Sarah, who is an ocean science expert, because I forgot that I had to do a what's the word this week, or that I get to do a what's the word this week. And I was like, quick, weird science words from the ocean. Zooxanthellae is a word that you may not have heard, but you know what it is. So these are phytoplankton. They're sort of in the group that are called dinoflagellates. And they live in symbiosis with marine invertebrates. One of them is a very famous marine invertebrate that is very colorful and is able to feed itself with the help of Zooxanthellae. And when they leave, those things become, "bleached". What is that?

'''E:''' Coral.

'''C:''' Coral. Yeah. So these are the things that allow coral to thrive. They live inside of not just corals, but some sponges, jellyfish, and nudibranchs. And they're yellowish brownish in color. And they utilize the process of photosynthesis. And so because they've got those chlorophylls, the chlorophyll A and B and a couple of other pigments as well, which kind of cause them to be that yellow-brown color, they're able to basically, in a symbiotic way, provide the coral with sugars, amino acids, these different products of photosynthesis, which then it uses to make proteins and fats and carbohydrates, and even produce that calcium carbonate that they need. And in return, the coral give the Zooxanthellae this protected environment that's elevated so that they can receive sunlight, which is necessary for them to utilize that photosynthesis. And when I dug up the, because I've got to do the etymology, I found that it's pretty straightforward, right? So it comes from the ancient Greek, the sort of prefix of the word Zoo, Z-O-O, right? Like zoo means animal, which is funny, because they're plants, technically. And but they're like, they're like little animacules. But yeah, I think they're actually within the, technically, are they within the plant kingdom?

'''S:''' The phytoplankton, I think are.

'''C:''' Yeah, I think so. Yeah, because I think plankton are not, but phytoplankton are plants. And so yeah, so they're little teeny tiny, like single-celled plants.

'''B:''' Base of the food chain, right?

'''C:''' Yeah, I mean, pretty much they're, they're down there. Not quite like bacteria, but yeah, they're, they're sometimes free floating, but very often living in symbiosis with these other animals providing that service. The middle part of the word Xanthos, do you guys know what that means? Xantho?

'''S:''' Yellow?

'''C:''' Yellow. Mm hmm. Yep. It's from the Greek for yellow. And then the end part of the word ella or elli is just a common word forming unit that you see at the ends of words very often to denote that something is a microbe. Usually it's used for bacteria, but you'll see it for other things as well.

'''S:''' Yeah, I know the Xanth prefix because of xanthochromia, which is a finding, when we do a lumbar puncture, we look at the spinal fluid. Spinal fluid should be clear like water. If it looks yellow, if it's xanthochromic, that means there's a chronic blood in there. There's blood that's been there long enough to break down and then tinge at yellow.

'''C:''' Interesting.

'''S:''' Yeah. Xanthochromia.

'''C:''' Yeah, and you do hear the word, the xanthem, like a lot within like chemistry, material science, physics, yeah, xanth. Xanth means yellow. Who knew? I guess we knew.

'''S:''' Yep. All right. Thanks, Cara.

== News Items ==

{{anchor|news#}} 

{{anchor|news1}}
=== Blue Origin Update (17:35) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.blueorigin.com/news/ns-25-mission-updates
|article_title = Blue Origin Completes 25th Mission to Space with Six Crew Onboard
|publication = Blue Origin
|redirect_title = 
}}
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.space.com/blue-origin-ns-25-space-tourism-mission
|article_title = Blue Origin launches 1st Black astronaut candidate, age 90, and 5 space tourists on New Shepard rocket (video)
|publication = Space.com
}}
'''S:''' Jay, give us an update on Blue Origin.

'''J:''' So yeah, Blue Origin, they successfully resumed their human space flights after a brief hiatus. It was almost two years.

'''S:''' Yeah. 22 months.

'''J:''' Yeah. This new mission is called NS25. It launched on May 19th of this year. The mission is Blue Origin's first crewed launch since August 2022, and there were six passengers on this suborbital flight aboard the New Shepard rocket capsule system. So the time off that they took was due to an uncrewed mission failure back in September of 2022. The New Shepard rocket, unfortunately, it had a serious anomaly resulting in the destruction of its first stage booster, which is serious, very serious. The capsule, however, was able to land safely under the parachutes, which is fantastic. It goes to show you how the engineers, they over-designed the spacecraft to be able to handle situations like this, and it was able to recover. They had to ground the New Shepard, and it took over a year for Blue Origin to investigate everything that led up to it, and it ended up being a thermostructural failure in the rocket's engine nozzle. I tried to find out more detail about that. Apparently, there are panels that separate hot parts from cold parts and that type of thing, and there was an issue with that. So the rocket was cleared for flight again after an uncrewed mission in December of 2023. So it checked out back then, and it took them this long to plan everything and get it ready. So the NS-25 mission launched at 10.37 a.m. Eastern Time from the Blue Origin's West Texas site on board were the following people. So you guys ever hear of Ed Dwight? He is a 90-year-old sculptor. He's also an author, and he's a former U.S. Air Force captain. He was the United States' first black astronaut candidate in the late 60s. I think JFK, actually, back in 61, he wanted him to enter the Aerospace Research Pilot School, or he helped him get in there. So it was really cool. Like he's actually a historical figure. Next person was Mason...

'''S:''' But he never flew until this flight.

'''J:''' I don't think he did, Steve.

'''S:''' He did. They're telling you that he never flew until this flight.

'''J:''' Mason Angel, who is a venture capitalist, was on board. Sylvain Chiron, a French craft-brewing millionaire. Kenneth L. Hess, who's an entrepreneur. Daryl Schaller, a retired accountant. And Gopi Thakkaru, a pilot and aviator. Now, who are these people? These are all people who paid to be on the flight, because most of the people here have to pay, and this is the beginning of space tourism. So during this mission, the crew, they did have a brief period of weightlessness, and they were able to view the Earth from space. You know, go figure, guys, the Earth checks out. It's round. It's got curves. They reached a maximum altitude of 65.7 miles, or 105 kilometers. It was a short trip, just under 10 minutes from takeoff to landing. They touched down safely. You know, it was very non-eventful. Two of the three parachutes deployed, and it was no problem. It can land safely with two parachutes. So this mission was Blue Origin's 25th New Shepard launch and its seventh crewed flight. The other 18 missions were uncrewed research flights. Now despite the successful mission, Blue Origin has not disclosed the price for the seats. They don't do that, but there's ways to find out. So in 2021, a seat was auctioned off for how much do you think, guys, what was it auctioned off for?

'''C:''' $10,000.

'''S:''' $28 million.

'''C:''' Jeez.

'''B:''' $50.

'''C:''' I'm like, $10,000?

'''J:''' Good guess, Steve. Yeah.

'''C:''' $10 million.

'''J:''' It was $28 million. It was a fundraising event. It was for fundraising.

'''E:''' $28 million. Oh.

'''C:''' That's how much all the seats cost.

'''J:''' And that's considered to be exceptionally high. It was a Space Flight Now charity auction. But typically from 2018 on, prices have been between $200,000 and $300,000. And there's another figure I found that said that there was a ticket that also sold for $1.25 million. So the prices vary wildly. You know, $200,000, that is a lot of money for 10 minutes. But I mean, there's people that have it, that $200,000 isn't that much money, and they want to get up there and they want to see the Earth. I've been thinking a lot about this space tourism thing. So it's really starting to take off now. There is a competitor out there, right, Virgin Galactic, and they charge about a half a million, you know, $450,000 up for a ride in their VSS Unity space plane. And they have another mission coming up on June 8th of this year that people apparently have tickets for. So this is cool. You know, it's really good to have multiple companies that are building systems that are space worthy for emergencies or for whatever it's just good to have the competition out there, it keeps prices low, relatively low, you have to be super rich to be able to do any of this stuff. But still, it's generating money for these companies that they fold back into these programs. It's all really cool. And I just keep in mind, I want to make sure you understand, these are suborbital flights, there's no orbits happening, just go up and they come down.

'''S:''' Yeah, that's why it's called the New Shepard Shepard was the first American into space and it was a suborbital flight. Their new system that they're working on, they've been working on for years, is the New Glenn, which will be orbital. Yeah, so that will go into orbit. That's a two-stage rocket, this is one stage. And it's a lot bigger, obviously. Getting into orbit is actually a lot harder than doing a suborbital flight. And that one is they're talking about it mainly as just getting satellites and payload into space, but it seems like eventually they're going to want that system to also be able to be crewed. And that will be the rocket that will service their planned space station, which is the orbital reef that they're planning. So they have big plans for a whole infrastructure of space tourism, but also, piggybacking on getting commercial satellite launches and other things into space as well. So they're pretty much at this point the main competitor to SpaceX in terms of private company getting into space.

'''J:''' Yeah, and if you haven't seen pictures of the orbital reef they have renderings of it. It's really cool. Like, it's really modern looking and it's going to be like kind of like a space hotel, that's going to be happening. Apparently they're going to be doing hydroponics there and all sorts of stuff. Who knows? We'll see what happens when it happens.[[File:985 orbital reef.jpg|right|400px|thumb|link=https://www.blueorigin.com/news/orbital-reef-commercial-space-station|"Orbital Reef, a commercially developed, owned, and operated space station to be built in low Earth orbit. The station will open the next chapter of human space exploration and development by facilitating the growth of a vibrant ecosystem and business model for the future." (Image credit: Blue Origin) ''(Click/tap image for article.)'']]

'''S:''' But the best thing about the New Glenn is that it does not look like a space penis.

'''C:''' That's a very good thing. The New Shepard, right? That's the one you had been talking about, Jay. I may have missed it, but did you say how long the flight is?

'''J:''' It was just under 10 minutes.

'''S:''' Although it says 11 minutes is like as the average flight.

'''C:''' 11 minutes.

'''S:''' That's a lot of money per minute.

'''C:''' $300,000 for 11 minutes.

'''J:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Does it have really big windows?

'''S:''' Yes.

'''J:''' It does.

'''C:''' Okay. That's good.

'''S:''' Yeah. If you look at it, that's like a selling point. They say like every passenger gets their own window seat. And it's the most windows to space. Like these are their selling points. And if you look at the inside of the rocket, it looks pretty good.[[File: 985 new shepard interior.jpg |right|400px|thumb|link=https://www.space.com/36267-blue-origin-space-capsule-interior-sneak-peek.html|"A visualization of the interior of Blue Origin's New Shepard vehicle, which the company plans to use to ferry tourists on short trips to space." (Image credit: Blue Origin) ''(Click/tap image for article.)'']]

'''J:''' Yeah. It looks very modern. It's probably a pretty good ride. I don't know. I mean, I don't know if I would-

'''E:''' I wouldn't do it.

'''J:''' I wouldn't do it. Yeah.

'''S:''' I would.

'''C:''' You're both like, nah.

'''E:''' I'm not that. I'm not that.

'''S:''' I would. If they offered me a free seat, I'd go tomorrow. Absolutely.

'''C:''' I'd do suborbital.

'''S:''' Suborbital, yeah.

'''C:''' I don't know if I would do orbital.

'''J:''' Yeah. I mean, I've extensively read about the space station and I don't want to go on the space station.

'''C:''' No. It probably smells so bad.

'''J:''' It does. It smells horrifically bad.

'''B:''' You get used to it.

'''S:''' Yeah. Eventually you get used to it.

'''C:''' Yeah. But you have to get used to it to get used to it.

'''S:''' I think I would probably get my space fixed with a good suborbital flight. That'll be fine.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' Good enough.

'''S:''' Right.

'''C:''' Less deadly.

=== Human Predator (25:31) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://phys.org/news/2024-05-australian-humans-planet-predator.html
|article_title = Australian study proves 'humans are planet's most frightening predator'
|publication = University of Western Ontario
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' All right. Cara, I understand that humans are the most dangerous game.

'''C:''' Yeah. So something that we kind of already knew. But there is a new study that was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences, called Fear of the Human "Super Predator" in Native Marsupials and Introduced Deer in Australia. And this was published by a group out of Tasmania and Canada. And this is piggybacking on previous research, which I didn't really know about, from all over the globe that show, using interesting kind of experimental paradigms, that animal species largely are more afraid of people than even natural predators. They tend to be more vigilant and they tend to run from indications of people at higher rates, usually about twice the rate as natural predators. And I mean things like in Africa, giraffes will run from the sound of people more than the sound of lions.

'''S:''' Yeah. They're not dummies.

'''C:''' Yeah. So we know, right, without kind of really having to get too into it, that human beings are the largest, sadly, apex predator on the planet, that we kill more animals than other animals kill animals. But the interesting thing here is that animals know that too. And I think what was extra interesting about this study and the reason that they decided to look in Australia is because Australian animals are often thought of as being somewhat naive to predation because they don't really have apex predators. So they've got this really interesting fauna in Australia for a variety of reasons. But they're usually pretty comfortable in their habitats and they show what the researchers call atypical anti-predator responses. So they were like, okay, maybe Australian animals won't have this human fear response because they tend not to have a predator fear response because they tend not to have predators. So they looked at four different native marsupials, the eastern gray kangaroo, Bennett's wallaby, the Tasmanian pademelon, and the common brushtail possum. And they also looked at fallow deer, which are an introduced species. And basically it was kind of a cool paradigm. They set up like a camera trap and when the animal came within a certain distance, they would play audio. Now the human audio is not human beings yelling or being aggressive. They just played like podcast. I watched a YouTube video.

'''S:''' Did they play our podcast?

'''C:''' They didn't. In the YouTube video, they didn't. And so I'd have to dig deep into the supplemental material to know. But it is interesting because it's just like neutral talking sounds. They also played a Tasmanian devil sounding like the freaking devil. Like it sounds horrifying. It's like, rawr! You know, you're like, no, I do not like that. They also played wolves and they played dogs barking. And then they used a control sound, which was sheep bleeding, not bleeding, bleating. And so there's some interesting takeaways that they found. First and foremost, the controls were true controls. The animals tended not to really react. The second thing that they found was that just like in previous studies across the globe, these native marsupials fled significantly more often upon hearing humans compared to the next most frightening predator, which was dogs barking. On average, 2.4 times more likely to flee from humans than dogs. And there were some differences between the different organisms. Wallabies fleed from predators the most, 38% of the time they fled. And they fled 2.8 times more often from people than dogs. And when I say people and dogs, I mean from the sounds of people and dogs. And 26 times more often than controls. Kangaroos fled from predators 30% of the time, fleeing humans 2.1 times more often than dogs and 7.2 times more often than controls. Possums fled 18% of the time, 11 times more often than controls, and let's see, 1.6 times more often than dogs. And then Pademelons didn't flee very often, 6% of the time they fled. But even though they only fled 6% of the time, it was still 2.6 times more often than dogs and 7.1 times more often than controls. They think that part of the reason that Possums and Pademelons didn't flee is because they're pretty small and they usually would hide as opposed to fleeing. That tends to be their anti-predation response, if they have one. So even though these animals are often thought to be kind of naive to predation and tend not to have an anti-predation response, they still had a robust anti-predation response to the sound of the human voice. Interestingly, the Fallow Deer, which they thought would have a more robust response, actually had a less robust response. They still did flee, but they fled from humans about as often as from dogs. And they thought that perhaps this is because they were an introduced species and the long history of deer being moved around the planet for hunting purposes, which you would think would mean that they are more afraid of humans. They just may be kind of a little bit more passively domesticated because of so much capture and release and capture and release.

'''S:''' They're acclimated. It's nothing else.

'''C:''' Yeah. Yeah. They are a bit more acclimated, although they shouldn't because they're the whole point very often of these, of moving these animals around was to have basically hunting available.

'''S:''' But that raises an interesting question though, Cara, is the reason why these animals are more afraid of humans because we're an unknown or because they've evolved to know that we kill animals and they need to stay away from us?

'''C:''' I guess that is an interesting question. And I'm not sure. So are there wolves in Australia?

'''S:''' There's dingoes.

'''C:''' Yeah, but there's no wolves. So that would be an unknown as well. And they did not flee as high. Wait. Yeah. They've never had native wolves. They don't have a native wolf unless you count the dingo. But yeah, the dingoes has a different vocalization. So that would have been a novel sound to them and they did not flee it more often than humans.

'''E:''' Do they account for scent?

'''C:''' Well, there is no scent because it was just audio recordings.

'''E:''' Only recordings.

'''C:''' Yeah. All of them. So that was no scent in any of them.

'''E:''' No scent whatsoever. Okay.

'''C:''' So it was just the sounds of Tasmanian devils going rararar, which they would have been exposed to before, dogs barking, which they would have been exposed to before, sheep bleating, which they also have been exposed to but do not pose a threat, and then wolves, which they wouldn't have been exposed to. So interesting. There's kind of like a double control there.

'''S:''' Yeah. Interesting. Yeah.

'''C:''' Yeah. So it does seem to be the case that these animals across the globe have learned that human beings are dangerous and that they need to flee. And even in the situations where they didn't flee, because remember, those numbers were low in some of them, like only 40% of the time that they flee. They observed vigilance in excess when the human voices were played compared to the other animals.

'''E:''' Interesting.

'''C:''' So even if they didn't flee, they were like freezing and listening really intently.

'''E:''' I'd like to see a chart of all the predators with the frequencies at which they emanate these noises and if there's any sort of correlation there with frequency.

'''C:''' Who knows? But I mean, it is interesting. You know, at first I was like, really? But then when I looked at kind of the wealth of literature that they were piggybacking off of, the fact that African prey animals are more afraid of the sounds of people's voices than lions is very telling.

'''S:''' Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' And yet, in some contexts, animals become less afraid of humans when they...

'''C:''' Like our coyotes here in Los Angeles.

'''S:''' Yeah. It's funny. If humans are a source of food...

'''E:''' Source of food. Yeah.

'''S:''' And there's that case of, I think, is it jackals in Egypt or something, where they are... Like the butchers throw them the scraps and they're like, they're halfway to being domesticated almost.

'''C:''' Yeah. And you see that...

'''E:''' Wow. Just from scraps.

'''C:''' I see that. When I visited the Galapagos, there's like this famous... I think it's a seal. It might be a sea lion. Ooh. This sounds bad because I think they don't have one of them. I think it's a seal that like lives by this fishing post where they're always gutting the fish. And this guy, I mean, he's got like stuff growing on his body because he never has to get into the water. He's just fed very well and just hangs out and all these pelicans hang out there too. And they're not afraid of people at all.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' So it's true. While some animals do, I think, kind of self-domesticate based on like food sources and shelter and things like that, these kind of, "wilder animals". And they looked at not just at prey animals. They were looking at across the globe. These studies look at both ungulates usually and carnivores, and they all tend to be more afraid of people.

'''S:''' All right. Thank you, Cara.

'''C:''' Yep.

=== Escaped GMOs (35:27) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295489
|article_title = Persistence of genetically engineered canola populations in the U.S. and the adventitious presence of transgenes in the environment
|publication = PLOS ONE
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' This is one of those weeks where I had a few things where I could have talked about this week, but I chose one about GMOs. Haven't spoken about GMOs for a while. This is an interesting study. They were looking at feral canola.

'''C:''' Oh, like the oil.

'''E:''' Canola oil?

'''S:''' Yes. Well, not the oil, but the plant that the oil comes from.

'''C:''' The thing that makes the oil.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' That's where you may have heard it, though. In the class.

'''C:''' I was thinking of an animal at first. Feral. Canola.

'''S:''' Feral, because it refers to canola plants that are, this is a cultivated crop, right? They were looking at it at North Dakota to see how much canola has spread outside of the field into the wild. Right? So they're looking at canola plants growing in the wild, and of course, they come from planted fields. And they specifically wanted to know several things about the feral canola and how many of them showed the phenotype or the genotype of GMO variety, right? How many of the feral canola were the transgenic canola. And it's an interesting question because there's been more speculation than really evidence about this. The anti-GMO or just the people who are making the point that because of the precautionary principle we're introducing transgenic crops into the environment and we need to know how likely are they to get out of the farmland and into the wild and what does that mean and what would the implications be? So one possibility is that they could, the GMO canola could thrive in the wild. Another possibility is that they could not thrive, right? That they, outside of a protected, nurtured farming environment, they would not compete in the wild and they would die. So which do you guys think happened? Is the feral canola thriving or not so much?

'''C:''' Probably... oh, I don't know.

'''E:''' Do you think not? I thought, yes.

'''J:''' I think they're thriving.

'''C:''' Because it would be potentially more robust if it would, wait, can we know what the transgene-

'''S:''' Most of them are for herbicide resistance.

'''C:''' For herbicide resistance.

'''E:''' Oh, herbicide resistance. Well.

'''C:''' Yeah, then maybe it's not thriving. Well, it would be the same as it's wild, oh, I don't know.

'''S:''' It's interesting, right? It's not an obvious answer to it. So they found a number of things. One thing is that they found that there was, in fact, quite a bit of feral canola, although the incidence has been decreasing. So comparing the data to 2010, the amount, the incidence of feral canola was less in 2021 than 2010. So yes, it's out there. It is surviving long-term, right? They don't just die that year. They actually can be a self-sustaining feral canola population in the wild, but it is decreasing over the last decade. But they looked at that canola to see how much of it is GE versus not GE, and what they found was that the non-GE canola was over-represented in the feral population compared to the farm population, right? Does that make sense? So there was a smaller percentage of the canola in the feral population was transgenic versus the population of canola that's being cultivated on farms. So it seems to be a competitive advantage to being the non-GMO version of the canola.

'''C:''' And it also shows that this issue of runaway seeds is not a GM issue, it's just a seed issue.

'''S:''' Yeah, there's no super advantage to the GMO plants.

'''C:''' Right.

'''S:''' They also found one other thing that was very interesting, is that even the plants that had transgenic genes in them had fewer transgenic genes than the GMO version, which means that they're losing their transgenic traits over time.

'''B:''' That's encouraging.

'''C:''' Because they're breeding with other plants?

'''S:''' I guess, but the thing is, one of the concerns that was raised by GMO skeptics, if you will, was that the transgenic genes would thrive and spread. They would proliferate, they would have a selective advantage, and that they might even then cross-pollinate and get into other plants. But they're finding that, if anything, the non-GMO plants are doing better, and the transgenic genes are being selected against over time.

'''C:''' Which statistically makes sense, because we're talking like, I don't know, if there's like 35,000 genes in an organism, and like two of them have been changed, like, of course the other 28,900 it's like, it doesn't make sense to think that just because a gene has been altered, it's going to have higher fitness, when it wasn't altered to have higher fitness.

'''S:''' Right.

'''E:''' Superpower.

'''S:''' Exactly. So that's the big question, and the super weed kind of fear-mongering that, oh, these transgenes are going to get into the weeds, and then, you know. But you're correct, it's all about the fitness, it's about the selective pressure. So this suggests, if anything, there are selective pressures against the transgenes. Now why would that be? This study didn't explore the why, this was just an observational study describing what is going on out there. But just invoking some generic evolutionary principles, when we see genes decreasing over time, one possibility is just, there's no selective pressure at all, it's just genetic drift.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' If there's no pressure maintaining them over time, they'll, as you say, Cara, they'll just-

'''C:''' Yeah, it's just a numbers game.

'''S:''' They'll just go away. But what that means is, at the very least, there isn't selective pressures to retain them. But it's also possible there are selective pressures against these genes, and the researchers do think that may be the case, given how rapidly that they're being lost. That was really kind of a surprising finding. So what causes selective pressure against genes? Well, if they're making proteins that are not needed, that's wasting energy.

'''C:''' Right. Interesting.

'''S:''' And so any waste gets selected against pretty strenuously. It's why cave salamanders lose their eyes, right? I mean, they might be at disadvantage because they can get infected and stuff, but even just spending the energy to make an organ you don't need is enough of a selective pressure against something. So what this suggests is that, yeah, there's a lot of canola getting out there from farms, and some of them have transgenes, but it doesn't seem to be an advantage, and there seems to be, if anything, selective pressure against transgenes and against the GMO cultivars of these plants. And so while the authors, who I think were trying to show that their conclusions sort of emphasize that, well, we need to do more research because these things are getting out there in the wild, but actually their results are pretty reassuring.

'''C:''' Yeah. And it's another tick in the column of, like, a lot of times when people are fear mongering, or maybe not even fear mongering, because I think a lot of people have legitimate fears. They're not the ones mongering those fears. But when I talk to friends here in Los Angeles, and they talk to me about their gut reaction of why they're anti-GM, it's very clear that most of their issues have nothing to do with genetic modification, and they have everything to do with corporate farming practices. And this is just another tick in that column.

'''S:''' Right, exactly. This is a generic problem of farming, and maybe it's not that much of a problem, but it's not a special problem, especially for GMOs.

'''C:''' Right.

'''S:''' Yeah, exactly. I agree. And I think especially within the skeptical community, because whenever I talk about GMOs, even to a skeptical audience, there's always some people who are like, I don't know about the whole GMO thing. And they always cite concerns about corporate power, about-

'''C:''' Yeah, seed patenting.

'''S:''' Patenting seeds, about farmers' rights and farmers being able to replant their own seeds. And all of those issues are tangential to the GMO thing. It's like, all right, let's dial back history to the late 1990s before there were any GMOs. Right, so there were zero GMOs on the market. And what percentage of seeds that American farmers were growing were patented? It's like 95%, 98%. What percentage of them could be replanted? None of them? Because none of that 95%, because they're hybrids, and the hybrid seeds, they're hybrids. First of all, they're patented, they're proprietary, and you can't replant them just scientifically, because not just legally, you can't replant them because the hybrid traits do not breed to the next generation. You get a mix of crap. You won't get the hybrid cultivar that you're looking for.

'''J:''' It's a hybrid.

'''C:''' And the thing is, they choose them.

'''S:''' So GMOs changed nothing. It changed nothing.

'''C:''' It changed nothing. And these people who are corporate farmers, or even small farmers, this is the part that makes me bananas, is when people are like, these farmers are being forced to use these. And it's like, no, they're choosing to plant-

'''S:''' Yeah, it's like you've never actually spoken to a farmer, have you?

'''C:''' Yeah, they're choosing to plant them because their yields are way better with them, and they'd rather pay for new seeds each season and get those yields.

'''S:''' Otherwise, imagine what they have to do. They have to set aside some of their seeds, store them over the winter, keep them dry, and then plant them the next year. It's very labor-intensive, it's costly, it's just so much easier to buy fresh seeds the next year.

'''C:''' It is. And the seeds that they're buying, these seeds that are patented, are optimized, whether they were optimized through transgenic technology, or whether they were optimized through traditional breeding technologies, they have-

'''S:''' Or hybridization, or mutation farming, don't forget that.

'''C:''' They have features that give the farmers better yields. They're not going to buy a product that doesn't give them the return they want.

'''S:''' Cara, have you ever watched any of Clarkson's Farm?

'''C:''' No.

'''E:''' I saw Green Ape.

'''S:''' It's a reality show where, I forget the guy's name, but it's Clarkson.

'''C:''' Oh, is it the guy from Top Gun? Not Top Gun. Top Gear.

'''S:''' Top Gear, yeah.

'''E:''' Top Gear, yes.

'''C:''' Sorry.

'''S:''' He buys a farm, and then he farms it.

'''C:''' And then he- Yeah, I have friends who have told me I need to watch it because it's always effing up left and right.

'''S:''' It's funny, yeah. But it does give you an appreciation. And he says, I'm a fake farmer, I'm not a real farmer here, but he does use the platform to highlight a lot of the challenges for the farming community, and I think they appreciate that.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Storing seeds is a nightmare. It's a nightmare because you have predators, vermin will come and eat it, and any moisture, and forget about it, they're ruined. If they start to sprout, they're gone. So the idea that farmers want to save their seeds over the next season is like-

'''B:''' Wow, it's hilarious.

'''S:''' It's incredibly naive. Yeah.

'''C:''' So all of these arguments, you're so right, Steve. The only thing I can say a lot of times is like, have you ever talked to a farmer?

'''S:''' Yeah, have you ever talked to a farmer? Exactly. But also, Cara, it's propaganda. They say that. They didn't invent those issues. They were told that these are the issues. And it was very effective propaganda, but it's just one of those issues. And the thing is, GMOs is one of the issues where you can correct people by giving them information. If you correct that false information, it is an information deficit problem. And you give them the correct information, and they change their mind. So it is-

'''B:''' Or they ignore it and walk away.

'''S:''' Maybe. But just statistically speaking, is what I'm saying, Bob, you actually can move the needle just by educating people about farming, and DNA, and genetics, you know what I mean? Give them- because it is very, very fear-based, and lack of information-based, you know?

'''C:''' And what's hilarious is that the farmers are educated on this stuff.

'''S:''' Yeah, they're very educated.

'''C:''' They're the ones-

'''S:''' They're the experts.

'''C:''' Making free decisions on this.

'''S:''' This is their livelihood.

'''B:''' This is their job.

'''C:''' This is their livelihood. Lots of them went to school for this.

'''S:''' With very narrow margins, they cannot survive even the slightest inefficiency in what they're doing. They have to be experts. And you're right. Many of them they're not just like pragmatic experts. Many of them are degreed experts in agriculture. That's good. Anyway-

'''C:''' Which is where they do GM research. It's like, ah!

=== Solar Storm (48:38) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-strongest-solar-storm-in-20-years-did-little-damage-but-worse-space/
|article_title = The Strongest Solar Storm in 20 Years Did Little Damage, but Worse Space Weather Is Coming
|publication = sa
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' All right, Bob, tell us about this recent solar storm.

'''B:''' So guys, we all survived the great solar event of 2024, right? And I'm not talking about-

'''E:''' I did.

'''B:''' I'm not talking about the eclipse. I'm talking about the strongest geomagnetic storm in a generation that could have been, and by all rights, maybe should have been far worse. What happened, and why do most of us just associate it with pretty auroras and not major power outages or worse? Now, we know that the sun is nearing its maximum period of activity in its solar cycle and space weather can cause problems here on Earth. But May 10th, 2024 was still one for the record books in a lot of ways. It started on May 3rd when NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory saw 82, "notable solar flares". They were notable.

'''E:''' Wow.

'''B:''' Coming from two large clusters of sunspots that were incredibly active. They were basically spewing stuff like almost constantly, which is really pretty dramatic. By May 7th, no less than seven coronal mass ejections were launched directly towards Earth. Seven. Seven. Now, little definitions here. Flares, we know what flares are, right? Solar eruptions of electromagnetic radiation from gamma rays to radio and particles, and they could be really intense explosions and can spawn CMEs, coronal mass ejections, billions of tons of plasma ejected not by the sun's surface, the photosphere, but the sun's corona or outer atmosphere. That's where this plasma is coming from. I did not know that. And all that plasma is wrapped in magnetic fields traveling up to speeds of millions, five, let's say, five million miles an hour, I think 11 million kilometers per hour. It's really fast. These CMEs can get to the Earth in like 15 to 18 days. And it's this weaponized magnetic field that's what's wreaking havoc with Earth's magnetosphere causing what we call the geomagnetic storm. And this is what hit the Earth on May 10th, and we all have either directly seen the beautiful auroras, or we've seen pictures somebody else took, or we remember our raised fists in the air cursing the goddamn clouds. And no, I'm not even going to go there. All right. The auroras were beautiful, seen far beyond their normal range, typically near the poles. They were seen in Mexico, Southern Europe, South Africa, Florida, but not goddamn Watertown, Connecticut apparently. And I'm going to stop right now with that. So those pretty lights, though, those pretty lights hide a nasty potential, though. They remind me of those those deep sea anglerfish, those creepy dudes?

'''J:''' Oh, yeah. They're so weird.

'''B:''' They dangle.

'''E:''' Yeah, with the big dangled light.

'''B:''' They dangle. It's a bioluminescent light in front of their face. And the light lures you in, and then, damn, the teeth get you. This is what this reminds me of. For the first time in 20 years, we had a G5 level geomagnetic storm, as categorized by NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They have levels from a minor G1, and then all the way G2, G3, all the way to a G5 listed as extreme, potentially resulting in blackouts, transformer damage, and even some grid collapse. That is all possible with a G5. We could have seen all of that. Geomagnetic storms are only just one part of space weather. So you may hear, you may have heard of the G1, G5 stuff before. But there's also solar radiation storms, which have a scale of S1 to S5. Don't hear about those too much. These are high velocity charged particles. And so for an S5 storm, it could seriously hurt astronauts and passengers on a plane, satellites, it could completely disable satellites. But they don't really interact with our magnetosphere like the geomagnetic storms do. So you didn't really see too much talk about solar radiation storms. But this one was more about the geomagnetic storms. How did we do in this big nasty G5 storm? Now keep in mind, this G5 happened last in October 2003. So if you remember, you may have seen this headline in the newspaper in 2003. The headline said, half of Earth's satellites lost. That was an actual headline. And it was bad, not necessarily dramatically worse or anything than what we experienced. But there were a lot of negative things like, for example, like that headline, there were literally half our satellites in low Earth orbit. We didn't know where they were. We couldn't get a bead on exactly where they were. So it took days to actually retarget all of them and know exactly where they were, which is important because you want to make sure satellites aren't going to hit each other or anything. It's good to know where they are. So that was just one of the things. But there were also transformer problems. There were outages. It was not good. The G5 storm in 2003 was not good. And by all accounts, it really seemed to be a lot better. And you know, but it's hard to compare one G5 to another. They're very complicated. Like I said, you had, we had seven CMEs approaching the Earth from the sun and they can come together and root. They could coalesce. They can amplify each other. They can hit one after the other. So there's lots of, there's like a really complex interaction, so it's hard to compare them. But as far as we can tell, we did very, very well this time around. Sean Dahl is a space weather forecaster at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado. He said simply, this is a success story. And it really was. And that's because we've been, we've been working on hardening power grids and coming up with ways to detect such storms and implement mitigation strategies. They really has been a concerted effort, especially after the 2003 G5. And apparently in the last, even the last 10 years, we've made some big strides. And it just really struck me. Isn't it nice when humanity does that when faced with a big potential threat, right? They come together and they actually deal with the problem and mitigate the problem and try to make it better. And I just don't get used to it though, because that is not the norm, people. Okay. So we fared well. You know, a butt was coming. I've been kind of implying it. On the other hand, it's hard to say precisely how close we came to a catastrophic event earlier this month. We can't be sure how bad it could have been or, or even things that happened that were not being told. And corporations that control power grids and satellite operators, they could face many disadvantages from full disclosure. They're really reticent. Daniel Welling is a climate and space scientist at the University of Michigan said they don't want to look like they're vulnerable. Satellite operators have to ensure their spacecraft and that can be very expensive. So they do not want to make their premiums go up because they, they admitted, Oh yeah, we had a lot of problems with our satellites because of the geomagnetic storm. They're going to probably end up paying more. So that's why they're kind of quiet, kind of tight lipped about it. But that said, we do know that a bunch of things that were done to deal with a geo storm. Some planes were rerouted to avoid polar regions where solar radiation could have spiked in ways that were harmful to the crew. NASA actually moved the space station crew to the most shielded part of the ISS. What do you think that was? The cruise quarters. That is the most shielded area of the space station. So they were in there. They really weren't that worried, but they out of, as they put out of an abundance of caution, they moved them all into the cruise quarters just in case. Let's see. New Zealand had circuits all over its national electric grid switched off preemptively. And for sure, power grids all over the world almost certainly took dramatic precautions, such as one thing I found out was opening capacitor banks. But we really don't know for sure because they're not really saying really what they did to prepare for the storm. We do know for sure though, some things that happened that are hard to prepare for. For example, GPS got messed up for a lot of people, especially GPS guided farming equipment. They were doing weird things, going in circles. It's really cool. Cause when we had our haunted corn maze, we hired a guy to cut our corn into the paths that we wanted. And he was very good at it and he was using GPS guided equipment to cut the corn. We gave him the plan, we gave him the drawing and he cut it precisely. It was really cool. All GPS guided, but don't do it during a G5 storm, probably not going to go out well. Atmospheric swelling from the storm caused the Hubble Space Telescope orbit to decay faster. Now that happens because you're pumping terawatts of energy into the upper atmosphere and it's going to, it's going to swell and then orbits will decay faster. So that's not good. The Hubble dropped 80 meters per day instead of the 40 that it typically does. So it doubled its drop speed, which is concerning. If we had bad geostorms in the next couple of years, if it happened a few more times, or I don't know how many times more, but it could actually cause the Hubble to burn up in the atmosphere years before it's supposed to in the mid 2030s. So that would not be good for the Hubble. And then the dreaded SpaceX Starlink satellites, I'm talking to you, Steve, 6,000 of them up there. Now they weren't reported to have bad problems this time around, but I mean, who knows, they could have, but we do know that in back in 2022, 38 of their newly launched satellites burned up in the atmosphere because of this atmospheric swelling. It caused the extra drag, caused them to deorbit, bam, gone, millions of dollars, 38 satellites toasted because of that. So yeah, and that's not good. So I really hope that we don't rest on our laurels on this. It's because it's easy to be like, hey, we got this. We took a G5 on the nose and we're fine. No major problems, but that would be very, very short sighted. We could still see some for the next year or two, we can still see some large coronal mass ejections headed to the earth. We could see more G5 storms. And don't forget, like I said, one G5 doesn't necessarily, they're not all the same. They're definitely not all the same. Don't forget, there's also the inevitability of a far stronger G5 storm on the scale of the infamous 1859 Carrington event that we are almost certainly not prepared for. I can almost guarantee we are not ready for that. That was many times more dangerous than what we experienced a few weeks ago. And that would still be a G5. They don't go to G6, friends, so that would still be a G5. But that would be, that's the one, that's the thing that scares me the most, more than almost anything else. Because Steve, we did a talk on this a bunch of years ago saying that a Carrington level event is, first off, it's inevitable. It's not a matter of if, it's when it will happen again. We will get hit with some mega coronal mass ejections that could take down grids for extended periods of time, cause damage. I mean, people compare it to like being thrown back into the 1700s. I mean, getting if we don't take care and prepare for it, it could be a horrible, horrible event that just changes civilization forever. Imagine having no electricity, no vehicles, nothing, no modern conveniences. All of a sudden, bam, that's it. And you're in the 1800s or whatever. It's hard to say exactly how bad it would get with a Carrington level event, but it would be, I think, dramatic, it would be dramatic. And it could be even worse in Carrington, who knows. So we need to keep our eye on the ball on this one. And it it could happen in the next, it could happen next year, it could happen in 10 years, could happen. They say this is going to happen and it's, there's a real, Steve, what was the odds? It was like a 20% chance it's going to happen in the next 20 years. It was just like, oh my God, that's actually horrible odds.

'''S:''' Yeah. Yeah. Of a, of a major event.

'''B:''' Of a Carrington level event.

'''S:''' But again, you're right. There's nothing special about Carrington level. We could get something that's two or three times as bad as Carrington.

'''B:''' And then, yeah.

'''S:''' Those are, those are physically possible as well. And yeah, the last time we did a really deep dive on this, I think the answer basically was we just don't know. It may not be as bad as we think, but it may be worse than we think. We we don't, our infrastructure really isn't tested against something like a Carrington level or greater.

'''B:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' And we may think that it could be resilient, but it certainly hasn't been reinforced as much as it can be. And we don't have things like backup giant transformers that we should have warehouse somewhere. You know?

'''B:''' Yes. That seems critically important, I think. I know that, I know they're not cheap, but.

'''S:''' So we're not maximally ready, but we don't, we don't know how bad it would be.

'''B:''' I'm encouraged that they, they did all this work in the past 10 to 15 years. That's great. But I think now they're like, eh, that's it. We survived the G5. We're good. I hope they're not thinking that way. You know, when the Carrington event happened in the 1850s, we did not have our electrical infrastructure that we have now, but it still set telegraph wires on fire. I mean the telegraphs in other areas were running, even though they weren't like plugged in because of the induced current from the geomagnetic storm. I mean, crazy kind of crazy stuff happened. Worldwide communications were not significant at all, but they were caught. They were impacted for sure during the Carrington event. So if it happened these days, I mean, it could be devastating is really one word that works in that sentence. It could be devastating and we just need to get even more prepared for what I would call a G6, a G5 plus event that is, that is inevitable.

'''S:''' All right. Thanks, Bob.

=== Crypto Astrology (1:03:17) ===
{{shownotes
|weblink = https://www.wired.com/story/crypto-astrologers-predictions/
|article_title = Crypto Astrologers See Price Moves in the Stars
|publication = Wired
|redirect_title = 
}}
'''S:''' All right, Evan, tell us about crypto astrology. What is that?

'''E:''' Uh-huh. Crypto astrology. Well, first I'm going to start with the disclaimer. This news item is not investment advice. If you have any questions concerning investments, please consult with a licensed financial advisor or don't. You might be better off. Well, let me explain. I'll get to that. I'll get to that in a second. But let me start with a non-rhetorical question, if I may, what [do] Bitcoin and astrology have in common? Any answers?

'''C:''' I have no idea.

'''E:''' No? I would, that's one of the two correct answers. Not a damn thing is one of them. The other correct answer is the letters T and O. That's about as far as I could get as far as finding any correlation between Bitcoin and astrology. Well, astrology is a thing. I can't remember the last time we maybe spoke about it on this show, but you may also know it as business astrology, economic astrology, or astro-economics. I like that. I think I like that one the most. And yeah, of course, it's a thing because for as long as there's been people and economics magic-based predictions have largely focused on, well, money, health, money, relationships, those kinds of things. You know, consult with your tarot card reader about your finances. Consult with your psychic. Consult with your guru. Consult with your astrologer. Forever. Yep. And when you can claim an edge in a money growth industry, regardless of how unscientific it might be, you can rest assured there is a market that wants a piece of that perceived advantage. There's a human weakness there for you. There's room for exploitation. Enter the financial astrologer who will try to convince you that the planets and the stars can have an influence on your investments. But you know, the more wealth a person has to invest does not mean they're immune into believing in pure nonsense. Correlation is not causation, which is one of the key takeaway lessons from this week's news item. This came out just yesterday at Wired.com. he article is written by Brooke Kneasley. And here's the headline. Crypto astrologers see price moves in the stars. They predict the ups and downs of Bitcoin based on planetary movements, and their super secretive clientele listens. You know, like those old commercials when EF Hutton talks people listen. I think they're playing on that. So they start with talking about this one particular advisor. His name is Marsilio. And to him, the art of interpreting planetary movements is similar to making predictions based on the movement of stock and asset performance over a specific period. Here are some quotes from this astrologer. He says, "Astrology is the measure of time. I've been at this for a long time, and I have a particular technical analysis system that I've been developing for many years. Some of the traditional astrological theories work quite well, but some of them don't, or markets have their own expressions of root energies." Yeah. So traditional astrologers associate waxing moons and growth and waning moons with winding down energy. But in a thread, he analysed the average percentage return of Bitcoin over a 15-minute time frame in all markets from April 2020 to the present, 2024, and discovered the waning phase of the moon cycle correlated with a 350% better average performance than during the waxing phase. So sort of the inverse, I guess, of what, I don't know, astrology would otherwise tell you when it comes to making these kinds of financial decisions based on astrology.

'''S:''' But we should say, Evan, that technical analysis itself is bullshit. In fact—

'''E:''' Well, yes, and I'm actually getting to that. We have some—

'''S:''' Yeah, we've talked about this in the past with experts who have made the point that technical analysis is astrology, basically.

'''E:''' Yes, yes.

'''S:''' It's essentially the same kind of thing.

'''E:''' It is. It absolutely is. And there's plenty of studies that have gone into that and have shown that statistically that is in fact the case. And therefore, sort of the astrologers may in a way have an advantage because they can sort of cloak their brand of forecasting within the folds in which people do not understand the statistics involved in these kinds of forecasts, right? They move around in otherwise, I guess, legitimate circles, ones that don't rely on outright pseudosciences to make their forecasts. And I guess I'll jump right over to that since you brought it up, Steve. But let's see. So one study looked at the track record of stock market experts who predicted the market's direction. Overall, their accuracy rate was 47%, which is less than you would expect from random chance. We've heard of the fellow Jim Cramer. I don't know if you guys know the personality from CNBC. He's very popular.

'''C:''' Oh, yeah. He is not good at calling scams.

'''E:''' Right. Yeah, no. I disagree with him on a lot of things.

'''C:''' He's like O for O. Yeah. It's pretty bad.

'''E:''' But you know what his accuracy is? 46.8%.

'''C:''' Yeah.

'''E:''' There you go. In some cases—

'''C:''' And he's an "expert"?

'''E:''' Yeah. Other experts, like 35%. They all score 48% or under. So that's it. I mean, there is no advantage. Overall, 48% of forecasts were correct. And when you're right 48% of the time, you're wrong 52% of the time. That's a quote back from The Simpsons. But in any case, astrology has a certain appeal to it that attracts some investors. And again, for people that are attracting through crypto and Bitcoin, which is what this article specifically focuses on, you're dealing with a higher end or kind of a more—perhaps a more sophisticated investor than sort of your average person who's just looking to do things with their 401k, for example. So again, just because somebody is wealthier has had past successes in building their wealth, that does not immunize them from being taken in by effectively people who are spouting astrology or any—or tea leaf reading or any other things. And they say that it comes down to kind of several things, sort of—and this is a pull out from that article that I thought was interesting as well. Despite the heavy emphasis on astrology for all of these accounts—and they're talking about the various astrologers that they interviewed basically for this piece—a good number of social media respondents don't seem to understand the astrological terminology according to astrologers, but are still following and asking for the insights. So you have to wonder two different things. I think two different things here. Are they not following it because it's nonsensical? Because astrology itself doesn't make sense, and so there's that. But then there's also in a way, I think there's a sort of deliberate aspect to it. Because what's true in financial investing, which goes beyond astrology, is that they'll come up with terms and things and have sort of a language all their own, sort of that they deliberately have invented over the years in order to keep people sort of feeling stupid about this kind of stuff, right? And that therefore only the people who are really in these trenches every day and are really versed in it, they're the ones who have the real special secret set of knowledge that otherwise ordinary laypeople could never really appreciate those kinds of nuances when it comes to making some kind of financial decision. So is it deliberate, or is it nonsensical, or is it both? And I think that was kind of a key aspect there, sort of a theme as part of this article. And then you go on to show—and there's a bunch of quotes in here about the crazy stuff. I want to read you one crazy thing that they throw out there about investing. Here you go. Tell me if you think this makes any sense. The stellium of Pluto, Mars, and the Sun in early Capricorn, those are the most reliable points in the natal chart.

'''J:''' What the hell?

'''C:''' Birth chart. I got that part.

'''E:''' Right?

'''S:''' Yeah, natal chart is the birth chart.

'''E:''' Stellium. Stellium is considered three planets within any given sign at the same time. How the heck is anybody supposed to know what a stellium is in astrological terms? It kind of gets clouded and lost in sort of the overall jargon of finances.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' But that's by design.

'''S:''' It's a pseudoscientific use of jargon to try to superficially seem legitimate.

'''E:''' Right. Right. A patina of legitimacy. But not even. I mean, if people did know a little bit more about astrology, they'd probably not even really consult with these people. Now the reasons why – and then to wrap up, I mean, there are some reasons why financial prediction is not real, has a bad track – or I should say has proven to not have a good track record. In fact, they call it in this Wall Street article, Wall Street Journal article, a terrible track record in fact. Here's a couple of points. First of all, you cannot predict the unpredictable. The stock market has – overall has so many variables. Stock markets – and of course, Bitcoin and crypto, which is what this article is about, these fall in the same category as well. There are so many factors in play that it is really – you can't predict it. They say that weather forecasts for 7 to 10-day – have better results than stock analysts do when looking at 7 to 10-day forecasts. You have a better shot at predicting the weather, much better in fact, than you do going out chasing fortunes through stock sales and trying to time markets. Also, analysts have a lot of biases sort of working that they either consciously or subconsciously sort of rely on, including first impression bias. That's when an analyst's first impression of a company, which has great stellar earnings, that positively impacts future forecasts. You're not supposed to – you're supposed to adjust for that bias. The recency bias, of course, greater weight on recent experiences that they take into consideration and then the analysts can't anticipate factors impact – other things that impact all these earnings, changing customer habits, competitive threats. They say you couple all that with the pressure to issue favourable reports and an overall reluctance to acknowledge bad news, right? You kind of – you have those kinds of biases working against you as well as far as that industry goes. Just so many things that explain why financial forecasting is in itself really – I guess its own kind of pseudoscience but then you put astrology in there and it takes it to a new level.

'''S:''' But Evan, to be clear, there's two types of ways to analyze the stock market, right? There's technical analysis, which is what we have been talking about, and fundamental analysis. Technical analysis is numerology. It's astrology. It's like you're just trying to predict based upon past performance. You're looking for trends, patterns in the random noise of the stock market. And again, as our skeptical colleague said, the stock market is very good at destroying information, right? Any information you have is immediately destroyed by everyone acting on that information. That's why the only way to really get an edge is through insider trading, which is illegal.

'''C:''' Right.

'''S:''' But technical analysis, 100% astrology, BS. Fundamental analysis is different. Fundamental analysis is saying, what are the company's assets? What is their – how leveraged are they? What's their market doing? It's analysing the fundamentals of the industry and the market and the company and how healthy is it. And if you say that, OK, this company is a little undervalued based upon its fundamentals, that's a good investment versus this company is overvalued. So you're basically using your judgement and pitting it against the market, right? And you may find opportunities. So experts who do fundamental analysis, who know the ins and outs of an industry, may have better analysis than the average person who's just buying stocks or whatever.

'''E:''' Right. Right. And they don't promise crazy yields or things that are kind of off the charts. It's a more – it's a much more conservative approach to the analysis.

'''S:''' Yeah. So we're not talking about that. That's fine. That's like actually knowing what's going on and making intelligent decisions about risk versus benefit and value, whatever, versus the astrology of technical analysis. So that's –

'''E:''' Right.

'''S:''' Yeah. So don't write us in saying, what are you talking about? Whatever. It's –

'''E:''' Yeah.

'''S:''' Technical analysis is just numerology of the stock market. That's all that that is.

'''E:''' That's it. And here you go with Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and any other future crazy financial stuff that they come up with.

'''S:''' It's the same thing. Crypto is just another –

'''E:''' No different.

'''S:''' Another way of gambling on the market. You know?

'''E:''' No different.

'''S:''' It's probably more pure gambling because there is no fundamental analysis of crypto really, right? I mean, maybe I'm wrong about that, but it's just – it's all just – like what's it worth? You know, what is Bitcoin worth? It's all just based upon the market and not any real physical assets or anything. You know what I mean? Like there is no –

'''E:''' Right. But to think that there's some advantage you can get to predicting the ups and downs of it. Forget it. Absolutely not.

{{anchor|wtn}}{{anchor|futureWTN}} 
== Who's That Noisy? (1:17:11) ==
{{wtnHiddenAnswer
|episodeNum = 984
|answer = Battery-powered sprayer wand
|}}
'''S:''' All right, Jay, it's Who's That Noisy Time.

'''J:''' All right, guys. Last week I played this noisy.

[Rapid mechanical whirring]

So Evan, a couple of people commented on your ray gun guess.

'''E:''' In the 1970s, there were these little metal ray guns with a little trigger to it and had a little wheel in it that would make a noise and it would light up and that's the noise it would make.

'''J:''' Yeah. Visto Tutti said, Evan is right that it does sound like a vintage toy space laser gun, but that would be too simple for Who's That Noisy. So he says –

'''E:''' Oh.

'''J:''' I'm saying it is the mating call of a bower bird. Those little guys put on quite a song and dance to impress the lady birds. So I'm not surprised that somebody picked a bird because birds could basically make any noise that we hear on this show. But that's not correct. Nice try, Visto. Next time I'm sure you'll get it. Michael Blaney wrote in. Hi, Jay. It sounds to me like one of those little motors used inside those toys with the little legs, like the teeth on legs that walk around after you wind it up. But the legs are moved so the motor runs out. You know what I mean? Remember those things? It's a good guess. That's not it. But I have – actually, I have one right here by the way, but that's not it. Keely Hill wrote in. Hi, Jay. This week I will guess a partially broken electronics Happy Meal toy, something that had a siren like a fire truck. That is also not correct. And the last guess for this week, Eric Klein wrote in and said, I think the noisy this week is one of those carpet guns that you use on a stretched out canvas type material that pushes in yarn and cuts it all in one motion. I tried to figure out what this is. I don't know exactly what this is. Do you guys know what it is?

'''S:''' What he's describing?

'''J:''' Yes. All right. So guys, there was no winner for this week. And I'm not surprised because I picked something really, really hard. You either know it or you don't. It's one of those things that you either have used this device or you have not. But I thought it was a cool sound and I wanted to give it a try. So what this actually is – again, this was sent in by a listener named Jared. He said, I captured this audio while spraying Roundup on weeds in my yard. The sound is the included battery-powered sprayer wand. I found this sound enjoyable as my brain immediately recognizes it as a pew-pew space laser. So this all kind of folds in on itself. I know it was hard and I picked it, like I said, just because I thought it was a cool sound. But now I personally, I have Roundup and I had the same exact thing. So I did recognize the sound when I heard it. And again, Steve, Roundup is not dangerous, correct?

'''S:''' Relative to other options, it's actually pretty good.

'''J:''' Okay.

'''C:''' Yeah, but it's not candy.

'''J:''' Yeah, but don't, yeah, don't gargle with this stuff. All right, so no winner this week. No big deal.

{{anchor|previousWTN}} 
=== New Noisy (1:20:06) ===

'''J:''' We got another one coming at you right now. And here it is.

[motor winding up, engaging its action, then winding down]

There you have it, guys. By the way, that song was sent in by a listener named Gary Kappelman. If you think you know {{wtnAnswer|986|what this week's noisy is}} or you heard something cool this week, you can email me at WTN@skepticsguide.org.

== Announcements (1:20:45) ==

'''J:''' Steve, we have a couple of announcements. So one of them is that we will be in Chicago and third weekend of August. We'll be there on the 17th and the 18th. We have three shows. Tickets are still available for two of those shows. We have the extravaganza, which is on August 17th. That show, I think, begins at 230 in the afternoon. And then we have a the 1000th SGU live private episode that will be recorded on the 18th. This is a five hour show. It's going to be a pretty epic thing that we do. You know, we've done these long shows before, but this one we will be celebrating our 1000th episode, 20 years of skepticism. You can join us. You can be a part of this entire thing. Just go to [https://www.theskepticsguide.org/ theskepticsguide.org] for information on either of those shows. Steve, something else.

'''S:''' Yeah. What do you got, Jay?

'''J:''' Super early. This is early. But Steve and I have been talking. And guess what, guys?

'''E:''' What? What?

'''J:''' NOTACON 2025.

'''E:''' Wait a minute.

'''J:''' Yes. Yes.

'''E:''' What?

'''J:''' It's happening. Steve and I talked and we greenlighted it. I have that. I haven't picked anything yet. I have not picked the dates. I have not picked the location. It's very likely that we're going to do this in White Plains again. But you know, if you want to email me, if you have suggestions or any ideas, feel free to email me. Again, this is all very difficult stuff to plan, takes a long time to do it. That's why I'm mentioning this very early. But I would like to do it in about a year, plus or minus a month is fine. So April or May of next year, I think would be a cool time to do it. So there it is, guys. People loved it. I got tons of feedback.

'''B:''' It was awesome.

'''J:''' Yeah. And I've already been talking to George, just sidelining, like hey, if we do it again, what would we want to do? You know, just coming up with some more fun bits and everything. And we just because we could do whatever we want this isn't a conference that's on rails in any way. We could do anything that we want at these conferences. So we decided that the entire conference was going to be about Cara. She's awake, everybody. We promise you that we will plan something super fun. I think one of the most popular bits from last year was the live cooking show.

'''C:''' Yep.

'''E:''' Yes.

'''S:''' That was kind of fun.

'''B:''' That went far better than it had any right to.

'''C:''' Yeah. I think we were all really pleasantly surprised that nothing caught on fire.

'''E:''' First of all, we didn't trigger any smoke alarms. That's one.

'''J:''' I remember telling the hotel, like, there's nothing to worry about, nothing's going to catch on fire. You know, like, we've never done this before. No, but there was no fire, though. It was just, it was all...

'''E:''' Just hot plates.

'''J:''' Yeah. But the hot plates were, what do you call it? The induction?

'''E:''' Convection.

'''J:''' Right? The induction.

'''C:''' Induction. Yeah. Induction.

'''J:''' Yeah. There's no, there's no, like, fire. You know, there's nothing that, you know. Anyway. Okay. So we will, we will give you more details as this unfolds, but we're very excited and very happy that we will be doing that again next year.

'''S:''' All right. Thank you, Jay.

{{anchor|followup}}
{{anchor|correction}}
{{anchor|email}} 

== Questions/Emails/Corrections/Follow-ups (1:23:45) ==
=== Follow-up #1: AI discussion ===
{{shownotes email 
|text = 
|sender =
|location = 
|redirect_title = 
|}}
'''S:''' I've got one follow up from last week. We got a number of emails about the artificial intelligence segment. So there's a couple of things that we want to address. Jay, why don't you start us off by just giving us more information about the topic that you were covering?

'''J:''' Yeah. So my intent was to tell everybody about the updates that OpenAI has made to ChatGPT. They announced it. It was a formal announcement. They had information on their website. I saw the demo, and then I was using the current, current version of it, and I was reporting on that. But there's a lot of details in here, and I got several emails from people, so I kind of collated the information. To be more accurate, this will give you a better idea of, like, when things were rolled out and what functionality existed in the past and what's coming. So first of all, one of them I mentioned is function calling. This is connecting to the API, the ChatGPT API. So this was actually introduced over a year ago, which would improve the reliability of the ChatGPT API responses by allowing developers to essentially define functions the model can understand and respond to correctly. So this update that they came out with, again, it was over a year ago, is really, really helpful for software engineers to make their own custom applications. Now from my understanding, that API will be updated with the latest and greatest functionality that it will be rolling out over the next few weeks or so. There's something called a context window. Now this actually was the thing that I mentioned where in previous versions of the software, you would get 4,000 or 32,000 tokens, say, and again, these are like discrete pieces of information. And they upgraded that to 128,000 tokens, which is a massive increase in the amount of data that any single session could essentially deal with. So that's a great improvement. Now I don't have any information on when that was released. So I'm just assuming that the 128,000 token release was one of the recent updates. Then there was image recognition. Now they have image recognition was available in ChatGPT+. This was another version of ChatGPT. That's been available in ChatGPT since last year. Now this is good for providing screenshots or design files when developing websites. And apparently that's what I was using when I took the picture and it was analyzing the picture. Again, I didn't know that this was available last year and it was on the website like it was a new item, but it isn't. It's something that's been available for over a year. So there is voice chat in the phone app. This again was also available last year. I believe they used something called their Whisper software. But now they're supposed to be launching a newer version of it, but there's been delays. I think they call it the Simple Voice-to-Text Transcription System. And again, that has been around for a while. And I think these things were available in like a beta version and not in the widely available version. But I'm not 100% sure about that now because apparently there's lots of things that ChatGPT can do that I wasn't aware of. The Omni model, which is the new model, this is the 4.0, the O for Omni. This combines the image, video, text, and voice into what's called a single cohesive experience and it can distinguish between multiple different voices. And this was released last week, but it doesn't improve the intelligence of the ChatGPT model. That's an important thing to understand is ChatGPT, apparently the Omni version of it isn't theoretically more intelligent than the previous version of it. It's just the tools that it's using are more powerful and more integrated. Now there's also real-time video and voice interaction. This is not yet available and it'll be rolled out to the plus subscribers soon with no word about when it'll be rolled out to 4.0. And then finally, GPT 4.0 model, this is available for interaction like GPT-4, GPT-4 noted for its speed and cost efficiency when using the API. So the big thing about ChatGPT 4.0 that I think that is a hundred percent is that it's going to be incredibly fast once it's all ramped up and all the servers are optimized and they get a lot of user data in there, they'll be able to make this thing behave like it did on the demo, which is almost instantaneous, which is pretty cool. So again, it's complicated. There's lots of different versions of ChatGPT. Some of them have had certain aspects going back a year. I think the goal here is to get GPT 4.0 to have all the latest and greatest stuff and all of that will be rolling out at some undisclosed time. They said weeks, but until it rolls out, we won't know.

'''S:''' Yeah. The other thing about the feedback that we got, a lot of people think that we're overhyping and not being skeptical enough of artificial intelligence in general, the large language models, ChatGPT in particular, which I honestly don't agree with. I think that we're being very careful to not overhype it. We joked about not overhyping it the last time we talked about it. But the thing is, we're now two years into this large language model rollout, right? And I got to say, it's interesting. I think there's a lot of people who are falling on the skeptical side. They think that they're being skeptical of AI and all the false hype. And they're actually, in my opinion, being cynical. They're not really being very, very skeptical. They're kind of being like knee jerk. There's hype, therefore it's all bullshit. It's more nuanced than that. Yes, of course, the industry is hyping it. That's what they do. But this is actually a genuine new AI platform that has some serious abilities and implications. And also, of course, it's not sentient, it's not general AI. There's a lot of things that it can't do. We've been, I think, very clear about the limitations of what it does. But over the last two years, pretty much as we predicted, there's going to be incremental advances in doing what it does. And there has been. It's been pretty steady and fairly impressive, right?

'''J:''' Yeah, without a doubt.

'''B:''' Sure.

'''S:''' All the things we're talking about didn't exist two years ago. And this is what we said was going to happen. There's going to be a lot of investment. This is the first crop. This is like right out of the gate. You know, the chat GPT 1.0 or whatever. There's no reason. There's a lot of room for incremental improvements within this technology without having to fundamentally change the technology itself. And we're still on the steep part of that curve. That's happening.

'''J:''' We are seeing the very beginnings of a big rollout of different types of artificial intelligences that do different things. And these systems are improving over time. If I'm a little excited, forgive me for that. I can't help it. I'm a total geek when it comes to this stuff. And I absolutely love it. And I use chat GPT almost every day. But I do have an expectation here to see multiple companies who will be competing for our dollars. I pay OpenAI right now to use the better version of chat GPT or to get more access to it. And I will be switching to a new company if they have better technology than chat GPT. This is exactly what we want. We want that competition in order to drive dollars to these companies, in order to make them keep their prices down, and to drive innovation, which is exactly what's happening.

'''S:''' Yeah. But I mean, it's like a lot of technologies that we follow. And yes, we are technophiles. I get it. But when we talk about battery technology, it is legitimately improving. We talk about things that are actually happening. We are always careful to separate the hype from reality and to ask the question, okay, but what's actually happening here? Because we know that if you read anything from the company, it's marketing bullshit. And we know that if you read the mainstream media, it's all, this will be able to do A, B, and C. And rather, what we want is like the technical technology news, like what is actually happening here? I agree that your report last week was a little superficial, and that's why we wanted to take another bite at it. But I just think, a bite at it, but I think the idea that we're like, we're overhyping the technology, or we're not being skeptical of it, is just not fair. It's just not what's happening. And it's also, I think, like you feel the need somehow to be cynical about large language models when they're a really useful technology. Have a little bit of nuance in your opinion. You could say it's overhyped at the marketing and the big tech end, but it's actually a powerful technology. It's transforming research. That's just objectively true. That is happening. And it is, for what it does, it's fairly powerful and getting better all the time.

'''J:''' I agree.

'''S:''' All right, let's move on. It's time for Science or Fiction.

{{top}}{{anchor|sof}}
{{anchor|theme}} 
== Science or Fiction (1:33:06) ==

{{Page categories
|SoF with a Theme = 
}}
{{SOFinfo
|theme = Armor

|item1 = The oldest example of plate armor dates back to Europe 3,500 years ago, and has been demonstrated with modern testing to have been fully functional.
|link1web = https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301494
|link1title = Analysis of Greek prehistoric combat in full body armour based on physiological principles: A series of studies using thematic analysis, human experiments, and numerical simulations
|link1pub = PLOS ONE

|item2 = Although surprisingly maneuverable, at their peak a European full suit of armor weighed about 200 pounds, so that knights would require a hoist to assist them onto horseback.
|link2web = https://www.military.com/history/6-things-you-should-know-about-medieval-armor.html
|link2title = 6 Things You Should Know About Medieval Armor
|link2pub = Military.com

|item3 = Graphene-based body armor has been shown to have twice the stopping power as Kevlar, and 10 times that of steel.
|link3web = https://www.extremetech.com/defense/195089-graphene-body-armor-twice-the-stopping-power-of-kevlar-at-a-fraction-of-the-weight
|link3title = Graphene body armor: Twice the stopping power of Kevlar, at a fraction of the weight
|link3pub = Extreme Tech.com

|}}
{{SOFResults
|fiction =200-lb (91-kg) European suit
|science1 = oldest plate armor 3500ya
|science2 = Graphene-based body armor

|rogue1 =bob
|answer1 =oldest plate armor 3500ya

|rogue2 =jay
|answer2 =200-lb (91-kg) European suit

|rogue3 =Evan
|answer3 =oldest plate armor 3500ya

|rogue4 =cara
|answer4 =200-lb (91-kg) European suit

|host =steve

|sweep = 
|clever = 
|win =y 
|swept = 
}}
''Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.''

'''S:''' Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fake. And then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. We have a theme this week.

'''C:''' Uh-oh.

'''S:''' Yeah, uh-oh. It's a fun theme. It's kind of unconventional.

'''E:''' Balloons.

'''S:''' The theme is armour. This is all about armour.

'''C:''' Oh God.

'''J:''' Armour? I am all over this.

'''C:''' I'm going to give this one away.

'''S:''' All right. Here we go. Iron number one, the oldest example of plate armour dates back to Europe 3,500 years ago and has been demonstrated with modern testing to have been fully functional. Iron number two, although surprisingly manoeuvrable, at their peak, a European full suit of armour weighed about 200 pounds so that knights would require a hoist to assist them onto horseback. And item number three, graphene-based body armour has been shown to have twice the stopping power as Kevlar and 10 times that of steel. Who hasn't gone first in a while?

'''E:''' Bob.

'''S:''' Bob, go first. Evan threw you under the bus.

'''E:''' Well, you asked the question and I gave the answer.

<big>'''Bob's Response'''</big>

'''B:''' Well, this is a tough one. 3,500 years ago, the first plate armour sounds a little far in the past to have that, but I don't know, man. Fully functional. I mean, hard to say. The European full suit of armour, 200 pounds. That sounds a little heavy, not a lot heavier than I would think, but using a hoist to assist them, I think that that sounds totally reasonable, even if it was even a little bit lighter. Let's see, the graphene-based body armour, twice the stopping power as Kevlar, 10 times that of steel. There's so many ins and outs to this. I mean, twice the stopping power of Kevlar. Yeah, I mean, I could see that. Plate armour, 3,500. I'm going to – I'll say that the plate armour 3,500 years ago. I'll say that's fiction. That seems a little bit too far, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, but I would say it's fiction. This was a hard one. Good job.

'''S:''' Okay. Jay?

<big>'''Jay's Response'''</big>

'''J:''' I do think that plate armour existed 3,500 years ago. Yeah. Yeah. That feels fine to me. I'm accessing my older files here, but – okay. So with that one, as I'm pretty damn sure that's correct, going on to the next one, I don't think that plate armour weighed 200 pounds. That is really heavy. Again, like plate armour wasn't that thick. You know, it definitely was not bulletproof. I mean the longbow arrows could pierce it. So yeah, it wasn't that thick. So I don't believe that that was 200 pounds. And the last one, I agree with the last one. I think the graphene-based body armour is better than Kevlar. So yes, the second one, Steve, is the fiction. Not 200 pounds.

'''S:''' Okay. Evan?

<big>'''Eva's Response'''</big>

'''E:''' Oh, boy. So these are all good points. Now 3,500 years ago – okay. Plate armour. Would this be bronze armour?

'''C:''' You think he's going to tell you that?

'''E:''' No. That's what I'm thinking.

'''C:''' You have to try.

'''E:''' I think there was bronze armour, fully functional bronze armour, though. I don't know about that. Maybe not. Although, hmm. Example of plate – but maybe it wasn't plate armour per se. There's something up with that one that might be a little off. The next one about the suit of armour weighing 200 pounds and that knights required to hoist and assist. Jay, I kind of think Jay's right here. Because I don't recall it weighing 200 pounds. I mean, that's a lot for people to have to go into combat with and stuff, right? But I kind of remember something about being hoisted onto horseback. But again, maybe 200 pounds is the wrong part there. And the last one, I don't know anything about the graphene-based body armour compared to Kevlar and steel. So I'll say, I guess I'll go with – Bob, since I threw you under the bus, I feel kind of guilty. So I think I'm going to join you for that reason. And that way, if we go down, we go down together.

'''B:''' You just read my mind.

'''C:''' What are you joining on - the plate armour?

'''E:''' 3,500 years ago.

'''C:''' 3,500 years.

'''J:''' And we all go down together.

'''S:''' All right. Cara.

<big>'''Cara's Response'''</big>

'''C:''' Okay. So it looks like it's probably between the plate armour being 3,500 years old and 200-pound European plate armour. I mean, I could go graphene, but you guys seem to agree on it. And what the hell do I know? So I'm going to call that one science. Okay, two against one. So my guess, though, is that plate armour – and I could be wildly off here – doesn't have to even be metal. Like couldn't it be leather or something? With leather plates?

'''S:''' I'll give you the answer to that question is no. This is referring to metal plate armour.

'''C:''' Okay.

'''S:''' Leather armour is never called plate armour.

'''C:''' It's not, even if it's the shape of plates.

'''S:''' No, it's leather armour.

'''E:''' You have to refer to your player's handbook.

'''C:''' Yeah, I clearly wasn't aware of that.

'''E:''' If you read your D&D player's handbook, you would know this.

'''C:''' Okay. So what is less likely? Well, I do think there was probably a heavy need as far back as human beings decided to kill each other to protect ourselves from their weapons. I also am thinking like, probably like medieval Europe, these people in their suits of armour, these knights were probably diminutive, a little more diminutive than modern people. I could be wrong. They might have been smaller dudes. And a smaller dude and a 200 – like, if the armour weighed more than the guy, would he really even be able to fight in it? I don't think so. That just seems ludicrous. I don't know. I would think it would cause too many injuries. So I got to go with – is this with –

'''E:''' Jay.

'''C:''' Jay. Yeah, I'm going to go with you and say it did not weigh 200 pounds.

=== Steve Explains Item #3 ===

'''S:''' All right. So you guys are evenly split, but you all agree on the third one. Graphene-based body armour has-

'''E:''' You fools.

'''S:''' -twice the stopping power as Kevlar and 10 times that of steel. You all think that one is science, and that one is science. That one is science.

'''C:''' Yay.

'''E:''' Okay.

'''S:''' So yeah, I mean, this is – there are studies looking at the potential of graphene and body armour going back 14 years. It's been a little bit tricky to develop into an actual product, but they're getting there. And it has been tested. They do have versions of it that have been tested. And yep, twice the stopping power. They used a gold bullet. It wasn't like fired out of a gun. They had some kind of device that would accelerate a piece of gold up to like much faster than the muzzle velocity of a typical gun. And it was better at stopping that, twice as good as Kevlar. Kevlar, which is more than half a century old now, is still pretty much the cutting edge technology for bulletproof vests and for body armour. There are other options now. There are definitely other options, and there are some more advanced materials or whatever. But Kevlar is still there. But graphene is probably going to be the next best body armour. I know the US Army is looking to – is developing it, is actively developing as part of a whole body armour system, right? It's not going to be like pure graphene. It's going to be – you'll have some steel plates in there. There may be some – I know they're working on – they also have – there are ceramic plates. There's Kevlar or other versions of that material where you can have graphene embedded in some kind of resin. Like there's all different kinds of ways that you can use it. But it is really good. Graphene is really good at absorbing energy and dissipating that energy. That's what it's super good at. And so it would definitely upgrade any body armour system that incorporates it. So that one is science. Let's go back to number two.

=== Steve Explains Item #2 ===

'''S:''' Although surprisingly manoeuvrable, at their peak, a European full suit of armour weighed about 200 pounds so that knights would require a hoist to assist them onto horseback. Jay and Cara, you think this one is a fiction. Bob and Evan, you think this one is science. This is interesting because you can think about this a couple of ways. So first of all, as I said, this was at its peak, right? So this is the evolution of the full suit of plate armour to its absolute heaviest, right? How heavy did it get? And the idea is that this is for mounted knights. That once they get on their horse, that's where they're staying, right? At that point, they're either holding the lance or they're swinging their weapon, but they're not like running around.

'''C:''' But even a horse, well, I guess 200 pounds plus a dude on a horse.

'''S:''' Yeah, but that's why you need a war horse. They bred war horses to be massive. But on the other hand, that's a very heavy suit and very hard to move around, you would think, although they're very well constructed. So if we balance all those things, what's the correct answer?

'''C:''' That Jay and I win.

'''S:''' This one is the fiction. This is the fiction.

'''C:''' Yay, Jay!

'''J:''' What up.

'''B:''' I knew it.

'''S:''' So the idea that knights had to be hoisted or pulled or whatever onto their horse is complete fiction.

'''E:''' Really?

'''C:''' Is that what you imagined?

'''E:''' Is that interesting?

'''S:''' It's a common misconception. I don't know where it came from.

'''E:''' That must be it.

'''S:''' That's why I used that, but it's complete fiction.

'''E:''' Oh, it tricked me.

'''S:''' A full suit of plate armour weighed about-

'''E:''' 100 pounds.

'''S:''' 55 pounds.

'''C:''' Oh, that's it.

'''S:''' 55 pounds.

'''B:''' 55.

'''J:''' That's heavy, guys.

'''C:''' I mean, it is.

'''E:''' Oh, yeah.

'''S:''' And they were extremely manoeuvrable. I once saw a demonstration of a guy basically doing a cartwheel in one of these suits of armours. Yeah, because manoeuvrability on the battlefield was key. You would not want to be in such a heavy suit that you couldn't move around. And even if you start out on a horse, if you fall off that horse, you're basically dead.

'''E:''' Yeah, you're done. You're dead.

'''S:''' If you're in this 200-pound suit that you can't move around. So no, they were meant to be light and manoeuvrable, but still protect their vital bits. And as they evolved, they actually got trimmed down further and further. They realized that, yeah, we really only need it for the real vital organs. Any piece of metal that wasn't absolutely necessary to protect them and tended to go away as things evolved. But yeah, so 55 pounds, highly manoeuvrable, never needed to be hoisted on a horse. They can get on the horse by themselves or maybe with a stool or a squire, giving them a little bit of a hand, but no hoist.

=== Steve Explains Item #1 ===

'''S:''' All right, that means that the oldest example of plate armour dates back to Europe 3,500 years ago and has been demonstrated with modern testing to have been fully functional is pretty cool science. So do any of you know what this armour is called?

'''J:''' No.

'''C:''' Old armour.

'''S:''' It's called dendra armour, which is based because it was used by the dendra army. This is in Mycenae or Mycenae, I think it's Mycenae, Mycenae. So this was discovered in 1960. They discovered this suit of bronze armour.

'''E:''' Aha, bronze.

'''S:''' It was bronze. And it had several horizontal plates in the front and back, kind of like a skirt, and then a breastplate. And the breastplate had a very high collar. It's interesting. I've never seen this design otherwise. So imagine this solid vertical collar around the head. It's so high that the person who's wearing it is basically peeking over it. So it's kind of like the lower half of their helmet.

'''C:''' Right. It's kind of smart.

'''S:''' And then they have a conical helmet on top of that, so their eyes are just peeking out between the helmet and the top part of their breastplate. So they wanted to know, there was a recent study, which is what inspired this theme. They wanted to know, was this ceremonial armour? Is it decorative armour? Or did people actually fight in this armour? And so they made replicas of it, like as accurate as they could. [[File: 985 dendra armor.jpg |right|350px|thumb|link=https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301494|Volunteer marine soldiers in simulated combat wearing the Dendra armour replica during the empirical study (right) and an artistic photo shoot (left). Photo credit: Andreas Flouris and Marija Marković. ''(Click/tap image for article.)'']] And they had members of the Greek army, I believe it was, they had them fight in it like all day. They had them 11 hours wearing this armour. The Marines of the Hellenic Armed Forces was the actual fighting men that they used. And they were able to maneuver and fight quite well with it. And it was very functional. They were able to fight all day in it without any excess strain or wear or whatever. So it was actually a functional design. They wanted to know this because if the Dendra army had this armour at that time, it would have been a significant technological advantage over any other army in that part of the world at that time. Their soldiers, if they really could move around and fight well in this armour, would have had a dramatic tactical advantage on the battlefield. So this is probably not insignificantly responsible for their success as a civilization. Yeah, I thought that was interesting. So take a look at the link with the picture of the armour. It's very funky looking.<ref>[https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/greek-bronze-age-armour-study-1.7217371 CBC: Scientists tested replica Bronze Age armour on Greek marines. Here's what they learned]</ref> But I'll mention that historic weapons and armour are of interest because they have all been tested by time. You know what I mean? It's like there's a difference between, I know Cara you're fascinated by this, but there's a difference between fantasy weapons and fantasy armour and historical replica armour and weapons because the historical replicas were evolved organically over time with use for a specific purpose and their form follows their function, right? Whereas fantasy weapons are based purely on aesthetics and they're completely impractical. You know what I mean? You would never actually take that weapon into combat because it's just meant to look good, not to be actually functional. But if your life depends on the speed and efficiency and effectiveness of your armour and your weapon, whatever, it's going to be perfected over time. And again, we underestimate how deep history is. There were hundreds of years to perfect these. Like the medieval longsword was used over hundreds of years.

'''J:''' Yeah, and they iterated slowly.

'''S:''' Yeah, it was iterated until it was optimized for how it was used. So good job, Jay and Cara.

'''J:''' Thank you.

'''C:''' Thank you. Thanks, Jay.

'''S:''' All right.

'''E:''' Do I mean bad job, Bob and Evan?

'''C:''' Yes.

'''S:''' Take it as you will. All right, Evan-

'''E:''' You're not supposed to say that. Good job to one and not good job-

'''S:''' I know. You're not supposed to say that to kids.

'''E:''' And some skeptic adults.

'''S:''' I actually was literally told that, like it was one of my teaching seminars, like you shouldn't say good job because it might make the other kids feel bad.

'''B:''' Good effort.

'''E:''' Bingo.

'''B:''' Good effort.

'''E:''' You mean young minds that can't handle such intricacies.

'''C:''' Good effort, all four of you.

'''S:''' Yeah.

'''C:''' Thanks, Steve.

'''E:''' Everyone wins.

'''S:''' All right, Evan, give us a quote.

{{anchor|qow}} 

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:49:27) ==

{{qow
|text = It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
|author = {{w|Yogi Berra}}
|lived = 1925-2015
|desc = American baseball catcher
}}
'''E:''' "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra, of course.

'''S:''' Yeah, I love that.

'''E:''' Oh, Yogi Berra. So good. So quotable. Wonderful. Hey, by the way, do you know that- Here's a guy. All right. He was a baseball player. Maybe not everyone listening knows who Yogi Berra is. Baseball player for the New York Yankees, hopefully most people in the world recognize the baseball team New York Yankees. He played 19 seasons, right, in Major League Baseball. 18 of those years he was named an all-star.

'''B:''' Wow.

'''E:''' And he won 10 World Series championships. That's the most of those two statistics of any player throughout the history of the game. That's remarkable.

'''B:''' Remarkable. Yeah, that's nuts, man.

'''E:''' That's impressive.

'''S:''' And what's funny about the Yogi Berra-isms is that they seem silly at first, a lot of them, but then there's this hidden logic to them. You know what I mean? It's like this sideways logic to them.

'''B:''' Oh, yeah. That's the appeal.

'''S:''' Yeah, yeah. And I think this is just the way his mind works. I don't think he's ever trying to be funny or clever. This is just how his brain logiced, you know?

'''E:''' Yep. And newspapers loved him, quoted him a lot, and he would come up with ... That's just what would come off his tongue and funny stuff, you know?

'''S:''' So, man, a couple of favorites. One of my favorites is that nobody goes there anymore. It's always too crowded.

'''E:''' Yeah. Right?

'''S:''' In other words, give me somebody's directions that he says, when you get to the fork in the road, take it. But when you know the context, it makes sense because basically the fork came back together so it didn't matter which way you went. You could go either right or left, and you would end up at the other end of the road in the same place.

'''E:''' Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical.

'''J:''' Oh, my God.

'''E:''' I always thought that record would stand until it was broken. Just good stuff.

'''S:''' Yeah, it did stand until it was broken. Okay. Well, thank you all for joining me this week.

'''B:''' Sure, man.

'''J:''' You got it Steve.

'''C:''' Thanks, Steve.

'''E:''' Thanks, Steve.

== Signoff ==
'''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. 

{{Outro664}}{{top}} 
== Today I Learned ==
* Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> 
* Fact/Description
* Fact/Description


== References ==
<references/>
=== Vocabulary ===
<references group=v/> 
{{Navigation}} 

{{Page categories 

|Guest Rogues = 



|Live Recording = 

|Alternative Medicine =
|Astronomy & Space Science =
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes =
|Conspiracy Theories =
|Creationism & ID =
|Cryptozoology =
|Energy Healing =
|Entertainment =
|ESP =
|General Science =
|Ghosts & Demons =
|History =
|Homeopathy =
|Humor =
|Legal Issues & Regulations =
|Logic & Philosophy =
|Myths & Misconceptions =
|Nature & Evolution =
|Neuroscience & Psychology =
|New Age =
|Paranormal =
|Physics & Mechanics =
|Politics =
|Prophecy =
|Pseudoscience =
|Religion & Faith =
|Science & Education =
|Science & Medicine =
|Science & the Media =
|SGU =
|Technology =
|UFOs & Aliens =

|Amendments =
}}

File:985 dendra armor.jpg

2024-08-07T06:55:35Z

Xanderox: Volunteer marine soldiers in simulated combat wearing the Dendra armour replica during the empirical study (right) and an artistic photo shoot (left). Photo credit: Andreas Flouris and Marija Marković.

== Summary ==
Volunteer marine soldiers in simulated combat wearing the Dendra armour replica during the empirical study (right) and an artistic photo shoot (left). Photo credit: Andreas Flouris and Marija Marković.