MTSU has a rather well known recording industry department, probably driven by the fact it's located in a suburb of Nashville, itself called 'Music City.'
While definitely not traditionally known for punk, I don't think it's a bad choice.
Unlike previous market turmoil (2008, 2020) where the U.S. at least had established global trade order to lean on for the recovery, this feels like the U.S. could be entering a period of sustained damage. I don't see how the U.S. recovers from this in anything like he near term. Americans will have to get used to a long stretch of low economic growth.
The global trade order is going to be reconfigured, but not in the way the Trump thinks. The U.S. is throwing up a wall around itself, but the rest world will continue with the current regime and likely move away from the U.S. permanently.
What's sad is, the Congress could simply revoke the ability for Trump to single-handedly make these tariffs, but they appear too cowed to do anything about it.
The senate voted to null trumps Canada tariffs, but it's not expected to pass the house. The president can also veto the decision and it would go back and require a 2/3 majority. Not impossible just unlikely.
The hopeful path is to knock down the made up national emergency via the courts.
Right now there are suits in the courts to declare that fentanyl crossing from Canada is not a national emergency. That's a tough case because there is no definition for national emergency, so the court will likely defer to the president's definition. However if Congress says it isn't a national emergency then the courts have the option to defer to Congress's decision rather than the president's. And once the national emergency declaration is gone, Trump needs Congress's support to pass tariffs.
In my opinion it's clear that Trump does not care about global trade and is only trying to consolidate power by destroying the economy and the middle class. Canada is closer to realizing what's going on, but not quite yet, and France is really far away from realizing what's going on, but they will faster than the rest of Europe.
Canada's likely new Prime Minister Carney: "Canada must be looking elsewhere to expand our trade, to build our economy, and to protect our sovereignty. Canada is ready to take a leadership role in building a coalition of likeminded countries who share our values… If the US no longer wants to lead, Canada will"
France's Macron: "It was important for us to meet as quickly as possible after last night's announcement from President Trump, which are a shock to international trade, not just for the EU and France, but fundamentally for the proper functioning of global commerce. What's important is that we pause future investments, or these announced in recent weeks, until we've clarified things with the United States. What would be the message of having big European players investing billions of euros in the American economy at a time when they are hitting us? So we need collective solidarity." https://bsky.app/profile/rpsagainsttrump.bsky.social/post/3l...
Anything that requires hard chewing like nuts, raw vegetables and tough meats.
The first I ever heard of this topic was from reading the book "The Evolution of the Human Head" (2011) by Daniel E. Lieberman. It's an academic book, and parts are not exactly light reading targeted for the general public. I had read it when it first came out, seemingly well before it because such of point of discussion.
The problem with this topic is, if you try to look anything up on line you can quickly find yourself in the "manosphere" with its associated toxicity.
Even the Wikipedia entry on them has the classic bean-shaped diagram. If they are not really like that, why did that become the standard representation? Have they always been know to exist in more network-like structures, and was that why there was initial resistance to seeing their origin in free-living prokaryotes?
Cell diagrams are simplifications. Cells are not like your room with a few things inside. They are more like a decent city. In human cells you have hundreds to thousands of mitochondria.
It was because they could only image a dead/fixed 2D cross section on an electron microscope. The 2D cross section of a vast interconnected network of tubes looks like disconnected small “beans.”
An analog of the birthday paradox that gets me all the time is what I think of as The Locker Room Paradox. This is where when I go into the locker room after working out and the guy who comes in behind me ends in the locker right next to mine. So there’s two of us in a big empty room awkwardly jostling away.
For it to be a true analogue if the birthday paradox, it would have to happen rarely to you individually, but surprisingly often to one pair of people in the locker room when there are a smallish number in there.
I think it is closer to the reason why it is surprisingly difficult to throw a rock through a wire fence even when the rock is much smaller than the holes in the fence. We tend to underestimate the area of interaction between the rock and the fence.
If you take a locker in the middle, there will be 8 lockers right next to yours, which may represent a sizable fraction of the total number. Combine that people are not random and that they tend to forget about the times where it doesn't happen and it may seem like it happens all the time even when it is uncommon on average.
Assuming you don't have an automated system to give away locker keys, wouldn't this be explained by the fact that gym front desk is more likely to give out the lowest number available and as you took X, they will give out X+1 for the next person?
I've never been to a gym where you're assigned a locker for the day (or given a key). Either you have one permanently assigned (rare) or you go in and find one that isn't occupied.
Sadly, my new gym assigns keys in numerical locker order. The Google Reviews are full of lamentations about it. However, the gym is right next door to my new place, so I am inclined to overlook these and other shortcomings.
Logistically, it makes sense for them, as it presumably cuts down on maintenance and cleaning. But it is super-annoying to squeeze past several other sweaty folk when there are two entire locker corridors empty and adjacent.
Ohh, I see! At my gym, locker keys are given to you by the front desk and you put in something as deposit (such as your gym card or whatever you wish) and on your way out you give the key and you get your deposit back.
But why? Seems like it would be inconvenient to gym-users to add these extra steps to getting in and out of the gym. Especially if you have to wait behind other people just to get or return a key. What is the benefit of such a system?
In the case of my new gym (see my earlier reply above), far as I can tell, they are just saving money on modernization. There are similar other penny-pinching measures there, such as treadmills which apparently offer TV and Netflix, etc., but have no channels, no connectivity and no ability to cast over Bluetooth from your phone.
I asked them about the latter issue, and they said that it might get fixed next year; but there are years-old Google Reviews of the gym citing this promise!
It's a relatively small gym so I assume they don't have the resources to improve the system and quite frankly I too would prefer if they spent the money on more equipment
There’s also the Aisle at a Show Paradox: as a tall guy, no matter where I stand at a concert I always seem to end up being the guy people decide is the aisle and jostle their way around me when transiting from one area of the venue to the other.
I haven’t tested this hypothesis yet but I suspect I could be wandering the desert and out of no where someone will try to slink past me while saying excuse me and spilling my canteen all over.
The first record Enid looks at is actually by "R. Crumb and his Cheap Suit Serenaders" that Seymour directs her away from to another selection. Zwigoff was a member of that group.
There are a small handful of relatively well-know dinosaurs: stegosaurus being one of them. There’s also Tyrannosaurus rex, Brontosaurus (maybe you’re not supposed to call them that anymore), Triceratops and maybe a couple of others. Why were these ones so “famous”? Were they the earliest ones discovered? most common? Just fine examples of their type?
Probably just because they're all very large, and very odd-looking mostly. Other types are generally smaller and more boring. They might also have been discovered earlier, establishing those general body types.
Brontosaurus doesn't exist any more; apparently it was some kind of mistake due to incomplete knowledge I think, or maybe some kind of mix-up. Apatosaurus I think is the current king of that type of long-necked huge plant-eating sauropod.
>Brontosaurus is a genus in the subfamily Apatosaurinae, which includes only it and Apatosaurus, which are distinguished by their firm builds and thick necks. Although Apatosaurinae was named in 1929, the group was not used validly until an extensive 2015 paper, which found Brontosaurus to be valid. However, the status of Brontosaurus is still uncertain, with some paleontologists still considering it a synonym of Apatosaurus.
And:
>Almost all 20th-century paleontologists agreed with Riggs that all Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus species should be classified in a single genus. According to the rules of the ICZN, which governs the scientific names of animals, the name Apatosaurus, having been published first, had priority; Brontosaurus was considered a junior synonym and was therefore discarded from formal use.
Seconding other poster that all those were already famous. Like if you bought a small set of plastic dinosaurs before that movie, those would pretty much be guaranteed to be in the set, plus some sort of hadrosaur/duckbill and maybe an ankylosaurus.
Land Before Time included most of those in the “main cast” but I think it was following the trend, not setting it.
Velociraptor (well, the fake Deinonychus-like “velociraptor antirrhopus” or whatever from the book/movie) and definitely Dilophosaurus got a huge popularity boost from Jurassic Park.
Their “fame” certainly well pre-dated that movie. These were the ones I knew as a kid in the 60s and 70s, and would be featured in old stop animation movies even before my time.
That doesn’t seem particularly fast of a spin and I’m surprised it’s the fastest one observed.
There is a moment in 2001: A Space Odyssey that I’ve always liked. It’s at about 1:13:15 or so, and is just a distant shot of the Discovery One. Suddenly two space rocks silently tumble past. I like the scene because it gives a sense of the scope and silence of outer space, but I suppose it would be incredibly rare to be so close to even one rock, let alone a pair. And they are tumbling at about the pace measured by the one in that article, so perhaps even rarer still.
Well as the article states the bigger ones would tear themselves apart if they spun too fast so that is one reason. In the end they are just big rocks and thus not very good at tensile loads...
