Jay at 40
I recently turned 40, so like all beautiful young women I took a bad selfie with no filters or edits. Enjoy.
Over-40s most at risk in UK’s laziness epidemic, says PHE
Speaking of middle age…
Starbucks Invite-a-Friend Interstitial
Attn: Starbucks. I think you’re okay. Your Sumatra K-Cups, brewed at 6 oz and served black as night, has ruined me for other cups of coffee. Your online boardgame this summer is also neat, but I can’t make it past the first stage of incentives because I don’t belong to the hashtag and emoji cesspool called Twitter. What gives?
A Churlish Defense
“Marx was a wicked and short-sighted man who weaponized envy on a multinational and multigenerational scale, but nation states don’t set the world in order, either.”
NYT pulls book from best-seller list over suspicious sales
I’ve witnessed a similar kind of market gaming myself, first-hand, while working at music stores near major metro areas, where an artist touring through the area would send a rep to buy in bulk all or most of the artist CDs in the store. Sometimes the actual artist himself would come in and do it himself.
Remember the Time Cube site? Thank God someone had the foresight to mirror it. One of the best word salad manifestos I’ve come across.
LOST SPHEAR Gameplay Trailer
The top-down JRPG genre is probably my favorite in gaming, and this looks fun.
This article raises some interesting questions. How far should a scientific discipline go in its theories of “the possible?” before it stops being a science?
For all it’s been romanticized, no one mentions the study of science can be an exhausting rat race with professional jealousies and money grabs. I’m willing to believe that half of the body of pseudo-scientific theories are scientists generating attention with the ultimate end of securing more of both of those things.
Everyone wants to be in the spotlight in some form or another. Why would scientists be any different?
A few months ago in the journal Nature, two leading researchers, George Ellis and Joseph Silk, published a controversial piece called “Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics.” They criticized a newfound willingness among some scientists to explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation of today’s most ambitious cosmic theories — so long as those theories are “sufficiently elegant and explanatory.” Despite working at the cutting edge of knowledge, such scientists are, for Professors Ellis and Silk, “breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical.”
Whether or not you agree with them, the professors have identified a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility.