Have an uncanny Christmas!

For better or worse, Coca Cola has driven the iconography of Christmas — that jolly bearded fat man in a red suit is a corporate construct. Every year, Coca Cola proudly trots out some new heartwarming ad featuring Santa or a polar bear or whatever knocking back a frosty cold soft drink. Buy coke! They’ve been working hard for almost a century to make sure you associate this holiday with their beverage.

This year they blew it. They’ve aired an AI-generated ad that features trucks and an annoying jingle. Is this to be our new sentimental memory of Christmas?

One of the wealthiest companies in the world decided that they don’t need to pay artists to do their advertising artwork, and would instead have a computer churn over old imagery and cobble together an unappealing hash that won’t win over anyone. Take a look at the comments on that video — people hate it.

Goodbye, NIH

The National Institutes of Health is a hugely successful organization behind modern biomedical research in the USA — among their many goals was establishing policy for dealing with infectious disease, as well as funding research in vaccines.

You already know what the know-nothings and anti-intellectuals of the MAGA movement think of the NIH. They’ve been opposing rational responses to the pandemic for years now, and one of the big names in the anti-NIH, anti-Fauci, anti-masking, anti-vaccine mob was Jay Bhattacharya. So guess what’s going to happen?

Bhattacharya, who holds a medical degree and PhD from Stanford, has never held a senior government position, nor any role overseeing a large bureaucratic organization. While that might have stymied his candidacy in prior administrations, Kennedy and his allies view his inexperience as a positive, saying they are seeking reformers willing to battle the bureaucracy.

Inexperience is a positive with these people.

Let’s hope we don’t have another disease outbreak in the next few years. We already know that Kennedy wants to starve infectious disease research, and with a MAGA ideologue running the NIH…people are going to die that wouldn’t need to.

Another day of probate paperwork

You will either be amused or horrified by my discovery of the documents leading to the original sale of my mother’s house. My mom & dad bought this place in 1976, the first and only home they would own, for this amazing price:

That’s right $28,990, and they bought it with a $500 down payment. My father’s income at that time was, I think, somewhere in the neighborhood of $10K, so it was a bit of a stretch for them.

This is the same house I’m selling for $435K now.

The housing market is stark raving nuts. Boomers had it relatively easy.

Et tu, NPR?

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at this — NPR has always been a news source for comfortable liberals who want soft voices and current events delivered gently, without any trace of alarm. They’ve got tote bags to give away and coffee table books to sell! They’ve responded to the incoming wave of ignorance with a puff-piece about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that doesn’t use the word “unqualified” even once.

Trump has threatened to appoint RFK Jr to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. He doesn’t have any expertise in public health, medicine, or science, but he has a slogan, “Make America Healthy Again,” and that’s good enough.

Another word NPR doesn’t use is “conspiracy theorist.” They acknowledge that he has a few wacky ideas, but hey, he wants to stop the chronic disease epidemic in the USA, isn’t that a good thing?

Kennedy’s baseless claims have included that Wi-Fi causes cancer and “leaky brain”; that school shootings are attributable to antidepressants; that chemicals in water can lead to children becoming transgender; and that AIDS may not be caused by HIV. He’s also long said that vaccines cause autism and fail to protect people from diseases.

NPR never questions whether Kennedy’s policies would actually work, or for that matter, what his policies are. We’ve got a real health problem — obesity, diabetes, narcotics, etc. — but they don’t address his solutions, if any. What he has done is tap into MAGA paranoia.

He knit together an unlikely coalition — some from the left and some MAGA supporters — eager to take on the establishment.

“Bobby Kennedy and Trump have bonded over tying the core of MAGA — which is a distrust of institutions and getting corruption out of institutions — to our health care industries,” says Calley Means, an adviser to Kennedy and the Trump transition team, who spoke with NPR before Kennedy’s nomination.

What corruption? Be specific. The corruption I see is that there are an awful lot of quacks getting rich writing pop-sci diet books, and pharma MBAs leading their companies to immense profits at the cost of every day Americans’ health. You’re not going to fix that by hounding doctors and scientists and imposing bogus health treatments on the public.

By the way, Calley Means is a Harvard MBA with connections to the Heritage Foundation but no medical background who wrote pop-sci book about nutrition. I imagine that RFK Jr has the “wrote a book about dieting” demographic solidly locked up.

Means — himself a former lobbyist for the food and drug industry — has emerged as one of the leading voices in the MAHA orbit. He and his sister, Dr. Casey Means, catapulted into the political sphere after publishing a bestseller on metabolic health. Both have business ventures in the health and wellness industry.

But have no fear! Means and RFK Jr have a simple plan to fix everything.

Means says a key to their plan is eliminating conflicts of interest.

See above reference to Means’ own interests.

When the article does cite critics of RFK Jr, it’s always with qualifications and padding, and never goes into much depth.

“There are some things that RFK Jr. gets right,” says former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden. “We do have a chronic disease crisis in this country, but we need to avoid simplistic solutions and stick with the science.”

Great — we have a “chronic disease crisis,” but what’s the solution? It never says. Is it “drink raw milk” (Kennedy has endorsed that)? Is it “end all vaccinations” (he thinks they cause autism, and change children’s gender identity)? Is it “tear down cell phone towers” (he thinks 5G is used for mind control)? Is it “take anti-depressants off the market” (he claims they cause mass shootings)? Is it “replace COVID vaccines with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine” (he thinks those are effective)? Or maybe it would help to insert more racism in science policy.

“COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese,” he continued, adding, “We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”

Reading NPR’s article, you might come away with the impression that Kennedy is a grounded, qualified person trying to fix a real problem in how we let pharmaceutical companies run rampant — which I think is a genuine issue that resonates with the public — but it completely neglects to point out that Kennedy is an unhinged conspiracy theorist who will make everything worse. But that’s NPR for you.

If you’d like a more accurate perspective on the consequences of Kennedy running the bioscientific and medical establishment, read Science magazine.

Public health researchers are alarmed, especially given Kennedy’s opposition to vaccines. “I can’t imagine anyone who would be more damaging to vaccines and the use of vaccines than RFK,” University of Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm told CNN.

Numerous critics of Kennedy have weighed in with concerns. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia vaccine expert Paul Offit told CNN Kennedy is a “science denialist.” Even Jerome Adams, who was surgeon general during Trump’s presidency, said at a meeting this week that if Kennedy discourages people from getting vaccines, “I am worried about the impact that could have on our nation’s health,” economy, and security.

“We’re all in a state of panic,” this person added. “The damage that he can do is enormous. I don’t know anybody who isn’t worried about this.”

But then, Science isn’t in the business of spooning comforting pablum into the mouths of the well-off.

What do you call an innumerate hebephile?

Matt Gaetz.

Being nominated to head the DOJ is such sweet revenge after they came after me for “sex trafficking.” The general wisdom concerning age gap dating is to halve one’s age and subtract seven. I’m 42 and have almost never betrayed this general maxim over the last 10 years

I think that’s a fake tweet — it comes off Twitter, which is a pretty unreliable source. But still, it’s a funny jab at the horrible Gaetz, who, if he actually used that formula would think it acceptable for him to date 14 year olds, and “almost never” anyone younger.

The joke did make me wonder about where that “general wisdom” comes from. Do people actually do simple algebra to figure out who they should date? Is there actually a formula floating about?

I found a source. To put it in perspective, the first thing on that page is a calculator to figure out the age difference between two people: you type in your age, and your date’s age, and it subtracts one from the other to get the difference.

The universal formula for calculating an age difference is:

Age Difference = |Age 1 – Age 2|

Now that we know how smart the audience for this calculator is, they explain the “rule of seven,” which is not a rule, but only a tool for rationalizing kiddie-chasing.

A common rule for the maximum and minimum age one is supposed to date is the so-called “rule of seven”. It sets boundaries based on the age of one of the partners, and can be applied both ways. It goes as such: to define the minimum age of a partner, half your age and add seven. E.g. if you are thirty years old, calculate 30 / 2 + 7 = 15 + 7 = 22, or an age gap of 8 years would be acceptable in this direction).

To find the maximum socially acceptable age for a partner, subtract seven from your own age, then multiply it by two. For example, if you are 30 years of age, calculate (30 – 7) * 2 = 23 * 2 = 46 years or an age difference of 16 years would be acceptable in this direction.

OK, Matt Gaetz (or whoever posted that tweet) got the formula wrong, unsurprisingly.

“would be acceptable”…there are so many assumptions built into that phrase. Acceptable to who? Shouldn’t the important thing be acceptable to each other, with a recognition that a large age difference opens the door to power imbalances, and that children do not have the judgment of adults? This is a complex issue that doesn’t lend itself to simplistic formulae.

The one useful thing on that page is that they have a table of actual age differences between American couples. About 35% of all married couples have birthdays within a year of each other — which makes me totally average, since my wife and I have a 6 month age difference. Over 60% of American married couples have an age difference of less than 3 years! That tracks, since most of us form relationships with people with whom we have a lot in common, and those relationships develop organically from common associations. Do I need a calculator to figure out who I’m comfortable talking to?

Too late, I think!

If you were dreaming of buying my mother’s house in Auburn, WA, you may have missed your chance: we had two offers this week at roughly the asking price, and we’re accepting one. There are the usual details that have to be taken care of, so there’s a chance the whole deal could fall through, but otherwise you’re out of luck.

I’m sort of surprised that a home would fly off the shelves so quickly, but that’s the housing market in the Pacific Northwest, I guess.

Time for other news organizations to abandon Twitter

The Guardian has announced that they will no longer cite Twitter.

We wanted to let readers know that we will no longer post on any official Guardian editorial accounts on the social media site X (formerly Twitter). We think that the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives and that resources could be better used promoting our journalism elsewhere.

This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.

Exactly right. Musk has destroyed the utility of the social media site he spent so much money on. You should flee the hellhole, too.

Now we just have to get the Guardian to quit putting up with transphobes…

BIRDIE!

Time to dig up another fossil. It’s a bird, but it has no connection to the sabre-toothed kitty cat I posted yesterday — this is a 80 million year old bird, Navaornis hestiae, written up in a Nature article, Cretaceous bird from Brazil informs the evolution of the avian skull and brain. It looks like a real bird to me.

a,b, Photograph (a) and interpretive drawing (b) of the exposed side of the holotype of N. hestiae (MPM-200-1) in left lateral view. c, Micro-computed tomography rendering of MPM-200-1 in right ventral–lateral view. Scale bar, 10 mm.

It has a fairly big brain, with some differences in structure from modern birds — it has a smaller motor control area, so while it had the capacity for complex behavior, it may not have been as agile in the air as birds today. It’s intermediate in brain complexity between Archaeopteryx and extant birds.

a, Three-dimensional reconstruction of the endocranial morphology of N. hestiae from MPM-200-1 and MPM-334-1. Portions deriving from MPM-200-1 and MPM-334-1, as well as the reconstruction process, are explained in the Methods and Extended Data Fig. 7. b, Evolution of endocranial morphology across Pennaraptora. Numbers in the coloured boxes refer to the degree of expansion of each of the main neuroanatomical and sensorial regions for each taxon. Brown arrows in b depict the orientation of the foramen magnum.

Cambridge invested a bit in publicizing this discovery, with a nice fancy video.

That’s beautiful, man

I might have to become a fan of the boxer, Mike Tyson. He has an ugly history, and now he’s going to be in a match with that jumped-up YouTube influencer, Jake Paul (it’s a fake match, with shortened rounds and padded gloves, but the prize money is real, tens of millions of dollars), and none of that is worthy of respect, but he had an interview with a young kid who asked him what his legacy would be. It sure won’t be boxing with Jake Paul, but this answer was excellent.

I don’t know. I don’t believe in the word ‘legacy.’ I just think that’s another word for ego. Legacy … means absolutely nothing to me. I’m just passing through.

I’m going to die, and it’s going to be over. Who cares about legacy after that? What a big ego. So I’m going to die — I want people to think that I’m this, I’m great? No, we’re nothing. We are dead. We’re dust. We’re absolutely nothing. Our legacy is nothing.

Can you really imagine somebody saying, ‘I want my legacy to be this or that’? You’re dead. You really want them to think about you? What’s the audacity to think, ‘I want people to think about me when I’m gone’? Who the fuck cares about me when I’m gone? My kids, maybe, my grandkids. But who the fuck cares.

That is such a strong, honest reply, and I love it. It’s an anti-narcissist answer, and I wish more people would share it. I don’t know if Tyson is an atheist, but that kind of stoicism/nihilism is the kind of atheism I favor.

They just gravitate to me, I guess

I stepped out of my house and started walking to work, when I noticed a dot moving out of the corner of my eye. There was a tiny spider dangling from my eyebrow! This is a bit surprising, since it’s a bit windy and cool here, but maybe they were desperate for shelter. I walked all the way from my house to the lab with a tiny spider on a silken thread hanging from my hand — I might have looked a bit odd. But I made it all the way and snapped their picture.

Isn’t that an adorable little orb-weaver? Now I’m not sure what to do with them — the outside is a bit inhospitable. I might have to adopt them and raise them in the lab.