Which is why if I ever become famous and get on Conan's show, I am going to figure out how to fit in this bit during my interview.

It's not KennyG it's about the most famous sax solo*. George Michael : Careless whispers. . And yes Sax is a woodwind instrument due to the wooden reed rather than brass mouth piece.

Other conteneers would be , Gerry Rafferty - baker street, Lily was here - Candy Dulfer / Dave Stewart, EPIC SAX GUY SOLO - Moldova -Eurovision Song Contest, or Yacketty sax benny hill!

I know I'm jumping back in the conversation a bit, but I'd say it's a journalist's job to ferret out the truth - something that's unfortunately both lacking and waning in the US. For the system to work as designed there should be an antagonistic relationship between the four branches of government (colloquially and importantly including the press), where each pulls against the other to make the whole system stronger. Once one (or, as it has been, three) bow to the executive - willingly or forced - corruption floods in.

The conversation - enlightning as it is - brought me back to the famous interview between Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard (https://videosift.com/video/Classic-Repeated-Question-Avoidance-By-A-Politician) where Paxman repeats the same question 12 times in 90 seconds to try to get a straight answer. This is respect for the office and disrespect for the man who shames it.

I believe it was Ronald Reagan who famously said, "Trust, but verify."

"Доверяй, но проверяй" is a Russian proverb.

So, yeah.

It seems when Apollo Mission Astronaut, Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind" statement, but followed it by several remarks - usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control.

Before he reentered the lander, he made the enigmatic remark, "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky." Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut, however, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian nor American space programs.

Over the years many people have questioned him as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant.

A few months ago, (July 5th, 1995, Tampa Bay FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. He finally responded. It seems that Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.

When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with his brother in the backyard. His brother hit a fly ball which landed in front of his neighbors' bedroom window. His neighbors were Mr and Mrs. Gorksy. As he leaned down to pick it up, he heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky. "Oral sex, oral sex you want? You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"

-------------------------------------------

if you snope, you a dope. it a joke.

@newtboy

Many people drive fast, few get caught. No reason to complain. No coaching is a needlesly old-school rule and should be dropped IMHO.

Bernard Tomic once got called for coaching by his dad and thanked the umpire, presumably for shutting him up.

Serena has a history of verbal abuse and she is now famous for it just like McEnroe. I am glad she got called for it. There should be no place for that in any sport.

McEnroe was often punished for his antics.

No other instance got caught, but every coach did it? That's your argument?

No one said she didn't deserve a warning for the racket smash, not even her.

Do men get away with that level of abuse?
Remember McEnroe? He got famous for it.

Yep, mention games where players can't discuss calls with the referee at all, that makes a point well.

I don't know this was sexist, it seemed more personal to me. You're right, men shouldn't get away with this, but they do.

Seems to be more than a few people with thoughts along the lines of:
"I know nothing about emergency aid, but let me slow down/pull over and shoot video so that I can block emergency services. I'm going to be Youtube famous!"

There is a generally held belief that consciousness is a mystery of science or a miracle of faith; that consciousness was attained instantly (or granted by god), and that one has either attained self awareness or has not.

I don't believe any of that. I believe like all things in biology, consciousness evolved to maximise a benefit, and occurred gradually, without any magic or mystery. The closest exurb1a gets to that is when he says at 6:28:

"Maybe evolution accidentally made some higher mammals on Earth self-aware because it's better for problem solving or something"

We need to know what other people are thinking and this is the problem that consciousness solves. If a neighbouring tribe enters your territory then predicting whether they come to trade, mate, steal or attack is beneficial to survival.

Initially this may be done through simulation - imagining the future based on past experience. A flood approaching your cave is bad news. Being surrounded by lions is not good. Surrounding a lone bison is dinner. Being charged by a screaming tribe is an upcoming fight.

We could only simulate another person's actions, but we had no experience that allows us to simulate another person's thoughts. You may predict that giving your hungry neighbour a meal may suppress their urge to raid your supplies but you still can't simply open their head and see what they are thinking.

Then for the benefit of cooperation and coordination, we started to talk, and everything changed.

Communication not only allows us to speak our mind, but allows us to model the minds of others. We can gain an understanding of another person's motivations long before they act upon them. The need to simulate another person's thoughts becomes more nuanced and complex. Do they want to trade, or do they want to cheat?

Yet still we cannot look into the minds of others and verify our models of them. If we had access to an actual working brain we could gradually strengthen that model with reference to how an actual brain works, and we happen to have access to such a brain, our own!

If we monitored ourselves then we could validate a general model of thought against real urges, real experiences, real problem solving and real motivations. Once we apply our own selves to a model of thought we become much better at modelling the thoughts of others.

And what better way to render that model than with speech itself? To use all of our existing cognitive skills and simply simulate others sharing their thoughts with us.

At 3:15 exurb1a referenced a famous experiment that showed that we make decisions before we become aware of them. This lends evidence to suppose that our consciousness is not the driver of our thoughts, but a monitor - an interpretation of our subconscious that feeds our model of how people think.

Not everybody is the same. We all have different temperaments. Some of us are less predictable than others, and we tend to avoid such people. Some are more amenable to co-operation, others are stubborn. To understand the temperament of one we must compare them to another. If we are to compare the model of another's mind to our own, and we simulate their mind as speech, then we must also simulate our own mind as speech. Then not only are we conscious, we are self-aware.

Add in a feedback loop of social norms, etiquette, acceptable behaviour, expected behaviour, cooperation and co-dependence, game theory and sustainable societies and this conscious model eventually becomes a lot more nuanced than it first started - allowing for abstract concepts such as empathy, shame, guilt, remorse, resentment, contempt, kinship, friendship, nurture, pride, and love.

Consciousness is magical, but not magic.

"Maps" doesn't adequately describe the extent of information that things like these convey. They are more like "animated visualizations".

I took a computer graphics class in college where we learned about data visualization. One of the most famous examples in that field is Charles Joseph Minard's map/visualization of Napolean's march into Russia in 1812. On the surface, it is a 2D map. However, the width of the line showing the path of advancement conveys troop numbers, the color denotes whether they were advancing or retreating, and a connected chart below shows the air temperatures that the soldiers were exposed to, etc.

Basically, at a glance you can easily see the broad strokes of the advance and retreat, and you can get much more depth of information if you look a little closer. These kinds of animated visualizations are definitely continuing on in that same vein -- packing a lot of information into a presentation method that is easy to pick up and also very deep with some more inspection.

Wikipedia article about Minard showing that famous Napolean march visualization if anyone is interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Minard

I knew some of this stuff, but not that. But that seems ... problematic.

Cobain's lyrics were pretty famously difficult to understand. I had no clue what most of the lyrics to Smells Like Teen Spirit were until like 20 years after I first heard it when I was 10. Weird Al's parody of the song directly jabs at this, which a whole verse being:

"It's so unintelligible
I just can't get it through my skull
It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss???
With all these marbles in my mouth"


Considering all of that, if you're listening to "Polly" or "Rape Me" but only hearing half of the words, is it any surprise that people might not fully grasp the message? Might even interpret the songs as being pro instead of anti?

I love Nirvana. I agree with the intended messages of their music (at least, to the extent that I understand them). But any time that a band thinks that they don't want fans who don't agree with their "message", I tend to think it is just pointless.

Lots of bands take very clear political / ethical stances in their music. I can like the music without being fully on board with those messages. Even if I'm utterly opposed to them. I can like Rage Against the Machine without fighting the system. I can like System of a Down without being ... psycho? You might be a registered Republican who likes NOFX, or a registered Democrat who likes Kid Rock or Brooks and Dunn.

Basically, if I like what you're doing musically I don't give two shits about what your message is. The extent to which it might make me like you more or less is very negligible.

Local guy has a weird last name. I jokingly asked him if he knows famous actor with same weird last name.

Yep. That is my daughter.

Whooooaaaaa.

(He is a talented artist in his own right. It runs in the family!)

Yep. One of my fundamental beliefs is that if people who use the phrase (or some variant thereof ) "do you know who I am" are almost invariably fucking assholes.

Basically, if you really are as important/powerful/scary/rich/famous/whatever as you think.... they will already know who you are. The very fact you're asking negates the goddamn question.

The Most Famous Actor You’ve Never Seen has been added as a related post - related requested by Fantomas on that post.

It's the Fremont Solstice Parade in Seattle's Fremont neighborhood.

It's famous for the Naked Bicycle Ride that proceeds the festivities.