It appears that ‘phosphine’ is the gas and ‘phosphene’ is the phenomenon of seeing light without having light enter the eye. So that’s a thing I learned today. Thanks for asking!

Today's Wikipedia Rabbit Hole is Brought to You by the Letter R and the Makers of Warfarin:

Alberta was settled relatively late in North American history and only became a province in 1905. Black rats cannot survive in its climate at all, and brown rats must live near people and in their structures to survive the winters. There are numerous predators in Canada's vast natural areas which will eat non-native rats, so it took until 1950 for invading rats to make their way over land from Eastern Canada.[50] Immediately upon their arrival at the eastern border with Saskatchewan, the Alberta government implemented an extremely aggressive rat control program to stop them from advancing further. A systematic detection and eradication system was used throughout a control zone about 600 kilometres (400 mi) long and 30 kilometres (20 mi) wide along the eastern border to eliminate rat infestations before the rats could spread further into the province. Shotguns, bulldozers, high explosives, poison gas, and incendiaries were used to destroy rats. Numerous farm buildings were destroyed in the process. Initially, tons of arsenic trioxide were spread around thousands of farm yards to poison rats, but soon after the program commenced the rodenticide and medical drug warfarin was introduced, which is much safer for people and more effective at killing rats than arsenic.[51]

WTF Alberta?

Can do. Will post some interesting things I have seen in the last week or so once I check to see that they haven't already been posted.

Here's the original article in case anyone is interested. Indy article doesn't seem to have link. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1200-6.epdf?sharing_token=s8zOus0A3j1PbeJNkcvmUNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OupfJuclmzWDApHZqBoQOsjm2KnZKr_0yEfcQ3R5czWwMbakv5YA4nVgkJE4MoiIWyvfigoTXpCB6Q-f6fhGmbFRf_JaFErw5y6zcpExmhk6sYAwxO2c_NOeEmXYQOZgaFe1eXFjpM7jcSu4TMLCZ7UIbMaNGp2yzvj8-54yRUXCamzx4__uXtyMv1qbks2OHJEVg0TjgqNhT2eW9K9Y8mFj3JAXEd-D46WWAKD7E80jftQcFeXqwNRMqmLxSL_BA%3D&tracking_referrer=edition.cnn.com

Still working on reading through myself, but looks interesting. They are positing that it is some extra salty solution to keep it from becoming frozen.

I am so making the Eastern Narrow Mouthed Toad my new phone ringtone.

Oh man I really hope so. I am going to make an effort to go through the whole thing, maybe that will make it more clear that this is the case.

And yet he sings high praises of the concept of amor fati in his autobiography, Ecce Homo, calling it "his formula for greatness in man." Of course, what I have read of that book seems pretty absurd, he states that "no one can point to any moment of my life in which I have assumed an arrogant or a pathetic attitude." Full of ourselves much? Never? I am unsure my eyebrow was meant to climb this high up my face. Perhaps I should read the whole thing though, as I only looked it up because of a quote I once saw, I wanted to know where it came from and was like WTF? But mostly it seems like a book full of "everyone else sucks and I am awesome and here's why" and actually it kind of reminds me of the guy in the White House right now talking about "people who didn't even cry when they were babies." Not saying he never had any good ideas, but damn dude LOL.

Also "I'm not arrogant but the next chapter shall be titled 'Why I Write Such Excellent Books'" ....I'm dying over here.

Nonetheless, I do think it ultimately depends in how it's applied by the person.

A very good point. Knowing the philosophy and practicing it (and how you do so) are not the same thing.

You're not wrong. In fact, the sentiment that you brought up about other people's unhappiness being a lack of their own stoicism is touched upon (I don't think he says it quite like that) by Aurelius in his writings, but again, that doesn't stop him from trying to be a good person. I have not yet gotten to read much of other stoic's works (after all, this whole thread came about because I tried but got my book stolen by my husband) so I can't say much for their takes yet. Overall I have found a lot of helpful concepts in what I have read of stoicism, but that can also be said for Buddhist teachings and other philosophies/religions but I guess what we are both getting at here is that none of them are perfect.

I liked the way that this was constructed. This feels like a very relevant story for our world today. So many people are unwilling or unable to conceive of other people's mimi but it also would help if we could talk about it more openly. We could all stand to realize that none of us are mind readers and we can't really ever know exactly what another person is thinking/feeling/going through unless we talk to each other. This is something that I have been trying to work on myself and probably failing more often than succeeding.

I would consider you reading my books great news. I'm sure between our collected books and the library's digital offerings I can find something to read while you work through that.

I have to respectfully disagree with the two of you. I can come up with a few quotes as evidence, but I think this particular one is a decent illustration of the stoic concept of sympatheia (mutual interconnectedness, or the whole [sometimes capitalized depending on translator] in Aurelius' writing):

Whether it's atoms or nature, the first thing to be said is this: I am a part of a world controlled by nature. Secondly: that I have a relationship with other, similar parts. And with that in mind I have no right, as a part, to complain about what is assigned me by the whole. Because what benefits the whole can't harm the parts, and the whole does nothing that doesn't benefit it. That's a trait shared by all natures, but the nature of the world is defined by a second characteristic as well: no outside force can compel it to cause itself harm.

So by keeping in mind the whole I form a part of, I'll accept whatever happens. And because of my relationship to to other parts, I will do nothing selfish, but aim instead to join them, to direct my every action toward what benefits us all and to avoid what doesn't. If I do all that, then my life should go smoothly. As you might expect a citizen's life to go - one whose actions serve his fellow citizens, and who embraces the community's decree.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 10.6 (emphasis mine)

I would point out a couple of things: you could take the "whole does nothing that doesn't benefit it" to say that we should just let whoever is going to die go right ahead because death is a natural part of life but I would argue that the second section of this passage is a pretty strong argument against that. I would also point out that Aurelius ruled during the Antonine plague (it is said that up to 2000 people died per day at the height of it, so I think we can stop calling this time unprecedented now), he and his co-emperor Lucius Verus called Galen in to study and try to treat plague victims. When Aurelius died, his last words are reported to have been "Weep not for me, think rather of the pestilence and the deaths of so many others."

Also RE: attempts at change - I posted this quote a couple of pubskis ago because it seemed fitting at the time:

Is anyone afraid of change? Why? What can take place without change? What is more pleasing or more suitable to the universal nature? Can you take a bath unless the wood is set afire and undergoes a change? Can you be nourished unless the food undergoes a change? And can anything else that is useful be accomplished without change? Do you not see then that changes in yourself are just the same and equally necessary for the universal nature?

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.18

This is also the same guy who "zooms out" and dumps on how everything is the same forever and ever but with a different set of names so I get it, and if you really zoom out it is kind of true, we are born, we live our short lives, we die, and we are soon forgotten. But change comes, sometimes slowly, sometimes in the blink of an eye. If this were not so we might still be wearing toga and riding horses everywhere. (So much poo!) But no matter our current circumstances, we have to stay focused on being good and doing the right thing. I think that the "you shouldn't deal with it/them/self-importance" is perhaps misunderstanding the idea that there is what you control and what you don't control. You can try to help other people but you have to do so with at least a little bit of detachment because ultimately you don't control them/their reaction. We don't control what happens, only how we react. I see how this might be taken as overimportance on the self. In a way it is, but the outcome should be that we direct our action toward the highest good.

I hope I didn't ramble too much.

Mr. Dobbin would, if a practicing stoic and not just a translator of, say that your mangling of his name is an external and not in his control, and would probably be more pleased that you are enjoying the book than bothered that you goofed his name. Eventually no one will remember any of our names.

Mmmm hm. I'll be sure to get right on that. ;)

Is anyone afraid of change? Why? What can take place

without change? What is more pleasing or more suitable to the universal

nature? Can you take a bath unless the wood is set afire and undergoes a

change? Can you be nourished unless the food undergoes a change? And

can anything else that is useful be accomplished without change? Do you

not see then that changes in yourself are just the same and equally

necessary for the universal nature?

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.18

This seemed fitting for the time, both in the world at large and here on Hubski. You're all good people. Let's continue to be agents of change and good in the world together. <3

I started reading it once. Don't think I ever finished. Still have the copy though I think.

Well, as if 2020 didn’t suck enough, although honestly, as much as I keep hearing Ecstasy of Gold in every other commercial I kind of assumed he was already gone and his estate was raking it in.

Overcoming destructive emotions doesn't mean not feeling them, it means knowing that they're there, that they make you vulnerable, that they can cause harm, etc. It means empowering you to make the right choices not because they're absent, but because you can handle their presence.

I don’t know, it seems like you have a pretty good grasp on what a Stoic is supposed to be like. This reminds me a bit of one of Marcus Aurelius’ writings (don’t have my books handy so I can’t give a verbatim quote, but here’s the essentials of what I remember) about “It’s unfortunate that this happened. No, it’s fortunate that this happened and that I remained unharmed by it. It could have been anyone, but not everyone could have remained unharmed. Does what’s happened keep you from acting justly and with self control, honesty, and all the other qualities that allow one’s nature to fulfill itself? Then remember this principle when something threatens you: the thing itself is no misfortune, to endure and prevail is great fortune.”

I am fairly certain I am missing a bunch of that passage but really, the only quote out of that book we all need right now (not really) is this:

Waste no more time arguing what a good man is like. Be one.

I knew that the North Star changes, but I never really thought about there not being one. So now I am curious to know if this would have been a time when there was just no good candidate for North Star or was this prior to the adoption of concept?

I don't know if there's really a moral - but being framed the way it is, I did feel it was a call for virtue - feel free to pick your favourite synonym here. I did also feel like it was a study on the Serenity Prayer.

...never thought of it quite this way, but I would definitely agree with the idea of the story being a study on the Serenity Prayer.

If there is a moral behind the story, what would you say it is?

Don't steal from your future self, dummy. :)

Would I go through? Probably, although I don't have a very good reason why, other than stupid curiosity.

I get the feeling I might have liked this tv show. Unfortunately for tv shows, I don’t watch them. Perhaps my library has streaming episodes available (or dvds once they open back up.) But of course that would mean I would have to actually watch it. TV and movies make me sleep.

Read this article in Cecil Palmer’s voice. Giggled harder than I really should have. How long have we been citizens of Night Vale?

The original links were, in fact, dead. These should work though. Sorry!

For those who want to listen - LeVar Burton Reads (links fixed - thanks bhrgunatha!)

Part 1

https://omny.fm/shows/levar-burton-reads/the-merchant-and-the-alchemists-gate-part-1-by-ted

Part 2

https://omny.fm/shows/levar-burton-reads/the-merchant-and-the-alchemists-gate-part-2-by-ted

I thought the pics you posted before looked great but I do see the difference between those prints and the detail here so there's definitely a difference happening with that paper that is detracting from your design. I don't know enough (read anything) about printmaking to give any advice but it looks like smoother paper is better?

That stated, I freaking love this design!

I never put this in Chat, but one of the concepts of death I want people to consider -- Someone has a heart attack while driving. They crash their car. They die. Did they die from the heart attack or the car crash? Is this person's cause of death heart disease, or accident? How do we keep statistics as accurate as possible? There's no right or wrong answer, it's simply a though-experiment to ponder.

Not sure if this is true in all states but in my state, if someone has a heart attack while driving and and crash their car, the crash is not considered a fatal car crash if they are determined to have died from the heart attack and not the crash. That is, unless someone else dies in the accident. So this part about is the cause of death COVID-19 or whatever had the person in hospice in the first place, while being news, is not particularly surprising now that I think about it.

I didn't realize that there was no CDC definition yet. So as far as you know your region is using the CSTE standard but I wonder how widespread the adoption of that standard is, or if there are other, competing standards, and if so, what the differences might be.

That whole thing with the tests and EUA labs... wow. This is going to be a mess for awhile, isn't it?