Grief is physical as much as it is emotional and psychological. It manifests itself in symptoms that affect the normal functioning of our body. Erich Lindemann had looked into the somatic manifestations of grief and he saw how people who were grieving exhibited physical changes in their behavior such as having tight throats, heavy and persistent sighing, and inexplicable pain.

Different people process grief differently, and I would argue that the intensity at which people experience grief can also require different methods of dealing or managing it. Now, there have been several therapists who have used laughter as a means of helping people cope with or process grief, particularly the physical symptoms of it.

The idea first gained much prominence when Annette Goodheart, a painter and therapist, began to develop laughter techniques in the late 1960's and '70s for therapy. What she wanted to target was how people going through painful experiences or heavy negative emotions like grief struggle to find healthy outlets or means of release for the accumulated stress and negativity in their bodies.

Due to the fact that we have been taught to suppress our emotions, whether directly or subtly, through expressions like "Stop crying" or "You've cried enough about that", people have internalized the idea that showing emotion is unhealthy or bad. However, bottling up our emotions or having a lot of pent-up emotions is quite unhealthy because, as it continues to build up, it will try to find a way for release, otherwise, we will simply implode which is what happens when people experience breakdowns due to a prolonged suppression of their emotions.

In order to combat that, Goodheart advised people to find a means of achieving catharsis, whether it be through crying or laughing. And, according to her, we should make time to laugh more in order to remove our barriers to vulnerability. As we open ourselves up, the body is able then to release all of that accumulated stress, pain, and heaviness. Much like how a four-year-old lives its life without a care in the world, and being stress-free, laughing at least five hundred times a day, when we start to unleash the pent-up emotions, we can start to feel lighter.

Of course, laughter is not the panacea for all psychological pain or emotional distress. We still need to take the proper medication, to eat right, have enough sleep, and exercise. But laughter does open a pathway for the emotions to rise from within and find its way out.

As Cody Delistraty discovered for himself, no matter how much physical exercise he did or how long he slept, he just wasn't able to get over the grief brought about by the death of his mother. At a certain point, his body just broke down. And so, he tried out the laughter therapy sessions, and found some relief in being able to go through a cathartic exercise. He also recounts several other "grief cures" in his book The Grief Cure: Looking for the End of Loss.

(Image credit: zoo monkey/Unsplash)

It has been almost 75 years since the Korean War was sparked, and for the most part, we are convinced that Kim Il Sung had been the instigator for the attacks on South Korea with the view of unifying the whole Korean peninsula. But, according to records, Kim wasn't actually acting alone in making his decision, as it would become apparent that the other two Communist superpowers at the time - Russia and China - had also been involved in the discussions of taking military action against South Korea.

According to messages between Kim and Stalin, Kim had been proposing a possible invasion to the South given that American troops were being pulled out, and seeing that the South Koreans were against a pro-American regime at the time, Kim had thought that the best time to make a move was the soonest possible. Initially, Stalin had been hesitant to approve of this proposal and advised Kim to wait, instead of jumping the gun and launching an offensive right away.

Stalin's concern at the time was actually the opposite of what Kim Il Sung had been saying. Stalin had feared some form of aggression from the people of the South and so he wanted Kim to be patient, and advised him to simply wait for the time for a counterattack instead of making the first move. Furthermore, Stalin saw that the northern army would not be strong enough to overwhelm the southern army, not just in numbers but in military strength with the possibility of reinforcements from the US.

On the other hand, Kim had suggested a partial operation in the Ongjin peninsula in order to demoralize the opposing forces before storming with their troops and achieving a rapid victory. Still, Stalin was cautious and wanted Kim to simply prepare for any contingencies that might occur.

Midway through their discussions, Stalin started to sing a different tune. When once he had advised caution and merely preparation, he started to communicate to Kim that he would be willing and ready to send reinforcements whenever they launch their attack on the South. What changed Stalin's mind was mainly the success of the Chinese Community Party against the Kuomintang, which paved the way for an attack on South Korea to be successful. However, Stalin also calculated that this would only be possible with the intervention of China. He urged Kim to present this to Mao Zedong, which the latter reluctantly approved.

So, on 25 June 1950, the North invaded the South and was quite successful. However, Stalin had not foreseen the intervention of the United Nations in the fray, as well as the swift response of MacArthur to launch a counterattack, when American troops landed at Incheon in September. Kim and Stalin found themselves in a bind, with Kim requesting Stalin for aid in the battle, meanwhile Stalin ran to Mao to send reinforcements to the 38th Parallel.

Three years later, after Stalin died, the offensive against the South was dropped and all the collaborators sought a formal end to the conflict. So, who exactly started the Korean War? At the end of it all, although Kim Il Sung was the main instigator, he definitely had support, mainly from Stalin and to a lesser extent, Mao.

(Image source: Franz Kratschmer/Linkedin)

Three weeks ago, my dad and I were out for a drive and we decided to go get some food at a McDonald's drive-through. Everything went as smoothly as it could and we got our food. What happened after that was perhaps one of the most awkward and uncomfortable experiences we've ever had in recent memory.

The car in front of us, as they were about to exit the drive-through, suddenly broke down. It was a tight lane and there was not enough space for us to drive around the car in front, so we were basically caught in a jam. It was probably about five minutes in when I realized what had happened, so I told my dad to go and see what the issue was. I suspected that their car's battery died, and so it needed to be jump-started.

Once my dad returned to our car, he was able to maneuver our car so that we could possibly help them jump-start their car. After about 15 minutes of unsuccessful attempts, a few other people decided to just help them push the car onto the side of the road, since it was already causing a massive traffic jam. And that whole time, I felt really uncomfortable because the whole incident was holding everybody up, the people behind us in the drive-through queue, as well as those on the road. And, in hindsight, I think that the best thing we could have done, was simply to help them push their car to the side of the road in the first place.

There are certain instances like this when we try to do the kind or polite thing but actually, that may not be the most polite thing to do. Granted, this was an unforeseen circumstance, both my dad and I were tired, we had a long day, it was already evening, and we just wanted to get home. So, my brain wasn't really working at its peak form, and my dad probably didn't know exactly what to do as well. I only suggested what I thought was the most helpful thing, not just for the family in front of us, but for everybody else who was going to encounter this traffic incident.

In any case, we often want to do something polite or kind to the people around us or even to the fast food workers or cashiers, but those people may find our acts of kindness a bit off-putting, annoying, unnecessary, or even an inconvenience. Charlotte Hilton Andersen shares 15 of these "polite habits" which we may be doing but fast food workers actually dislike on Reader's Digest.

To summarize some of these habits into categories, I found that several of them have to do with holding up the queue, similar to what happened to my dad and I, although that was unintentional on the part of the car in front of us, and so one could say that it was understandable.

However, we may do things like trying to pay exact change so that it would be easier for the cashiers. That's well and good as long as we already have the cash ready on hand and we're just going to give it to the cashier. But if we're still going to rummage through our wallet or change holder in the car, then we're just holding up the people waiting in line, and the cashier will have to deal with the possibly irate customers who have been waiting more than they had wanted in line.

Making unnecessary comments or remarks under the guise of being sympathetic toward the workers may also be under this category, because it just wastes time. As I have observed, and as common sense should dictate, a fast food chain needs to do everything fast, because that's what they were designed for. So any moment of slack or waiting time can disrupt the whole system. For example, queuing up without knowing what you're going to order or having to ask the cashier what they would recommend is a huge time-waster. And putting the cashier on the spot like that just makes it inconvenient for them and for the other customers in line.

I would consider other acts on the list as either misplaced sympathy or simply crossing the boundaries. For example, giving tips when these establishments generally have a policy for not accepting tips is just one way of getting the workers in trouble. Trying to pay it forward by paying for the person behind you or the car behind in the queue can be misconstrued, and it also makes things confusing for the cashier.

Other things we might say to sound polite may also come off as condescending or even downright insulting. Essentially, when we order at fast food restaurants, we give our order, pay for it, and then get our food. The addition of self-ordering kiosks actually helps to make the process a lot faster and less prone to mistakes.

Even though we have the best intentions at heart sometimes, it's best to just go with the natural flow of things without having to do all the extra stuff, and reserve them for when the conditions are ripe for some act of kindness, which won't inconvenience the people around us. For the more detailed list of fast food ordering do's and don'ts, check out Andersen's article on Reader's Digest.

(Image credit: Blake Wisz/Unsplash)

Rhinoceros poaching continues to be a big problem in South Africa. Poachers take the rhinos' horns because they are used in traditional medicine in many parts of Asia. The number of rhinos killed by poachers has been growing year by year, 499 of them in 2023. Conservationists have tried to stop poaching by removing rhinos' horns, but they grow back in about 18 months. Poachers could do this, too, but it's easier to just kill the rhino and then take its horn. Conservationists have even tried poisoning the horns, but poachers don't care, since the effects come after the sale.

A new initiative called the Rhisotope Project involves tagging a rhino's horn with small radioactive chips, two in each horn. The radiation emitted is not dangerous to the animal, and should last five years. The reason behind the scheme is because international airports, seaports, and many national borders are equipped with radiation detectors as part of the fight against the smuggling of nuclear materials. Sure, the rhino would already be dead at that point, but it would help bust the smuggling rings that support the poachers. Read how this is done and what it might mean for the survival of rhinos at AOL. -via Damn Interesting

If you had to name a mime, the only name that most of us could come up with would be Marcel Marceau. After all, it's a pretty niche talent. Marceau, who was born Marcel Mangel in 1923, admired Charlie Chaplin from a young age, but the first time he used miming skills was to thwart the Germans who occupied his country. When the Nazis invaded France in 1940, Marceau was sixteen years old. He changed his name to Marceau to hide his Jewish identity, and joined the French Resistance.

Marceau's job was to lead groups of Jewish children through forests across the Swiss border. The journey required absolute silence, and Marceau would mime his instructions to the children. During downtime, he would also entertain them. And so a unique career was launched. Read about Marceau and his World War II exploits at Messy Nessy Chic. 

(Image credit: the White House)

When I think of a really deadly disease, I think of rabies, because it's not only virtually 100% fatal, it is a horrible way to die. But "deadly" in this video doesn't mean the rate of death, but the number of people who die. Rabies is horrible, but it's not all that easy to catch. You might guess what the "white death" is, but since the video strings you along, I won't mention the exact disease. In this video, Kurzgesagt provides the art and John Green provides the commentary as we learn how the white death infects a human body and makes its way past our immune system. Of course, our immune systems always have a plan B, but that in itself can make us sick or even kill us. This slow, sneaky disease killed 1.3 million people last year. And that's a problem, because it's so slow and sneaky that we tend to ignore it despite the number of deaths. But there is hope on the horizon.

I have heard stories of people who have had near-death experiences going through out-of-body experiences (OBEs) simultaneously and although it's inconceivable in my mind, since I cannot imagine how that would work, except when it's being reenacted or visualized on film or the screen.

Oftentimes, we imagine some immaterial part of ourselves, the soul, coming out of the physical body and becoming separate for a time, giving it the ability to perceive the surrounding area as if from a third-person perspective. And, usually, these types of experiences are described as somewhat spiritual, both in the literal and the metaphorical sense, in that, people who have gone through them have reported to have undergone changes in their outlook in life or even worldview.

A team of researchers, led by neuroscientist Marine Weiler from the University of Virginia, have looked into studies regarding OBEs, and have gathered that many people who have had OBEs have an increased sense of empathy toward others, which can be connected to this process of ego dissolution or ego death, in which a person's sense of self gives way to a feeling of interconnectedness with others, and in particular, those around them.

I would imagine that anybody who has had a near-death experience would definitely consider that a life-changing experience, as they would feel that they had been given a second chance at life. But perhaps the added bonus of having an out-of-body experience in that moment might have given them a profound realization of how precious life is, and being able to look at other people without their being conscious of one's presence, thereby shedding the pretenses and showing their vulnerability must have been an eye-opener for these people.

In any case, the researchers conducting the survey suggested that the reason why people are experiencing increased levels of empathy after going through OBEs might be due to the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) in the brain which helps us in information processing and perception.

The researchers also point out the fact that the TPJ is tied to the ego as this part also handles the processing of self-reflection and internal narratives about ourselves, which can get disrupted when a person is having an OBE. For future research, the team wants to explore OBEs either by using virtual reality or having participants who can induce OBEs on demand, so that they can find out methods on how to enhance empathy.

(Image credit: Warren/Unsplash)

As a guy standing at 160cm (5 feet, 3 inches), anybody who stands at a height of at least 5 feet, 8 inches is already gigantic from my perspective, let alone anybody who stands at a height of at least six feet. We have heard legends and tales of giants, perhaps even when we were children, such as Jack and the Beanstalk, and of course, there are the Biblical stories of Goliath, or the Nephilim. Then there's the mention of the Cyclopes and the Titans in Greek and Roman mythology.

In more recent times, we have seen a few people in sports and entertainment who can be categorized as "giants" who are at least seven feet tall, towering over much of the general population. People like Andre the Giant and the Great Khali in entertainment wrestling, Yao Ming, the center for the Houston Rockets until he retired in 2011, and Matthew McGrory, the giant portrayed in the film Big Fish, who stood at 7 feet, 6 inches, and sadly passed away in 2005 at the age of 32, due to congestive heart failure.

The existence of giant humans has always been a spectacle for people because they're rare. Most of the time, we only hear about them in stories, especially in legends. However, very tall human beings have been around on the earth since time immemorial.

Marta Korbonits, an endocrinology professor at Queen Mary University of London, cites the case of an ancient Egyptian pharaoh who has been alleged to have stood at 6 feet, 1.6 inches, as well as many Irish giants who lived around 2,500 years ago, according to her research.

Records like these show that many people throughout history have been considered giants by their peers, despite standing at around six feet, which would be considered about average today.

Even the tallest person recorded in history, Robert Wadlow, only stood at 8 feet 11 inches. I say "only", but that's relative to how people have mythologized giants. In reality, such a height is shocking in and of itself, and completely unimaginable for me, and perhaps for a lot of people as well. Despite the fact that Wadlow had been "gifted" with such a physical "advantage", it actually came at a great cost.

According to Korbonits, many giants actually have a growth hormone problem. Wadlow's height stemmed from a medical condition called gigantism caused by a brain tumor which elevated the levels of growth hormone that the pituitary gland produced. It also affected his health, having to wear braces to support his stature. Because of complications with his condition, he only lived to be 22 years old, succumbing to septic shock, after a blister in his ankle popped, brought about in part by the poorly-fitted iron brace he had to wear to support his legs.

Of course, not all giants have this medical condition. Bao Xishun, who was formerly the world's tallest man, stands naturally at 7 feet 9 inches. Currently, Xishun is 72 years old, and lives in Mongolia with his wife.

Further research is looking into whether there were more giants in human history. Pavel Grasgruber, an anthropologist from Masaryk University, has been looking into the Gravettian culture, which he believes to have inspired the myths about giants. From the fossils that they have excavated from the Grimaldi cave system in Czech Republic, they found several skeletons who are estimated to have stood at least 6 feet, 5 inches.

Some factors that could have contributed to their height may be the abundance of food due to the low population density of the area. Although genetics also plays a large role in our height, these environmental factors can positively affect our physical build, frame, and stature. So, giant humans were not just myths, but there have been real ones in history, and perhaps they are the ones on whom the stories were based.

(Image credit: Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons)

This tourism promotional video for Norway's capital city speaks to people like me who find very urban areas generally undesirable. They're often crowded, dirty, expensive, and involve far too much waiting.

"I mean, is it even a city?...I think that a city should be a little hard to get." The narrator, a native of Oslo who "temporarily live[s] here...unfortunately" puts down his native Oslo as a large village where you can walk everywhere, get into restaurants and museums, and casually meet the King. Who would want that? Given the online responses to this ad, it appears a lot of potential tourists.

-via Laughing Squid

For any anime fans out there, when I read the phrase "inherit memory", I immediately thought of Tanjiro from Demon Slayer when he had some sort of vision or dream where he saw somebody that looked exactly like him, but had his own family and spoke with this samurai-looking guy with a similar scar on his forehead just like Tanjiro had. Later on, it was mentioned how some people get inherited memories from their ancestors, and so Tanjiro concluded that the person in the dream was actually one of his ancestors.

Fiction aside, some researchers have conducted an experiment that purports how certain "memories" or "experiences" may be passed down to next generations. And the answer, according to them, lies in genetics. Furthermore, it's more than just memories or experiences, they suggest that even traits such as temperament, longevity, resilience to mental ill-health, and even ideological leanings can be embedded in the genetic framework of an individual and inherited by their descendants.

Originally, one of the earlier experiments on epigenetics was conducted by a team from Emory University in Georgia, led by Prof. Kerry Ressler, in which they used mice to study the effects of lived experience and acquired knowledge, and how those are transmitted from one generation of mice to the next.

First, they stimulated the mice by exposing them to the scent of cherries, immediately followed by a mild electric shock. After associating the smell of cherries with the pain from the shock, the mice had internalized a certain fear or anxiety about cherries. Next, the researchers bred the mice once. and then those pups were bred again.

When the researchers exposed the grandpups to the smell of cherries, it was quite surprising to discover that the grandpups had the same reaction to the cherries as their grandparents did. From this, the team identified a particular gene that had been changed. Instead of the nerve cells directing the stimulus of the cherries to the pleasure and reward circuits, it was rerouted to the amygdala, the part of the brain that registered fear.

In order to ensure that these results were not affected by other factors such as learning by imitation, the researchers bred the original mice again and raised the new pups away from their parents. Some of the grandpups were also fostered out. Both these groups still reacted the same way to the cherries as the traumatized mice. Furthermore, the researchers also bred mice who had no such traumatic experience and had the pups fostered by the traumatized mice, and the pups were unaffected.

This leads to the conclusion that certain traumatic events may change the way neurons are wired to react to certain stimuli and that can be passed on to the next generations through DNA. But the whole study doesn't end there. The researchers also tried to reverse the effect of the traumatic linking. And they found that after some repetitions, the traumatized mice's neural circuits had reverted to their original wiring. After breeding them again, the researchers found that the trauma wasn't passed on to subsequent generations.

With this study as the background, another team of researchers led by Prof. Rachel Yehuda at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York in 2020, tried to examine whether the same neural circuitry can be found in humans by looking into the genetics of Holocaust survivors and their children, and they saw that, for people who have gone through trauma, there were particular changes to the gene linked to levels of cortisol.

In 2021, Prof. Yehuda looked at genes linked to the immune system, and they found that the changes caused by the traumatic event had affected the way the immune system interacted with the central nervous system. The disruptions caused by the immune system had been linked to depression, anxiety, psychosis, and autism.

Although we won't necessarily have the same kind of experience that Tanjiro had in the show, wherein he saw vividly the experience of his ancestor as if looking through their eyes, there are certain things that our ancestors may have passed on to us if they had gone through traumatic or life-altering experiences. Those changes may have been embedded into the genes and affect later generations, causing them to be more susceptible to diseases or mental health concerns.

(Image credit: Johnny Cohen/Unsplash)

Forget about dating with AI, there's a burgeoning trend, albeit still in its nascent stages, wherein companies can create a digital persona of our deceased loved ones, using data collected from text messages, social media posts, voice recordings, stories and reels to make a virtual reconstruction of the deceased person. It's called the digital afterlife, and it's an interesting concept but also one that's rife with potential ethical concerns.

The most glaring issue with this technology is data privacy and consent, and this is also linked to the possible psychological stress or damage that it may cause relatives or people close to the deceased. It is possible for some people to find relief or solace in being able to interact in one way or another with their deceased loved one as a means of finding closure, however, for others, it may aggravate their grieving process and cause undue harm to their mental and emotional state.

Since different people have different ways of processing their grief, the psychological and ethical ramifications of recreating a deceased person by making a virtual persona patterned after them may be quite grave. Some have even termed the negative effects that these digital afterlife personas cause as "digital hauntings".

Moreover, there are certain things that the deceased might have wanted to take to their grave and so, creating these personas may be an infringement of their right to their privacy, however, social media companies' control over people's access to data may complicate these matters.

Of course, most of these reconstructions are possible because most of us have our digital footprint online. It would be less likely to reconstruct VR or AI versions of our deceased loved ones from 50 years ago or even those from 30 years ago, before we had all this digital footprint and data.

Having said that, we may have reached the point in which, with the technology that we have, we can create avatars, holograms, or chatbots imbued with mannerisms, habits, or even the particular personality traits by which we remember our loved ones. So, it might not be long before these digital afterlife companies are able to recreate personas of our loved ones just based on photos or written documents like letters, and such.

Personally, I prefer not to linger or wallow too much in grief. Maybe there are some people who may have had regrets about not saying something to their loved ones before they passed away, or not being able to do something for them while they were still alive. For those people, I understand the value of this technology or service as it would help them get closure, even though if you think about it rationally, it wouldn't necessarily affect anything with the deceased. But it is for the sake of those who have been bereft, and their peace of mind.

There are some risks to this technology, especially with how AI is becoming more and more sophisticated, and how one can make somebody say something that they never really said while they were alive, or make them do something that they never did, through the use of AI. It may not be perfect, but the concern is still valid, and so, this would require a lot of policy conversations and legal revisions.

At the end of the day, although this technology can be helpful, we also want to consider the wishes of our deceased loved ones, and we want to be able to respectfully honor them, while still having some form of connection with them. So, the best way is to communicate these concerns properly and provide meaningful feedback to help minimize the potential risks and ethical issues that these digital afterlife technologies will inevitably face.

(Image credit: note thanun/Unsplash)

I ate a lot of McDonald's when I was a kid, and I would admit that it was a disproportionate amount compared to what nutritionists or dietitians would recommend to anyone. But McDonald's has been my favorite fast food restaurant from a very young age, and although I have been cutting down my consumption of processed food, McDonald's still remains my go-to for cheat days or cravings.

In the past two decades, many things have changed and although McDonald's was already a global force starting in the '90s and well into the '00s, their influence in the international fast food industry today has grown by leaps and bounds, and we can consider them a major player in the global economic scene, seeing how ubiquitous the McDonald's brand has become.

Without going into how McDonald's expanded their reach internationally over the past 30 years, we know that they have been very aggressive with their franchising strategy, opening stores in different locations all around the world. As of 2023, according to Statista, there were almost 42,000 McDonald's restaurants operating in more than 110 countries. Second only to McDonald's is Subway with around 37,000 chains in 2021. Starbucks, the largest coffeehouse chain in the world, has about 36,000 stores in operation globally in 2023.

From these statistics, we see just how much of a powerhouse McDonald's really is. But that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to cultural norms, practices, or trends, or that they can make universal decisions with impunity. As a matter of fact, McDonald's has had to adapt certain elements of their brand to local tastes, preferences, and aesthetics.

Changes, additions, or removal of food items from their menu have occurred with respect to what the local culture dictates. Although the main items on their menu stay the same, they have opened it up to variations. And photojournalist Gary He wanted to document all those changes. So, he traveled to more than 50 countries where McDonald's was, ordered food from their menu, and took pictures of his orders at his hotel room. He then compiled of these photographs in his upcoming book titled McAtlas: A Global Guide to the Golden Arches.

He shared some of his experiences with Gastro Obscura. According to He, his inspiration for going on this journey was simply to continue the "visual social anthropology" of McDonald's, how it shaped cultures and how it too was shaped by the cultures on which it landed. Taking his lead from John F. Love's own biography of McDonald's titled McDonald's: Behind the Arches, published in 1986 originally, and revised in 1995, He sought to continue that story.

Over the past six years, He collected not just photos of the food items unique to each locale, exhibiting the nuances of the cultural sphere in which McDonald's operated, but also the architectural differences that he noticed. A few such instances was the pagoda-style store in Shenzhen, the first McDonald's that opened in China, as well as the fancy-looking, dome-like, futuristic glass structure of the McDonald's store in Batumi, Georgia, pictured above.

Some notable food item changes or additions were the McBaguette in France, the Nasi Lemak burger in Malaysia and Singapore, cha chaan tengs in Hong Kong, and the McSpaghetti in the Philippines.

The last one actually has a very interesting story as, although the spaghetti dish was introduced in the 1970s, it was discontinued in 1980 except for the Philippines and Orlando, Florida. Furthermore, one particular difference in that spaghetti dish was the sauce. He explained how spaghetti in the Philippines was made with sweet sauce, since banana ketchup is the more popular condiment in the country over tomato ketchup, which has a more tangy flavor.

Culturally, the fact that McDonald's is in over 110 countries operating almost 42,000 stores is quite a feat and could also be a significant driving force in a culture. The way that McDonald's integrates parts of the local culture into its ecosystem can and is being used to export culture into different parts of the world. It's a diffusion phenomenon in which McDonald's becomes the vehicle by which culture has the ability to spread through food.

To know more about Gary He's project, and to reserve a copy of his book, check out McAtlas.

(Image credits: Ресторан всемирной сети/Wikimedia Commons; Gary He)

The Terminator T-800 was a cyborg covered with a layer of living skin tissue in order to blend in with humans. You might be a little surprised -or not- to learn that scientists are working on such a robot in real life. Michio Kawai and his colleagues at the University of Tokyo are experimenting with culturing living human skin cells to cover a robot, to make the robot's face more relatable and allow it to communicate with humans better. Another aim is to cover robots with something that will heal after being damaged.

The video above is from Kawai's latest paper, published today, in which scientists attached the living skin culture to a robotic face made of resin, anchored with perforations, in order to move the skin with actuators and make facial expressions, "potentially contributing to advancements in biohybrid robotics."

While it looks pretty creepy (what are those eyes made of?) and the implications of biohybrid robots can cause nightmares (or movies), attaching living skin to a robot is still in its early stages. Without a blood supply, living skin will not last long on a robot face. I'm sure they're working on that problem, too.  -via Laughing Squid

Thanks to the near-universality of the state primary election system, today's political party conventions are made-for-TV events that few watch because the results are a foregone conclusion. There was a time in living memory when the parties held their conventions and no one knew who they would nominate to run for president until they took a vote among the delegates. The 1924 Democratic National Convention was an extreme version of such conventions. It was the first to be broadcast on radio, the first with a Black delegate, and the first in which women were in the running for the vice-presidential nomination. But what really made the 1924 convention stand out was that it took 16 days and 103 ballots to settle on the party's nominee!

In 1924, the Democratic Party was in the middle of a decades-long shift in philosophy. One wing of the party supported (or even belonged to) the Ku Klux Klan. Their top candidate was William G. McAdoo of Tennessee. Others in the party opposed the Klan and supported Governor Al Smith of New York. Smith was a Catholic whose parents had immigrated from Ireland, and the Klan hated him. Between these extremes, there were plenty who just wanted peace and advocated for ignoring the Klan. There were also plenty of candidates with only regional support. The result was that no candidate could get a majority, and the final nominee was a compromise who made no one happy. Read about the longest and most chaotic party convention ever at Smithsonian. 

(Image credit: XplornN4)

When this song sounds good, and that song sounds good, there's a good chance they will sound good together, especially if they bring back memories. CLMC Music presents an epic mashup song collection of TV and movie themes that will be very familiar to you. Well, a very few may be unfamiliar; which ones will depend upon your age. It's an hour long, but don't let that discourage you from listening. What this really is, is 19 separate mashups, most of them pairing a movie and a TV show, although a few are from two movies or two TV shows. You can skip to the one you think is most intriguing, using this guide.

00:00 : Ghostbusters x Knight Rider
02:59 : Indiana Jones x A-Team
05:11  : Axel F x Mission Impossible
08:07 : Hawaii Five-0 x Sledge Hammer
10:33 : The Mandalorian x Transformers (Autobots theme)
13:08 : Miami Vice (Crockett’s Theme) x Star Wars (The Force theme)
16:18 : Mortal Kombat x Heart of Courage
19:30 : Pink Panther x James Bond
22:14 : Beverly Hills Cop (Axel F, Shootout) x Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
25:20 : Halloween x Mission Impossible
27:46 : Avengers x Star Wars (Imperial March)
30:19 : Magnum P.I. x Eye of the Tiger (Rocky 4)
33:05 : Airwolf x Pirates of the Caribbean
36:04 : Transformers (Arrival to Earth) x Gladiator (Now we are free)
39:31 : Harry Potter (Hedwig’s theme) x Game of Thrones
41:37 : Godzilla vs Kong (The new Kingdom) x Transformers (Autobots reunite)
44:49 : Victory x Heart of Courage (Two steps from hell)
48:14 : Goldeneye x Goldfinger
50:46 : I dream of Jeannie x Bewitched

Or you can scroll along the progress bar, as they are all labeled. I've been bouncing around this video all morning! -via Geeks Are Sexy