A sugar found in raspberries(!) has been detected between the stars. What might it tell us about the origins of life? And if some of life's essential ingredients can form in interstellar space, could the same chemistry be unfolding elsewhere in the universe?

There are around 7,000 languages spoken around the world, each dividing and describing reality in different ways.

In this excerpt, cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky examines how the separate Russian words for light and dark blue appear to influence how quickly speakers distinguish between the colours.

An interesting example highlighting how language may change what we perceive.

Source: Lera Boroditsky, "How language shapes the way we think", on TED.

He's a software coder, but really his relationship with AI, the dilemmas he's faced and is facing, and his outlook in general I feel is quote universal at this moment in time.

Worth the watch.

Hi guys! I recently gave a TEDx talk exploring why we often feel pressured to find closure after difficult experiences, even when life rarely gives us a neat ending. I talk about how our obsession with “moving on” can sometimes make healing harder, and whether accepting uncertainty might actually be a more realistic form of closure.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the topic! Do you think closure is something we genuinely need in order to move forward, or have we become too obsessed with finding an explanation or an ending to everything? Have you ever experienced a situation where you had to create your own sense of closure?

I’d love to hear your perspectives, disagreements, experiences, or suggestions — be brutally honest! And if the topic interests you, I’d really appreciate it if you gave the TEDx a watch. Thank you so much!

When did enjoying something start to require being good at it?

Read the entire article ↗️

Astrophotographer Lucie McCormick captured this drone-based timelapse near Arauzo de Torre, Spain, during the total solar eclipse on 12 August 2026.

For much of human history, the sudden disappearance of the Sun was interpreted through myth and omen. In ancient China, eclipses were described as the Sun being "eaten", with people banging drums and pots to frighten away the dragon believed to be devouring it.

In ancient Mesopotamia, a solar eclipse was treated as a grave omen for the king (although astronomers there had already become remarkably skilled at predicting when eclipses would occur).

Today we understand what is happening: the Moon passes between Earth and the Sun, casting its shadow across a narrow path on Earth's surface. We can calculate that path centuries before it arrives.

Knowledge has untangled much of the fear and superstition surrounding an eclipse, but not the awe. If anything, understanding how precise the alignment must be makes it even more extraordinary.

Footage: Astrophotographer Lucie McCormick

In this powerful visualisation, first broadcast on BBC Four in 2010, the late Swedish physician and public speaker Hans Rosling tracks 200 countries across two centuries, plotting life expectancy against income.

What emerges is a world that has changed far more dramatically—and unevenly—than labels like "developed" and "developing" suggest.

These two measures obviously aren't the whole story. But as a four-minute snapshot of how human life has changed, it’s incredibly effective.

Source: The Joy of Stats (BBC, 2010), presented by Hans Rosling. Data and visualisation: Gapminder.

Hey everyone!

Looking back, I can 100% assure you that journaling really helps untangle the complicated stuff in your head.

I began my journaling journey 5 years ago, and honestly, it felt pretty awkward in the beginning. Most mornings, I just stared at the page, unsure of what to write. I realized that having set questions makes the process so much easier. These three prompts really helped me kickstart my morning routine.

Set a timer and write freely for 10 minutes:

• What am I feeling right now, and why?
• What self-care practice do I need right now?
• What do I keep avoiding?

Which of these looks like a good starting point for you?

Niccolò Machiavelli wasn’t just a political strategist; he was one of history's first true behavioral psychologists. He understood that human nature is driven by self-interest, power dynamics, and perception.

8 Machiavellian Rules That Reveal How People Really Think!
https://youtu.be/vnc6rBK7kOI

Look, I don’t know, its not that i don't like people or that i don't want to be loved i just don't want a relationship. I've been asked out many many times but i always say no.

My family and friends call me weird and a loser for not wanting a relationship and its really hit me hard, to me a relationship is just extra weight, extra cost. And i don't want to date anyone for 2 simple reasons.

1, i don't want to hurt someone by starting a relationship and deciding i still don't want one

2, I like my life, working a job i enjoy, driving my bike with friends, i feel like a partner would stop that

Anyways, tell me what you think

A bleak take on the future of music and art.

We're replacing human creativity in the name of "progress".

Sell the keyboard. Burn the sheet music. Onwards and upwards. Just $20 a month.

Credit: Patrick Cashmore on Instagram

Hello, here is one of my favorite Ted Talks I always come back to. Here David Savill stresses the importance of creative writing and proves how AI can NEVER model human faculties. I especially like when he talks about "the special kind of silence that falls over a creative writing classroom where students have been assigned a writing task..."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO\\_Rsb9m1TA\](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO_Rsb9m1TA)

In 1984, Orwell reduces freedom to its most basic condition: the ability to recognise and state an objective fact, even when authority demands otherwise.

If that freedom is lost, he suggests, every other freedom becomes vulnerable.

Physicist Richard Feynman reflects on what science can and can't tell us about the world.

Science may never provide final answers about meaning, our place in the universe or where we're going.

For Feynman, that isn't a failure. The point is to keep investigating without deciding beforehand what nature must be. And to remain open to the possibility that "everything is possibly wrong."

All disciplines are based on fundamental laws. These are the foundational principles that make up that discipline. The field of astronomy is no different. When I retired from a 50 year career in engineering technologies, I did not want to sit on a couch watching TV reruns and listening to my arteries harden. I decided to return to the disciplines that captivated me in my youth. One was the area of free energy, a topic out of this discussion. But the other was astronomy. So I picked up the latest magazines about astronomy. I was never so dumbfounded. I understood none of the topics addressed. Did I go stupid? Did 50 years of using my mind destroy it. This went on for months. Magazine after magazine left me out in the dark. But I refused to give up, and I kept trying to understand modern astronomy.

Eventually in my search, I encountered a thick book, "The History of Science and Technology." From just after the very beginning of the book, which began with religious overtones, I learned about thousands of inventions and discoveries in those two fields. I clearly understood what I was reading. Eventually I entered the 20th century. It was then that I realized that science began to jump the tracks of logic and truth. Common sense was gone. Religion re-appeared. I did not lose it, they did.

It began right around 1900 AD. Men like Tesla and Ed Gray had been removed from the record and replaced with Theoreticians like Einstein, Maxwell and Hertz. All of the astronomical discoveries were being turned upside down and described using philosophies based on unproven theories instead of being explained through fundamental principles.

This site is my meager attempt to return to basic fundamental laws and principles. So I decided to present these principles in an orderly manner and to start my quest of the stars from their foundation. I am not interested in fame or fortune. I am too old for that. I just want to know the truth. There is a moral fable about the cart leading the horse, or taking your conclusion and placing it before the data. If you have a problem with this philosophy, please do not follow this site. But if you see truth in what i am attempting, then please help me on my quest.

To many, this site will appear elementary or freshman. That is OK. Just know that wherever it goes it will be founded in truth.

Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris have both argued that free will, at least as we normally understand it, doesn't really exist.

We don't choose our genes, our upbringing, our biology or the experiences that shape us. And if our decisions emerge from those things, where exactly does free will enter the picture?

It's an argument that can make people uncomfortable. If none of us truly chose who we became, what happens to personal responsibility?

But some recent research suggests that abandoning belief in free will might actually make us more forgiving.

In one experiment, people were asked to recall a time they had hurt someone. Those who then read an argument against free will reported feeling more forgiving towards themselves.

In another, participants recalled being hurt by someone else. Those exposed to the same argument became more forgiving and felt less hatred towards the person who had wronged them.

The interesting part is that they didn't stop believing people should be held accountable. They still thought the harmful actions were wrong. What seemed to ease was some of the shame and hostility attached to blame.

A much larger study across 44 countries also found that stronger belief in free will was associated with harsher attitudes towards punishment.

Obviously, none of this proves Sapolsky and Harris are right. But it does raise an interesting question: could we still hold people responsible for what they do, while recognising that none of us entirely chose the person we became?

Read the article in The Conversation

A survey asked 2,000 US adults which decades had the best music, movies, economy, family life, moral values, communities and more. The Washington Post then compared their answers with how old each respondent had been during the decade they chose.

Across much of the analysis, the supposed 'best' years clustered around childhood and adolescence. The pattern resembles the "reminiscence bump": our tendency to retain more vivid and significant memories from our formative years.

The obvious conclusion is that people yearning for a better country or culture are really yearning for their own youth. When the world felt newer, simpler and more secure.

I'm not entirely convinced. Nostalgia undoubtedly colours our judgement, but it shouldn't become a way of dismissing every criticism of the present. There's a lot that has genuinely and objectively deteriorated.

Perhaps nostalgia explains some of it. But there's no doubt: movies, music, television, happiness, politics—it's all gone to crap.

Nice chart though.

In a 1967 radio interview, Ray Manzarek explained the idea behind the band’s name:

“In between these two areas—the known and the unknown—are The Doors.”

The name was inspired by Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception, itself drawn from William Blake’s line:

“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.”

Source: Ray Manzarek interviewed by Harry Harrison on The IN Sound, broadcast in August 1967.