Dem
47
GOP
53
It's non-politics questions day!
We're going to make a change in formatting. In the past, we have generally labeled the answers to questions as coming from (V) and (Z). That's not wrong, as the answers written by one are read and edited by the other. However, now that (A) has been announced to the world, we expect to have answers, many weekends, from up to four of us—(V), (Z), (L) and (A). So, we're going to switch over, and use the ID of the primary answerer of each question. (Z) answers the majority, but sometimes a question is more in the wheelhouse of one of the other contributors (for example, Z knows Star Trek, but A knows Star Trek even better).
Finally, if you're working on the weekly theme puzzle, we'll add this hint. Being "dead from Los Angeles" won't help you at all. On the other hand...
D.B. in Rochester, NY, asks: Reading Cory Doctorow, watching Severance, and following the news has made me need something funny. What are the best comedy movies of each of the last 10 decades, and why?
(Z) answers: Some decades are rather tough, but:
- 1930s: Duck Soup (1933). The best of the Marx Brothers, and the high point of vaudevillian slapstick on film (not far behind is the other film we considered here, Sons of the Desert, which was the best work of Laurel and Hardy).
- 1940s: The Great Dictator (1941). Many theaters would not show films critical of Adolf Hitler in 1941, for appearing too "political" (which is basically 1940s speak for "woke"). So, Charles Chaplin created a biting comic takedown of a guy who wasn't "Adolf Hitler," but was obviously Adolf Hitler.
- 1950s: Some Like It Hot (1959). It turns out that when men put on women's clothes, it does not ruin people's souls, or corrupt the youth (see also Tootsie, drag queen story hour), and can be quite entertaining. The AFI ranked this as the greatest American comedy film ever made, and they have a case.
- 1960s: It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1964). With only a couple of exceptions, a "who's who" of golden age Hollywood comic talents. And a rip-roaring adventure, to boot.
- 1970s: Blazing Saddles (1974). It hurts to leave Animal House off, but Blazing Saddles might be the most incisive work of social commentary ever put to film, comedy or no. And it might also be the most perfectly cast film ever made. Could anyone have played Bart better than Cleavon Little, or the Waco Kid better than Gene Wilder? This scene, in particular, is ALWAYS funny, even after the 100th viewing:
- 1980s: Airplane! (1980). There were a lot of options here, but we think one very good measure of how effective a comedy is, is "How many lines from the film entered the zeitgeist?" There are at least a dozen lines from Airplane! that pretty much everyone knows. "Don't call me Shirley!" "My dad says you don't work hard enough on defense." "I take [my coffee] black, like my men." "Leon's getting LARRRGER!" "He has a drinking problem!" "Do you like movies about gladiators?" "Guess I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines." Oh, and it too has an unbelievable cast.
- 1990s: Office Space (1999). The archetype of a "cult film." Not everyone saw it, but those who did mostly loved it. Mike Judge certainly had his finger on the unglamourous sides of the late 20th century American life.
- 2000s: The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005). Not too many films have launched as many actors on the path to stardom as this one did: Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Mindy Kaling, Kevin Hart, Elizabeth Banks, etc. It's a little raunchy at times, yes, but there are a lot of funny moments, and ultimately it's a very good-hearted film.
- 2010s: Bridesmaids (2011). Also a bit raunchy at times, but very funny, and what a performance from Melissa McCarthy. Not to mention from Kristen Wiig.
- 2020s: The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022). Halfway through, this has not been a great decade for comedy. We considered a few films where "comedy" is one of six genres they incorporate, but we just couldn't put Barbie or Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood on a "great comedies" list. We were saved when we remembered The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, a vehicle for Nicolas Cage and Pedro Pascal (back when Pascal was WAY cheaper to get), which is very clever, and is most certainly a comedy. It doesn't have anywhere near as many laugh-out-loud moments as the other films on this list, but it's still a worthy entry.
P.D.N. in Boardman, OH, asks: (Z), pardon me, but sometimes I feel you have somewhat idiosyncratic taste in movies. I wouldn't say the French plantation scene in Apocalypse Now ruined the movie. Rather, that it was superfluous and didn't add anything necessary. It's only in the director's cut anyway. (I have a friend who loves this section.) I also feel Ang Lee did a pretty good job in Brokeback Mountain. So which are your favorite 5 or 10 movies?
(Z) answers: I didn't actually say that the plantation scene ruined the movie. I said that the plantation scene made worse the problems I had with a film I already didn't like. I would not consider my tastes to be all that idiosyncratic; if they are, the idiosyncrasy is that there are some "classics" that really don't work for me.
In any event, my favorite film of all time is The Blues Brothers. The rest of the Top 10, in no particular order: Animal House, Blazing Saddles, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, The Godfather, The Princess Bride, Twelve Angry Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, Back to the Future and The Shawshank Redemption.
K.F. in Berea, KY, asks: As a 44-year-old man, I was not even a glint in my father's eye when Jaws opened 50 years ago (yesterday was the anniversary). However, it is easily in the Top 5 of my favorite films of all time. So much so that I am taking the day off to view Jaws in the regular theater and rewatching it later in the day in 3-D.
I have two questions: (1) What are your five films that you would want to have on a deserted island with you? and (2) What was the reception of Jaws in the American Zeitgeist of the time?
Together in Education!(Z) answers: It's hard to see how the five films for the desert island would not be a subset of the 10 films in the previous answer. And experience has shown that the films from that list that I can watch over and over, without needing a break, are The Blues Brothers, The Godfather, The Princess Bride, Back to the Future and The Shawshank Redemption.
As to Jaws, it was before my time, but the evidence is clear that it was a sensation in its time, inasmuch as there had never been a special effect like the shark before. The people who study this subject pretty much universally agree that Jaws and Star Wars created the effects-driven summer blockbuster.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: What was it about the 1970s that resulted in the Golden Age of American Cinema? It is clear to me now, though I was just a kid in that era, that no decade before or since comes close in terms of the quality of movies produced. Is that just my bias because I was alive when those movies were being run and re-run, or is that widely considered to be true?
(Z) answers: There's probably some bias, based on your age. There's also a survivorship bias at play, in that the abundant amount of crap that was made in the 1970s has now faded from memory.
That said, the 1970s were when the Golden Age Hollywood studio system breathed its last gasp. That created a window of opportunity for young "auteur" filmmakers who controlled most or all aspects of the film (casting, directing, screenplay, editing). And the talented young directors of that era—Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Lucas, Avildsen, Altman, Allen, etc.—seized that opportunity, and made some remarkable films.
One other thought, though it sort of gets into "old man waving his fist at the clouds" territory, perhaps. I played a lot of video games in the early era of that medium, when the technology was still very basic. That meant that for a game to be "good," it had to be carried by a really good concept, and a really good story. Once the equipment was able to deliver spectacle, it seems that many game designers focused on cool graphics and great cutscenes at the expense of story and concept. The same may be true of movies; as special effects became more prominent in filmmaking, it may have directed a bit too much time and energy and money away from more basic considerations.
E.M. in Pasadena, CA, asks: At the recommendation of several readers of your site, I watched The Manchurian Candidate (1962) for the first time. The movie had an interesting premise and held my interest throughout. However, aside from Angela Lansbury's performance, I thought the acting was subpar, at best. Granted, this movie is nearly 65 years old and the fact that several of the characters in the film had been "brainwashed" may have been a contributing factor to what I would consider questionable acting and directing decisions.
This was also the first I've seen Frank Sinatra in an acting role. His first several scenes seemed to have him staring at the floor looking dejected. My question is: Was Frank Sinatra a good actor? When I search this question in Google the responses heavily skew toward him being one of the great actors of his time and the first dual threat as both a music and film star. I always thought that Sinatra's ability to secure acting roles had something to do with his association with the mob. Was he actually a good actor? And, what role did his mob ties have in his acting and music careers?(Z) answers: Through the 1960s and 1970s, a great many actors came from a theater background, where BIG voices and BIG expressions and BIG gestures are necessary. That can definitely read as over-acting on film. And so, some performers of that era, particularly the ones who came from vaudeville, seem to be hammy scene-chewers to viewers used to more naturalistic performances.
Further, the audiences of the early- and mid-20th century didn't necessarily want their movie stars to be believable, per se, and to disappear into their roles. They wanted to see [MOVIE STAR X] play their usual "role" in every film. The obvious example here, though there are many others, is John Wayne. With rare exceptions, he played John Wayne, whether his character was a cowboy, or a soldier, or a cop, or... Genghis Khan.
Sinatra came along when performers were transitioning from the "Golden" way of performing to the more realistic style that is characteristic today. So, he was a breath of fresh air—and, a good actor—in his day, even if his style would seem stilted to audiences today. Note also that British actors generally began to pursue realism before Americans did, and so many midcentury British performers (like Lansbury) were a decade or two ahead of their American peers.
As to Sinatra and the mob, the rumors are there, but there is no firm proof. And anyone in a position to know for sure is long dead. Incidentally, did you know the night Sinatra died in Los Angeles, the ambulance got to the hospital in record time because... everyone was at home watching the finale of Seinfeld? Obviously, it was not enough to save Ol' Blue Eyes.
M.C. in Glasgow, Scotland, asks: Sometimes, a television season ends with complicated plot unresolved. My earlier memories of tricky ones include shows like Star Trek: Enterprise, which liked to end a season with a cliffhanger involving multiple timelines that I could barely remember a month later. A more recent one was Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, where the previous season ended mid-conflict with ensemble cast in various situations of which I had hardly any memory by the time the current season started. This isn't universal; for instance, Babylon 5 tended to end each season more simply. Then, there are shows like Dark Matter (the older one) that are canceled in the middle of multiple streams of action.
It doesn't help that seasons have become much shorter. For many shows, 30 years ago, we used to get more than 20 episodes per season. Now, we're lucky to get half that, often with a substantial break before the next. One can hardly get into the habit of watching them.
My question is thus twofold: Do writers succeed in drawing viewers into a subsequent season by ending the previous amid a complicated situation? Is it just me, who, rather than being excited to know what happens next, can no longer recall why I should care? Secondly, what's with these much shorter seasons and longer breaks? Perhaps I'm unusual in that I would be glad to sacrifice production values and spectacular effects if it bought more actual story.(Z) answers: Cliffhangers were once pretty rare; something to be used sparingly, only when very appropriate. Then, at the end of season three of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the producers pulled off one of the most effective cliffhangers of all time, leaving fans to wonder all summer long whether Jean-Luc Picard would be rescued, or if the Borg had gotten him for good. It did not hurt that Patrick Stewart was in a contract dispute, and probably even the producers didn't know for sure if he'd be back.
Thereafter, cliffhangers became kind of a "thing" on Star Trek series, whether or not they worked well. Other shows picked up the habit, as well, including some shows where the producers feared cancellation, and thought maybe ending on a cliffhanger would tip the scales in favor of another season.
It is inconceivable to us that a cliffhanger could ever again be as effective as they once were. First, it's been done to death. Second, when "new" TV was released by everyone on basically the same schedule (i.e., the "Season" ran from September to March), there would be a lot of "refreshing your memory on your favorite shows" pieces in magazines like TV Guide. That doesn't really happen anymore, because there basically isn't a TV "season" anymore.
As to the short seasons, we have bad news for you: This isn't going to change. The main driver of revenue for most TV content providers these days (and it will soon be the main driver for ALL of them), is streaming, and not ads. So, a show's value is now much less tied to how many eyeballs it can attract, and instead is now based on how many subscribers it can attract. The selling point for Netflix or Hulu or Peacock is "We have [SHOW X]." And it doesn't become much more of a selling point if they have 25 episodes, as opposed to 12. It also behooves them to "split" the season, so people hold on to their subscriptions while waiting for the second block of shows, as opposed to canceling.
For this same reason, it's getting harder and harder for shows, even hit shows, to survive past 2-3 seasons. A show like, say, Squid Game is going to attract a certain number of new subscribers. Another three seasons of the show (on top of the three that were already made) isn't going to increase the number of new subscribers by much, and so the show is done after this season.
S.B. in Hood River, OR, asks: Perhaps it is because that is what I grew up with, but for me, the original Star Trek has always been my favorite Star Trek, and also my favorite of all space dramas. Every so often, a series comes along that promises to recreate the magic of that show, but fails badly. Strange New Worlds is the most recent example. Is it a case of producers being unable to come up with a similar show, or have tastes changed so much that something like the original simply wouldn't succeed in today's market?
(Z) answers: Star Trek was absolutely groundbreaking, in its day, in a way that no other sci-fi series today, Trek or otherwise, could possibly be. Beyond that, however, modern Trek series are largely modern dramas, with complex characters, multiple interlocking storylines, multi-episode arcs, etc. The original show, by contrast, was a space Western (in fact, it was sold to the network as "Wagon Train to the stars"). Westerns tend to be much more simplistic, with characters that are meant to be archetypes, straightforward plots, and unsubtle messaging. There are certainly people who prefer that approach (note that the exact same thing is true of Shakespeare's plays).
M.C.A. in San Francisco, CA, asks: Since much of your readership seems to be well versed in both Star Wars and Star Trek lore, I have to ask. Which is your crystal of choice? Dilithium? Khyber? Or Billy? Inquiring minds want to know.
(A) answers: I love questions like this (with an option out of left field). It's easy, though: dilithium. I'm way more Trek than Wars. I like Billy, but I'd rather have the fully-automated luxury space communism.
B.B. in Pasadena, CA, asks: TV advertising is filled with A-to-Z-list celebrities hawking any kind of product. In particular, various medical supplements like the one that just breezed through my mind in the background noise of a television for Tumeric, with the celebrity proclaiming it is "the brand I trust."
Or perhaps, "If it didn't work for me, I wouldn't be here backing it."
It goes on and on.
Is the phrasing of these ads in some supposed to protect the manufacturer from liability, since they can just claim that it is merely the spokesperson's own opinion and not that of the manufacturer? And what is it in the mindset of the people of this nation that drives this type of advertising... and is it the same around the world?(Z) answers: Indeed, there is an army of lawyers who review commercial scripts to make sure that nobody is making an actionable commitment. And there's also a pretty developed body of legal cases that makes clear what can, and cannot, be said. Advertisers are thus very, very good at approaching that line without crossing it.
J.S. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: What is your favorite PBS program for adults and/or kids?
(Z) answers: Easy, Antiques Roadshow. In second place is The Joy of Painting and in third is Mister Rogers' Neighborhood..
R.E. in Chicago, IL, asks: You ran down the greatest team sports dynasties. What about individual sports "dynasties"?
(Z) answers: When I wrote the original answer, I initially included some individuals, like Michael Phelps and Carl Lewis, but then decided there just wasn't enough room, given how many important team dynasties there have been. So, when you sent in your question, my intention was to revisit the "cut" portions of the initial answer. But then, reader R.C. in Des Moines wrote in with an answer that did the work for us. Here you go:
I have been a big sports fan all my life so I was particularly interested in the recent discussion of greatest sports dynasties. As I was thinking about it, my mind quickly went to Edwin Moses, one of the greatest Olympians and arguably the most dominant American in any event ever. He won 122 straight 400-meter hurdle races between 1977 and 1987. He also won two Olympic gold medals in the event in '76 and '84. He surely would have won it in 1980 if the U.S. had not boycotted those games.
Carl Lewis won four straight Olympic gold medals in the long jump, and he won 65 straight long jump competitions over a 10-year period ending in 1991.
Usain Bolt is surely the greatest sprinter in history. He won the "triple-triple" at the Olympics: three straight Olympiads (2008-2016) in the 100 meters, 200 meters, and 4x100 meter relay. (The 2008 relay gold was stripped when it was determined one of his teammates doped.) He also won eleven gold medals in those events at the World Championships between 2009 and 2015.
Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh. For over one calendar year, the most famous duo in beach volleyball went undefeated, winning 19 tournaments and 112 matches. They also won three Olympic gold medals.
Rafael Nadal won 81 straight matches on clay courts between 2005-2007.
Khabib Nurmagomedov, MMA fighter, retired as the undefeated champion with a record of 29-0.
Rocky Marciano, heavyweight boxer, retired as the undefeated world champion with a record of 49-0.
Julio César Chávez, boxer, turned pro in 1980 and did not lose a fight until 1994, winning his first 87 fights. He was world champion in four different weight classes.
Michael Phelps is the greatest male swimmer ever, winning 23 Olympic gold medals over four Olympiads (2004-2016), including four-straight in the 200-meter individual relay. He also broke many world records.
Katie Ledecky is the probably the greatest female swimmer ever, winning the Olympic 800-meter freestyle over the last four Olympiads, and she is probably the favorite to win that event again in 2028 in Los Angeles at the age of 31. She has won a total of nine Olympic golds, 17 individual golds at the world championships, and broken numerous world records.
Simone Biles is believed by many to be the greatest gymnast of all time. She has won 30 gold medals between the Worlds and the Olympics from 2013 to present. And she has FIVE individual skills named for her.
Al Oerter won four straight Olympic golds in discus from 1956-1968.
The USA men's 4x100m relay team were Olympic champions in 14 of 16 races in which they competed from 1920 to 2000.
The USA men's 4x400m relay has been Olympic champions 19 out of 26 times including the last three and nine of eleven since 1984.
The USA women's 4x400m relay has won gold in nine of the 15 times the race has been held, including the last eight consecutive since 1996.
In Olympic swimming relays, the U.S. men have won gold in 43 of 56 races contested and the U.S. women have won 30 of 47. The only time the U.S. men have lost the 4x100 medley was in 2024, to China.
Mijaín López from Cuba won five straight Olympic gold medals in Greco-Roman wrestling from 2008-2024 (at the age of 42!). He is the only athlete to accomplish this feat in an individual event.
The U.S. held the America's Cup from 1851 to 1983. That's 132 years. I might rank this as the greatest dynasty, if I gave one rip about sailing. (Does anybody?)
Jahangir Kahn of Pakistan won 555 squash matches in a row from 1981-1986. He won the World Open five consecutive times from '81-'85 during the streak. He won it again in 1988.
Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert gave us arguably the greatest rivalry of any sport, and enjoyed a tennis rivalry-dynasty. From November 1975 to August 1987, one of them held the number one world ranking all but 23 weeks. In those years, one or the other won 32 Grand Slams out of 52 contested.
Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic formed a three-headed tennis rivalry-dynasty (trinasty?) from 2004-2023. In that 20-year timespan, one of them finished the year ranked number one in the world all but 2 years. Between them, they won 66 Grand Slam titles, 295 overall titles and over 3,400 matches, compiling a composite winning percentage over 82%.
Stefi Graf is the only tennis player to have won the career Grand Slam four times (she won a total of 22 Grand Slam titles) and holds the record for most weeks ranked number one at 377, including 186 consecutive. That's 3½ years as the best women's tennis player in the world. Only Serena Williams has done that, tying Graf's 186 consecutive weeks at No. 1.
Williams had her own tennis dynasty. She accomplished the career Grand Slam three times and is the only tennis player to accomplish a career Grand Slam in both singles and doubles. She won a total of 23 singles Grand Slams. She and her sister Venus were a sororal dynasty unto themselves, as Venus won seven singles Grand Slams of her own.
Kelly Slater was world surfing champion eleven times between 1992-2011.Thanks, R.C.! Very nicely done.
S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: College football begins this weekend. Do you have opinions on the expanded playoff system? Who do you foresee taking the national championship?
(L) answers: The expansion of the playoff to 12 teams last year was necessary to make it a true playoff. And this year they've made another important change—the seeding will be based on the teams' rank. The five top conference champions will still get automatic bids, but they won't get automatic top seeding. Instead, the top four seeds will be based on their ranking just like teams five through twelve. The top four seeds will have a first-round bye.
One benefit of the change is it allows teams outside the conference system, like Notre Dame, that perform well to have a better spot in the tournament. It should result in a more equitable playoff.
As for who will win the national championship, as a Florida Gator, I will always pick them, even when it's the longest of shots.
(Z) answers: As a sports fan, I think winning titles is nice, but I am mostly interested in maximizing the number of meaningful games, and thus the amount of entertainment I get. If I had the choice between: (1) 5 competitive seasons with 1 title, or (2) 2 competitive seasons with 2 titles and then 3 awful seasons, I would choose #1 every time. So, I'm OK with expanding the playoff, especially since the old system was too heavily tilted toward the SEC.
And my national champion pick is Georgia. My rooting interest, of course, is UCLA, but they won't be winning a title this year, or any other year in the near future.
R.S. in Ticonderoga, NY, asks: Earlier this week, I re-visited the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. As a historian, I thoroughly enjoy meandering along the exhibits that follow the timeline of baseball in the United States (and beyond) from the colonial era to the present. Granted, this major component of the museum exhibitions is a bit tired and old. They could really use a museum lighting consultant—too much light on some baseball uniforms that are susceptible to UV rays and not enough light on hard-to-read labels. Shout out, though, to newer exhibits on the impact of Latin American and African American players, and to the special exhibit on the baseball connection between the United States and Japan!
One exhibit focused on the 1870s and 1880s discussed the changing rules of the game and that even the rule that allows the batter to run to first base after strike three if the catcher fails to catch the ball was in place by the late 19th century. It seems like most of our modern rules were well entrenched by the beginning of the 20th century.
This prompts my question: What five rule changes since 1900 have had the biggest impact on the game of baseball as played in the major leagues?(Z) answers: In chronological order:
- Foul Balls (1901/1903): Until 1901 (National League) and 1903 (American League), foul balls did not count as strikes. This tilted things in favor of the batters, by a lot, and explains why batting averages in the high .300s/low .400s were much more common back then, such as the MLB-record .426 that Nap Lajoie recorded in 1901.
- Fresh Balls (1920s): Up through the year 1920, teams used baseballs until they were on the verge of disintegrating. This very much favored the pitchers, as the balls would get dirty (making them hard to see) and soft (making them hard to hit long distances). When Ray Chapman was killed by a beanball because he could not see the ball coming right at his head, Major League Baseball took steps to start using fresh balls much more liberally. Today, the average ball lasts for about 8 pitches.
- No More Spitballs (1920s): This was also fallout from the death of Ray Chapman; the desire to keep baseballs clean and players safe led MLB to outlaw the spitball. That said, players who relied on the pitch were grandfathered in, such that the last legal spitball was actually thrown in 1934, by Burleigh Grimes.
- Designated Hitter (1973): Very hard to leave this one off the list; the DH obviously increased offense a fair bit, and also launched approximately 1 billion arguments between baseball fans.
- Free Agency (1975): That players were no longer tied to their teams in perpetuity, and were free to shop their services to all bidders (after accruing enough service time) may be the most impactful rule change on this list.
It should be noted that a lot of the biggest changes in baseball were not due to rules changes, but instead to more organic decisions by teams to change their approach (integration, greater use of relief pitchers, etc.).
R.D. in Gilbertsville, NY, asks: I'm an older fella with my memories of baseball in yon days of yore. Two leagues who never meet each other until the great showdown at the beginning of October. No playoffs, just the World Series. The team with the best record in the AL and the team with the best record in the NL. No DH, no runner on second in extra innings. No flashy gimmicks on the overhead screen. I still have a picture of Sandy Koufax conversing with Whitey Ford at the 1963 World Series. Those were the days. How do you folks feel about old baseball vs. new baseball?
(Z) answers: I do wish there was less gimmickry—and, in particular, less advertising—at the ballparks. Most of the other changes, I accept as neither good nor bad, just necessary. For example, if the league is going to have 30 teams, then some sort of expanded playoffs is basically unavoidable. You can't have a situation where the average team makes the postseason, on average, once every decade and a half.
L.T. in Annapolis, MD, asks: Can we all agree that Aaron Boone and Brian Cashman, as the main players in the New York Yankees' player selection and management structure, are just not getting it done?
(Z) answers: The field managers, particularly in the modern game, are rarely to blame, because they aren't really the decision-makers. And, by all indications, Aaron Boone is doing everything he should be doing.
Cashman, on the other hand, rode a team put together by another man to a bunch of titles, and he's been living off that "success" ever since. The contracts he hands out (e.g., Giancarlo Stanton) rarely work out. And the Yankees' farm system has been godawful, either due to bad drafting, or poor player development, or both. He should have been cashiered long ago.
S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: On Friday you concluded your item on Xi Jinping and Trump as follows, "This kind of maneuvering is a reminder that, if they do meet, Xi is playing 4-D chess, while Trump is playing Candyland."
This brought back fond memories of my childhood but for the life of me I couldn't remember... are there orange cards in Candyland?(Z) answers: Not only are there orange cards but, in some versions of the game, there's also a card with an orange sucker:
M.R. in New Brighton, MN, asks: (Z)—I wanted to know your age; I'm guessing that you're about the right age to have been part of the target audience for the educational computer game Oregon Trail. It was developed in Minnesota; it's been around for 50 years, one of its earliest versions (mainframe, no graphics) was made available in 1975. Soon after that it was made available on the Apple II computer. What are your experiences, if any, with Oregon Trail? As educators, what are your experiences and thoughts regarding educational computer games in general?
(Z) answers: Nobody put you up to this, did they? If not, well, as chance would have it, today is my 51st birthday.
I have played Oregon Trail, but almost exclusively the "retro" version created a few years ago. During the original run, I did not have access to the correct hardware to play the game, as it was written for the Apple II, and we had an IBM-PC at home, while my school had Commodore Pets. By the time the game had been ported to other platforms (1990), I had moved on to more modern games. But I certainly approve of educational games, if kids actually play them. A lot of the "educational games" of my school years were pretty boring.
S.K. in Ardmore, PA, asks: Are any of you fans of the game Scrabble? If so, do you have a favorite word you've played, or seen played? This could be in terms of high score, or clever placement on the board, or just an uncommon/nifty word. The best play I ever experienced in a game was my opponent playing EQUATION, hitting 2 triple word score spaces, for 210 points.
(Z) answers: I checked with everyone, and none of us are really Scrabble players. For my part, Scrabble is not my thing for the same reason chess is not my thing, namely that to actually be good at it, you have to do a lot of memorization. Games are supposed to be fun, not work. Anyone who would like to know what it takes to be a top-tier Scrabble player should read Word Freak: Heartbreak, Triumph, Genius, and Obsession in the World of Competitive Scrabble Players, which is very interesting, but also makes that lifestyle feel very dreary.
My most memorable play is that I managed to get the words "Astronomy" and "SETEC" on the board at the same time. That's not a high-scoring kind of thing, and SETEC isn't actually a word, of course. However, it IS a reference to the key scene in the movie Sneakers, where the protagonists, while playing Scrabble, figure out the code name of the project they've been hired to steal—SETEC Astronomy—is an anagram of "Too Many Secrets." That tells them they have something much bigger and more dangerous on their hands than they thought.
A.S. in Bellevue, WA, asks: How do you come up with ideas for the weekly headline theme and how long does it take to work into potential headline ideas to see if concept for the week is doable?
(Z) answers: There is usually going to be one headline that will be very difficult to work with, and so I try to come up with an idea that works well for that one headline, and then build out from there. For example, the tough headline 2 weeks ago was "Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #29: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)." I couldn't come up with any ideas for Tammy, and after toying around with leaders of the Crusades for a minute or two (e.g., Baldwin IV), I settled on British prime ministers. The week before that, the tough headline was the one that had to include Learned Hand's name; I quickly decided to do watch parts.
A.O. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: How many regulars do you have in the questions/comments/headline theme guessers? How would you define a regular?
(Z) answers: For both the headlines and the mailbag, there are probably about 150 readers who will weigh in at least 75% of the time (i.e., 3 weeks out of 4), and maybe 750 readers who will weigh in at least 25% of the time (i.e., 1 week out of 4). For the questions, cut those numbers in half (i.e., 75, 375).
H.M. in San Dimas, CA, asks: I read with great interest your item on Cracker Barrel. My parents and perhaps all of their generation of my family were born in Tennessee, and Cracker Barrel is much beloved. They are very much up in arms over the new logo. However, what caught my interest was the mention that (Z) was a frequent diner at PoFolks in Buena Park, which I also went to many times before it closed (loved the toy train that ran on a track along the walls). This is my long-winded way of getting to some questions: (1) Have you ever been to Medieval Times or Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show and would you recommend either? and (2) I love Knott's Berry Farm and their chicken dinner restaurant. Your thoughts?
(Z) answers: Two-thirds of this question is really, really in my wheelhouse. I have never been to Buffalo Bill's. However, my stepbrother has worked at Medieval Times for decades, and so I've been there many times. It's very enjoyable the first time—the food is good, it's interesting to eat without utensils, the show is pretty good. The luster wears off on subsequent visits, however.
As to Knott's chicken dinner restaurant, I've eaten there hundreds of times, in part because it's one of the best restaurants in Orange County, and in part because my grandmother worked at Knott's for close to half a century.
This would be the same grandmother with whom I went to PoFolks every time I ate there. You did not ask, but your question reminded me of an occasion, pretty late in her life, when I took her to PoFolks for lunch. Because she had slowed down a fair bit, I would walk to the front door of the restaurant and wait there for here while she traversed the 150 or so feet from her car. She was more comfortable that way than with any other option. Anyhow, as she shuffled across the parking lot that day, a man in his mid-50s pulled into the lot, and got impatient that he had to wait 10 whole seconds for her to cross. So, he leaned into his horn, and shouted "Get the fu** out of the way, you old hag!"
He was a big man when it involved harassing a little old lady. His demeanor changed noticeably when that little old lady's 25-year-old grandson—who was much younger, much stronger, and much angrier than Mr. Big Shot—came charging towards his car like a bat out of hell. He decided not to dine at PoFolks that day, which was... wise.
The lesson here is that you should not be mean to little old ladies who are doing nothing wrong. And if you are tempted, you should keep in mind that their grandson might just be lurking somewhere, right out of view.
C.B. in Fresno, CA, asks: My husband and I lived in the Sacramento area for a few years and loved eating at the PoFolks there. It was very popular, always a line out the door around opening time. It was still going strong when we moved back to Fresno, then a few years later a friend told me it had closed.
I doubt that it closed due to lack of business; maybe poor management decisions. Anyway, it's a pity it is gone. Fun place, great food! I'm a health-food nut married to a Texan, and both of us loved PoFolks.(Z) answers: There are still five of them, all in the same relatively small area in Florida.
The food was indeed very good, and there were things on the menu for many different tastes and dietary needs. I have no special insight into their business model, but if I had to guess, I would guess that the existing locations are among their first locations, that the company owns the buildings, and that the math only adds up if they are using their own facilities, as opposed to renting from someone else.
D.M. in McLean, VA, asks: What do you think was the worst business decision ever made in computer development? My personal one is the selection of MS-DOS over CP/M for the original IBM-PC. Had CP/M been selected, I think we would have seen a multi-user and multi-tasking OS on the desktop years earlier due to CP/M's relation to MP/M.
Back in ancient times, around 1984, I had a high school teacher with an Altair 8800 in his classroom. He had it decked out with two terminals, a pair of 8" floppy disks, and running on MP/M. There were some head-to-head games we could play on that system which showed just how powerful MP/M was in the early, early days of desktop computing.(V) answers: When IBM was starting to build the IBM PC, it discovered it needed software. It went to Bill Gates to license his interpreter for the BASIC language. They made a deal quickly. Then IBM discovered it also needed an operating system. They already had contact with Gates, so they asked him if he happened to have an operating system. He didn't and suggested that they go talk to Gary Kildall about Kildall's CP/M system. Kildall basically blew them off and wouldn't sign the nondisclosure agreement in which IBM said it was going to make a personal computer.
IBM went back to Gates and said: "What's Plan B?" Gates said: "Give me a couple of days." Gates then went to Seattle Computer Products, which made plug-in boards for hobby computers. It had a simple operating system. He said to the company "I want to buy your operating system," allegedly for $50,000. They were astonished at the incredibly high price but agreed immediately. Gates then went back to IBM and said: "I have an OS for you, but I want to sign the contract right now and I want $50,000 upon signing plus a percentage of the sales of the PCs." IBM sputtered a bit but agreed. That OS became MS-DOS. IBM sold a whole bunch of PCs with it, and Gates became the richest man in the world as a result.
When Kildall later learned that if he had not blown IBM off, he would have become the richest man in the world, he took to drink and died in a bar a few years later. Moral of the story: If you have a little company and one of the biggest and most successful companies in the world comes to you and wants to talk, drop everything and listen carefully to what they have to say.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, asks: As a fellow computer scientist (my claim to fame is programming in SABRE and as part of the PC-DOS team), a question for (V): I have read that the use of AI/LLM has reduced the need for/hiring of entry level programmers. What is your take on the future of the computer science marketplace? Will LLMs eventually replace programmers? Will it result in a new skill set being required?
(V) answers: Making predictions is hard. Especially about the future. AI and LLMs are good at scooping up a very large amount of information and then answering questions where the answer is somewhere in the petabytes of data scooped up. Writing code for something new does not fall into that category. Maybe LLMs will be able to do some simple programming, but "Write Facebook?" Not going to happen anytime soon. In 50 years? Who knows.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I started to notice this, it makes me die from curiosity as to why: AP and Huffington Post headlines are sometimes the exact same as each other. For instance, after midnight on August 24, the two sites shared these headlines: "Trump ran on a promise of revenge. He is making good on it" and "Trump frustrated after he thinks he made headway on Russia-Ukraine talks only to see Putin balk." The diction and word choice seems to make any accidental copying unlikely. These copied headlines are not just with political coverage but can show up in other categories, such as Entertainment or Human Interest. Since both sites are different in tone, can you explain why they are borrowing each other's headlines? It's a mystery to me!
(Z) answers: We wish we had a more exciting or nefarious answer for you, but... when AP sends out its stories, it includes some metadata at the top of each story. In there is a "suggested headline."
So, what you are seeing are AP's headlines. Either the HuffPost is using a bot to publish AP content, and the bot has just been programmed to use the AP's headline, or the HuffPost is using a low-level employee/intern to sift through and publish AP content, and that low-level employee/intern has been instructed to just use the AP's headline.