21st-century-minutiae

[21st-century-minutiae]

Pavel Chekov is a character in the mid twentieth century science fiction television series, Star Trek, as well as the early twenty-first century movie reboots of the franchise. He serves as the Navigator above the star ship, Enterprise, though his role changes as needed by the demands of the ship. He is not nearly as famous as the primary core characters of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but he is well remembered by fans of the show.

James Gunn is an early twenty-first century film-maker, notable for many "blockbuster: movies in the Superhero genre.

"Gunn's Chekov" can syntactically refer to "The character Checkov as interpretted by the filmmaker Gunn."

Anton Chekov was a late nineteenth century Russian playwright. He is well known for the often paraphrased writing advice known as Chekov's Gun: "If a pistol is present in the first act, it must be fired by the next act." The idea is to introduce a level of foreshadowing and minimize unnecessary detail in any writing project. If effort is spent detailing something in a story, it should be important. The term is often used to describe an object, person, or idea, that is introduced early in a story and becomes relevant in a later part of the story.

Writers in the early twenty-first century may agree or disagree with this storytelling principle, but they would be familiar with the idea of "Chekov's Gun." It is a well-known concept.

"Gunn's Chekov" is a reversal of this phrase. The above post is a setup for this punchline. The wordplay cannot be considered a pun, as there is no link to the concept of Chekov's Gun in the setup for the joke. And it is a joke, as few people are particularly interested in seeing Pavel Chekov as interpreted by James Gunn, at least not enough to be called out by name for that particular character or by that particular filmmaker.

[21st-century-minutiae]

Parkour is the discipline and activity of "free running", that is to say, navigating through the world using anything and everything as navigable surfaces. This could include climbing, roof jumping, wall running, and otherwise navigating things in a difficult way for the purpose of exercise, style, and (nominally) speed.

Parkour comes from French "Parcours du combattant" meaning "obstacle course." Specifically it comes from the "course" in "obstacle course." The idea is using the entire city or world as an improvised obstacle course. Parkour was invented, named, and popularized in the late twentieth century in Northern France. It has since adopted a strange reputation. The act of successfully and skillfully executing free running maneuvers is seen as very talented and cool. However, people attempting said maneuvers or who list Parkour as a hobby are seen as people "trying to be cool" which is a very uncool thing to demonstrate effort in. Essentially it is strongly associated with reckless teenage boys and young men who are insecure and/or too into weird hobbies, especially considering how (unless one is actually setting up obstacle courses), the practice involves trespassing and possibly damaging property by applying force in manners where they were not intended. It is a very specific stereotype associated with a very specific time period and a very specifically French mindset about freedom and self-expression.

While the French word "Parcours" could be found in the early 19th century, using it as a way to describe free running is anachronistic, as described above.

Look, I don't necessarily expect people writing historical fiction to rigorously research the language of the period, but I recently bumped into a story where a guy who was ostensibly born in the year 1805 uses the word "parkour" in his internal monologue, and there are limits.

[21st-century-minutiae]

An engine allows for the consumption of fuel to provide motive force. This can allow for sea travel. Before modern engines, sailing was powered either by manpower, with people rowing, or by wind power, often both.

Because of the uneven heating of the earth, rotations, and physical geography, wind patterns are quite consistent over large enough periods for many parts of the world. The may be seasonal, such as the monsoons of the Indian Ocean, blowing consistently in one direction in Summer months, and the other direction in Winter months. Or they may be consistent, such as the trade winds of the Atlantic Ocean, which point in a singular direction depending on latitude.

Sea trade (when not relying on manpower) was very consistent in aggregate, allowing for complex shipping networks. However individual weather events could disrupt intended travel. Generally, weather itself along major trade routes would be seasonal, and predictably unpredictable as it were. Inconsistent and unreliable sea lanes were not used as frequently until technology improved to permit their use. But new technologies over the centuries did permit sailing in less predictable situations, such as being able to sail upwind (far more slowly).

By the time of modern engines, wind was no longer needed as the dominating force, but currents could still cause differences in expected speeds.

Sea travel before modern engines was like yeah we should be there in about a week or two months depending on the weather

[21st-century-minutiae]

Dr. Glaucomflecken is an early twenty-first century opthamologist and part time internet comedian, who makes short videos poking fun at medical stereotypes. His content is generally inoffensive (except when lambasting the state of health insurance), and quite knowledgeable about medical particulars, making for unique, light content.

In the above thread, Dr. Glaucomflecken identified the glasses in the image, and attempted to, visually, establish the diopter value, that is to say, the level of correction given by the lens. Diopters are usually given without a listed unit. So when the doctor declared "she's a -1 maybe a -1.5" he was saying "the corrective lenses in the image appear to have a corrective factor of -1 diopters, meaning the individual is nearsighted to such a degree." He was excited to be able to identify the power of glasses lens from a photo, which is a very unique skill showing that one is very excited about the field of vision and corrective lenses.

In the early twenty-first century, people also rate photos of people (especially women) on a scale from 1 to 10 based on attractiveness. It's a very intentionally objectifying and dehumanizing practice, often intentionally "skewing" the otherwise arbitrary numbers for some agenda, such as lowering their victim's self esteem.

A negative 1 or negative 1.5 would be ridiculously and outrageously low, to the point where there is no positive interpretation of a person making such an already creepy statement on social media. It would be a mean spirited remark.

The two phrases are syntactically identical. The context of knowing about glasses prescriptions and knowing about Dr. Glaucomflecken specifically would allow one to determine he meant the eyeglasses. It also clearly didn't occur to him that his phrasing could be misconstrued.

this is, as the kids say, frying me (a glasses wearer)

[21st-century-minutiae]

It is not uncommon in the early twenty-first century to have small, mailbox sized "free libraries" with a small number of books inside. The idea is to encourage reading at little cost: people are free to take or leave books as the desire. These are often posted outside right next to mail boxes in suburban spaces, but can be found anywhere that is semi-public, with a sign explaining what they are. The books are primarily children's books or for young adults, but any book could be found in these small boxes.

Selling the books one receives for free would be considered quite trashy. The proper etiquette would be to return the book to the same (or different) free library when one is finished, donate it to someone else, keep it to reread, or just not take it in the first place. It would not be considered legally theft, so no prosecution would occur, but an individuals might face social repercussions if they were caught.

I have also learned that there are people who raid the little free libraries to resell the books. And I'm like... first off thats rude. Secondly is it really worth it? It seems like a lot of work just to make like... $4.

[21st-century-minutiae]

The riddle which is cut off from the start is decently well known in the early twenty-first century, to the point where the full riddle is not required for the clip to be understood. In the longer video format from which the above was taken, it can be presumed that the full riddle was made, along with introducing the bridge troll (a common fantasy trope). But tiktok specializes in lower attention spans and rapid fire content delivery, so it would be omitted.

The entire riddle is as follows:

A man is driving late at night with his only child. By misfortune, another vehicle crashes into them. The man is slain instantly, and the child is badly injured. An ambulance arrives quickly and the child is taken to the hospital for immediate operation. However, the surgeon looks down and proclaims: "I can't operate on this boy, he's my son!"

The riddle is meant to confuse the listener as to how it is possible for a father to have died and to be alive as a surgeon. However, by the early twenty-first century, the idea of a mother being a surgeon, or for two men to be married and have a son, are both commonplace enough that there would be little to no confusion at all. Only an individual who is both ignorant of homosexual relationships and struggles to imagine women in the workplace would have trouble coming up with any possible solution to the riddle. And that is the central pillar of the comedy act above.

The fact a surgeon cannot operate on their own child is common knowledge, as it is considered as something to be avoided except in the worst emergencies. Performing medicine on one's own friends and family is emotionally compromising and unnecessarily stressful. Surgeons are trained to treat the procedure impersonally for the best chance of success, and it is not expected that they would be able to do that when it is their own family on the operating table.

[21st-century-minutiae]

The "Golden Hammer" is a cognitive bias where humans look to solve problems using the tools they have on hand, even when the problems are inappropriate for said tools. For example, a skilled diplomat might feel an inclination to talk things out with a rampaging gorilla. It doesn't matter HOW skilled the diplomat is, that is not the appropriate response for that circumstance. Sometimes the tool works, but not as well for the given situation as another tool would.

The first post is a very unusual variation of the same saying. The metaphor still succeeds in describing the cognitive bias, and the use of vases and flowers as opposed to hammers and nails leads a more whimsical and pacifistic interpretation of the same problem.

The second post is a reference to a famous optical illusion "Rubin's Vase", where a silhouette of a vase is identical to the two partial silhouette of two faces looking at one another. A silhouette is a projection, not a bijunctinve transofrmation, so information can be lost and collisions can occur, such as tow very different objects having the same silhouette. This leads to a strange effect in visual processing, as humans naturally try to interpret low information images as their representative sources, and can get confused when two equally likely options occur.

The illusion only works as an image, not as an actual vase. The response is clearly intended as referential humor.

When all you have is a vase, all your problems start to look like flowers

[21st-century-minutiae]

Hotel California was a mid to late twentieth century rock song by The Eagles. The lyrics begin with "On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair." They would be well known to be people in the early twenty-first century.

Here "Cool Wind" has been replaced with "Cool Whip," a brand of whipped topping (similar to whipped cream) used for deserts and breakfasts. It would be normal for wind to blow in one's hair while driving on a highway. It would be extremely strange to have Cool Whip in one's hair.

The above advertising signage is for a family diner, which likely serves breakfast and/or desert items that can include Cool Whip. As such, by replacing the words "Cool Wind" of a well known song lyric with "Cool Whip" the signboard manages to humorously advertise its food.

[21st-century-minutiae]

Hannibal was a famous Carthaginian General who invaded the Italian peninsula in third century BCE during the Second Punic War. He was extremely successful in the field, destroying multiple Roman armies and using his success to encourage rebellion by Italians against their Roman overlords.

The Roman statesman, Fabius Maximus, was given command of the Roman military. He refused to be goaded into battle by Hannibal, instead positioning the army to constantly threaten the invaders without attacking them, while he sent out unit to defeat Hannibal's Italian supporters when Hannibal couldn't protect them. Fabius's tactics succeeded in cutting Hannibal off from his support, destroying enemy morale, and containing the threat of the invasion. However, the strategy was deeply unpopular with the Roman political elite, who felt it projected weakness and was counter to Roman ideology. So, Fabius Maximus was replaced, and the new general promptly got another army destroyed.

The general process of refusing to engage in pitched battle and instead focusing on strategic positioning and resource denial is known in the early twenty-first century as a Fabian Strategy.

The Fabian Strategy has been employed many times successfully in human history, such as by Liu Bei against Cao Cao in the Hanzhong Campaign, by George Washington against the British in the American Revolution, and by Mikhail Kutuzov against Napoleon in the French invasion of Russia.

There’s the occasional guy in history that’s really good at military strategy. So good in fact that the way you defeat them is that you run away.

[21st-century-minutiae]

A "tetromino" is a shape formed by four equal sized squares attached on the sizes. There are seven possible tetrominoes, ignoring rotation, all of which are depicted above (I, O, S, Z, L, T, and J as listed left to right, top to bottom). This is similar to a "domino" which is formed by two equal sized squares. There is only a single possible domino shape.

Tetrominoes were made popular by the mid twentieth century video-game Tetris, which involves the arrangement of falling tetrominoes. The Tetris Company in the early twenty-first century has a design standard for Tetris implementation, including canonical colors.

I is Cyan. O is Yellow. T is purple. S is green. Z is red. J is blue. L is orange.

The above image has shuffled the colors between the pieces. This is in violation of the design guide, and may appear wrong to people who are used to playing the game Tetris. An implementation of the game using the aove color scheme would not be accepted as legitimate by The Tetris Company.

kinda funny that these shapes can be colored "incorrectly"

[21st-century-minutiae]

Humpty Dumpty is a famous nursery rhyme well known in the early twenty-first century, of which the most well known iteration is the following:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again.

The titular Humpty Dumpty is usually depicted as a humanoid egg. However, there is no mention of such in the short poem itself.

Lewis Carroll, as part of his whimsical book "Through the Looking Glass" officially depicted the character from the rhyme as an egg in the late 19th century. It is unclear where the idea originally came from, but it became codified after that point.

People in the early twenty-first century would recognize the above as an absurd implication of the Humpty Dumpty rhyme, specifically how he "could not be put together again" despite many people trying. The exact number of people varies based on the rhyme and source.

This is an example of referential humor, as the situation is never directly explained, but it is understood by the reader.

"Your majesty, I'm a payroll accountant. I wouldn't know anything about putting a man-sized egg back together."

"This is an all-hands-on-deck situation."

[21st-century-minutiae]

you are a godsend for people (me) who struggle to interpret memes that rely heavily on context. keystone species

I'm glad you enjoy it. Please reach out to me if you have a good topic.

[21st-century-minutiae]

Scandinavia is a region of northern Europe with strong histoical, cultural, and language ties. It consists of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, sometimes including Finland and Iceland. Norway is, by every metric, Scandinavian.

"Scandinavian" is pronounced in a vaguely similar fashion to "scan the navy in," drawing the mind of scanning visual codes on boats with a reader. The above joke is a pun between those two phrases. It cannot be considered a pure pun because "navy" was used in both the setup and the punch line, but it follows the traditional structure of a pun.

The Norwegian Navy does not actually have bar codes on its marine craft in this manner, at least not in any special way distinct from other nations. This is an invented story for the purpose of humor.

[21st-century-minutiae]

男厕所 is early twenty-first Chinese for "Men's Lavatory." Chinese is logographic, each symbol represents a word which can combine into compound words. 男 is man or male. 厕 is toilet. 所 is place. So, all three combined make "Men's Lavatory" or "Men's Toilet" (the location, not the object).

The phrase has been translated into English for international visitors. The correct direct translation has been made, indicating the two important parts: that toilets can be found here, and that it is for men, as opposed to women. However, the translator was not a native English speaker, and did not realize that "Men's Toilet" is a far more natural construction for the phrase.

Humorously, in early twenty-first century English, forming a compound word like "toiletman" without a space, colon, or hyphen between it grammatically implies that, rather than a toilet for men, it refers to a man that IS a toilet (or a man that is OF the toilets). This is a common grammatical construct for fictional superheros and supervillains. This brings to mind the idea of a superhero with the power of toilets, as pointed out by the image.

A superhero (or villain) with the power of toilets would be considered silly, rather than awe invoking like superheroes usually are. An example would be the villainous Toiletnator from the early twenty-first century children's cartoon, Kids Next Door. As would be excepted from the silly concept, Toiletnator was a gag villain, who was mocked in the cartoon for his incompetence despite literally having a super power to flood large areas with water and "flush them."

Despite the semantic awkwardness of the the translation, English speaking visitors in the early twenty-first century would not have problems understanding the intent. There is sufficient context (including the icon of a man, which is commonly associated with toilets), to easily understand the intent.

Holy, sewage, Toiletman!

[21st-century-minutiae]

The above store has a humorous and semi-vulgar name. "Second Hand Interesting Things" is an awkward phrase not often seen in the English language in the early twenty-first century. However, the first letter of each word spells out the curse word "Shit." "Random Shit" IS a common phrase in the early twenty-first century. Rather than referring to chaotic excrement, it instead crudely refers to miscellanea, emphasizing a perceived variety. It is a very mild use of the expletive.

The colored capitalization of the phrase in the sign indicates this is the intended meaning. However, a business would not likely be able to directly name themselves "Random Shit." That would be considered vulgar. Directly drawing attention to the name without outright saying it makes it a playful decision instead.

People in the early twenty-first century would find this humorous.

[21st-century-minutiae]

Quantum Mechanics is a physics discipline concerned with the universe at an extreme microscopic scale. At human scales, Quantum mechanics averages out to approach classical mechanics, so it is not necessary to know for day to day interactions, and violates many intuitions people might develop from observing the natural world.

Quantum Mechanics is extremely complicated, and has many easily misunderstood concepts that have made their way into the popular imagination. One vital concept is the idea that "looking at something at a quantum scale its behavior." This is, at a surface level, a reasonable summation of many true and unintuitive behaviors in quantum mechanics, such as wave-function collapse. However, in the popular culture imagination of how quantum mechanics works (combined with other, similar unituitive facts), this is interpreted as a sort of magical indeterminacy, playing red light/green light with the universe.

In reality, "observation" is a specific term in quantum physics, meaning "an interaction with a fundamental force." There is no way to look at something without some force being involved. The very mechanisms we use to observe everything, like light, are part of the system we are changing. A photon IS the mechanism by which we see things, so you can't see the photon itself without it hitting something (like your eye). This violates the conventional understanding of "observation" which is seen as a passive way to gain information about something WITHOUT changing it.

By analogy, one could imagine a pitch black room with a bunch of people in it. You are blind and deaf, and can't move, but you have a bag full of tennis balls. You can throw a tennis ball and see if it bounces back to your hand. And by that mechanism, you can figure out where other people are or are not.

Notably, you are pelting them with tennis balls. Every person you find will be "a person who was hit with a tennis ball." They may be annoyed, and you won't ever find a person who wasn't hit with a tennis ball this way. Some people are also REALLY good at dodging, so you won't find them through this method either. By analogy, this is like how chargeless particles don't interact with the force of electromagnetism. But the ones you did hit are changed because you hit them. So, in this sense, you changed their behavior with an "observation."

The above Venn Diagram draws a connection between this behavior of electrons (an example of a quantum-scale particle) with the very human experience of putting on a persona or mask when in a social situation. People in the early twenty-first century are conscientious and status conscious, and will take different actions when said actions communicate with observers, compared to when they are on their own or with trusted individuals. This is common to all people with any social sense, but is particularly associated with Autism, where the mask is particularly notable and stressful compared to "default" behavior.

The two different meanings of "behaving differently under observation" are juxtaposed, drawing humor.

[21st-century-minutiae]

The above is a reference to a common meme "Spider Georg" which makes fun of how averages are calculated, where extreme outliers can drastically alter the average for a population. If you have 1000 people who eat one apple a day, and one person how eats 100000 apples a day, the average apple consumption would be quite high, because of the single outlier.

"Disney Princesses" refers to female protagonists of classic Disney Movies of the twentieth century, as well as a few in the early twenty-first century. By birth or marriage, many of them are actual princesses or close enough to take on the same trope. It is a category of some specific cultural significance in the early twenty-first century, as the movies were very influential, and the group has been officially linked together for advertisement purposes by Disney. They are somewhat associated with a specific brand of inoffensive innocence, and not associated with killing, with the exception of the villain, who is usually killed by someone other than the princess. The above statistic is intentionally transgressive.

At the time of writing, there are 13 official "Disney Princesses," with eight additional characters that also arguably fit the role.

Fa Mulan, the protagonist of the movie Mulan, based loosely on the myth of Hua Mulan, notably serves as a soldier during a war. In a climactic scene, Mulan deliberately triggers an avalanche on an invading army, killing thousands of enemy soldiers. This would make her the "statistical outlier."

127 is not the real number averaged out. 127 is a common "oddly specific" large number in early twenty-first century culture. It is the correct order of magnitude, though, as Mulan killed around 2000 people, and most other Disney Princesses killed zero or one people. But the number does not need to be accurate for the purpose of the joke and the reference.

"average Disney princess killed 127 people" factoid actually just statistical error, average Disney princess killed at most 1 person. Hua Mulan, who lives in China