Don't Panic. Universe Not Ending Just Yet

 

People of Britain! We used to think the universe was eternal. Then it was calculated that the last stars would evaporate in 10^1100 years. Now the boffins tell us we have but 10^78 years left. 

Yes, my friends this is grim news. But we have faced disaster before and come through, smiling. My message is one of hope. There is still time to bring in the washing. There is still time to take a weekend off. Indeed, you may plant those potatoes safe in the knowledge that you will be eating them in a few months.  For we will be around, not just this summer, not just for the next football season, but for bloody ages. 

10^78 years is measly compared to 10^1100. Yet it is a pretty massive amount of time, really. Enough time for those scientist johnnies to do something useful for a change, like designing a new and better universe which lasts longer and costs a lot less to run.  

Until we can all migrate to Universe 2.1, or whatever fancy name they give it, I say to you again Don't Panic. It will be alright in the end. 

&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&

Readers! If you wish to do your bit to building a happier, safer and less noisy universe, then send your contributions now to the Ramblings Institute for Thinking So Advanced It Makes Your Brain Hurt at the usual address. You could win an entire supercluster of galaxies to do with as you wish. Send black holes skittering into densely populated galactic cores. Blast multi-coloured nebula across thousands of light years in ever pulsating patterns. Or just pick a nice little rocky planet with water and a favourable atmosphere and see if evolution can do its stuff all over again.

Terms and conditions apply. Winners may have to live at least 10^12 years to enjoy all the benefits. Should your bit of the new universe implode into a a shower of antineutrinos and unbalanced quarks, there is nothing we can do. Winners will be selected by chucking all entries into the office black hole (aka the Editor's wastepaper basket) and applying dynamic Hawking radiation (whirling it around and choosing the bit of paper that flies the farthest).

 

 

 

Dr Commuter Recommends ... Wasp Therapy

 

Dr Commuter writes: All living beings experience anxiety. Sometimes these fears are well-founded, sometimes the concerns are irrational and can be greatly reduced by the right treatment. Take the case widely reported in the media yesterday. A swarm of wasps, terrified by their inability to control a simple two-wheeled vehicle,  vented their innate anger on an innocent man who, sadly for him, was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course, wasps are not known for their biking exploits; indeed, some can barely manage a bicycle or even a child's scooter. This may result in inferiority complexes, which can be managed with a suitable course of therapy and drugs. At first the wasps will sulk, unwilling to communicate and beating their heads against windows. Gradually they calm down, accepting spoonfuls of jam whilst a non-threatening vehicle such as a skateboard is introduced. Soon the bolder wasps will try riding the skateboard and this example encourages the rest. They begin to gain confidence and this in turn reduces their fear and the resulting outbreaks of violence. Of course, they will never master how to change gear or indicate a right turn on a motorbike, but they will no longer exhibit a psychotic reaction when they see a human doing so.

Wasps are just one species that can benefit from psychotherapy. Ants suffer depression when confronted with pedestrian controls for traffic lights; millipedes are scared by pogo sticks; spiders are morbidly attracted to drainpipes. It does not help when unthinking children laugh at them, or hit them with sticks. We should always encourage insects to stretch their abilities, not deflate their egos and compound the trauma.

%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%

 Supporting these unhappy creatures is vitally important work. You can help. Send whatever you can to the Dr Commuter Clinic For Our Six-legged Friends. Your donation will enable important, on-going research to continue, in particular our studies of whether grasshoppers develop schizophrenia when a researcher samples single-malt whisky and why stag beetles are unable to cope with 9 course tasting menus at 3 star Michelin restaurants. Future projects (given sufficient funding) will consider anxiety in roaches on the French riviera and the best ocean cruises for ladybirds to relax on.  

A Summery April

 The sun has been shining steadily over South Warwickshire for a number of days and the heat has built up to a climax, with 26c being reached today. We have sat out on our little patio with the parasol up and enjoyed the near total silence of our sheltered retirement village. 

Late in the afternoon heavy grey cloud began to build, rolling in from the west, and a few lightning strikes east of Worcester signalled what was to come - a sudden blast of much welcome rain that has effectively ended this mini heatwave. It has been the warmest April ever and today was the hottest day over the UK. Fun while it lasted but boy! did we need some rain.

 

Dr Commuter Helps Out ... Biscuit Lovers Everywhere

 Dr. Commuter writes:

Millions of people suffer from a debilitating, mysterious and taboo affliction. Spoken of in hushed tones, if at all, and regarded by some as simply too horrible to contemplate, it has blighted the lives of generations. To many it is just "The Big B". Today I shall speak out openly about it and thereby put the minds of many of my fellow citizens at rest.  My subject is biscuits and how to eat them.

What are biscuits?
Forget the stories you heard in the pub or down the shops. Biscuits are normal, they are acceptable under most circumstances and - they are man-made. They are not sent to us through a miraculous process of divine intervention, as some religions continue to teach. We make them and we can control them. Never lose sight of this essential truth.
When should we eat them?
A biscuit - although perhaps we should use the plural as two or more at onc time is the norm - may be eaten at any time. Best with an appropriate hot - or even cold - drink, as a snack or at the end of a more substantial meal, at a time of your choosing. You are in charge here. You must not be intimidated by the effort involved in opening a new packet - specialist tools such as scissors are available if need be - nor the prospect of crumbs. These may be readily controlled by using what we doctors call "plates".
Are combinations acceptable?
Yes, you may mix and match. A bourbon and a custard-cream - a jammy dodger and a cookie - a ginger nut and a pink flakey sandwich thing - there are no harmful combinations.
How should I eat my biscuit?
This is the heart of our topic today. How many of us have contemplated a quick garibaldi or a fig roll with a cup of coffee and then shrank back in horror, thinking "How on earth do I actually consume this?". My friends, courage must be your watchword.
Take your biscuit in one hand and examine it. Remove any wrapper. No matter how tempting the shiny outer layer may look, it must not, repeat not, be eaten. Strip it away and bin it. Now, with the naked biscuit held close to your mouth, hold it correctly (see below) and take a bite. Chew and swallow. Repeat until the biscuit is consumed, using your drink to lubricate as required. When all is gone you may sit back, permit yourself a smile of satisfaction and consider enjoying another.
The Correct Way
The Commuter way is the correct way. Hold your biscuit (and I cannot stress this enough) horizontally to the ground. Do not hold it vertically (by which I mean that the longest side is at 90⁰ to the ground). In the case of a round biscuit, the disc of the biscuit should be horizontal to the ground and the edge should be vertical. You will find this technique, well known to the ancient Coachahuatual people of Central America, matches the natural dimensions of the biscuit to those of your mouth which is also horizontal with respect to the ground. (If you are holding your head at a silly angle merely to disprove my argument, then I am not interested).
The Two Sided Biscuit
Of course, some biscuits are round and present us with two faces, much as a coin has its obverse and reverse sides. When the biscuit is essential homogenous - such as a plain digestive - then it matters little which face is uppermost. But when the biscuit is composite, as in the case of the chocolate digestive featured at the head of this column, then you may become confused by the choice. Chocolate side up or down? Wars have been started over more trivial issues. But I am here to cut through the obfuscations and the political agendas. My friends, IT DOES NOT MATTER. Eat it howsoever you wish. Once in your mouth all will be made as one in any case. Scientific studies conducted over many years in the Commuter household have shown conclusively that the enjoyment of the biscuit does not vary with the way that it is held, provided that the Commuter way (as outlined above) is adhered to.
The Dunking problem
This is not the place to investigate a different and far more difficult matter - the best way to dunk a biscuit in hot tea or coffee, especially when a two-sided biscuit is being used. Important studies, such as that carried out for the CBBC channel, have suggested the best type of biscuit for dunking, but have merely scratched the surface as to the best method to dunk. This may be the subject of a later dissertation in these columns.

 -%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%-%

If you have any questions for Dr. Commuter, please write to the usual address. Terms and conditions apply to all material published by Dr. Commuter. Unfortunately, due to the imposition of 1500% tariffs, we are unable to supply copies at present, but this does not in any way invalidate their legality. Dr. Commuter can accept no liability whatsoever for any biscuit or baking-related consequences of following his advice and if you should become somewhat peaky, under the weather or a bit off after consuming biscuits the wrong way or by taking too many (if such a thing is possible, which we seriously doubt), then it is entirely your fault and nothing to do with us.

 

 

Why, Oh Why...do I still watch the Apprentice? (No 8 in this long dead and suddenly revived series)

 I haven't had a "Why, oh why" moment for ages. In fact the last one was ten years ago [and jolly good it was too: Ed] but nothing ever vanishes completely here at Ramblings, they just hibernate in the big filing cabinet which I really must get around to dusting some time. 

Last night BBC1 screened episode 10 of the 19th series of The Apprentice. Mrs C. and I have watched it since the beginning. It might have been episode one of the very first series. Almost nothing has changed. Yes, the prize is now an investment in one's business rather than a "job" with Lord Sugar, yes the "trusted advisors" have changed and there is a far greater emphasis on designing, branding and pitching to "industry professionals", rather than tasks that engage directly with the public, but we still have a handful of people doing utterly unrealistic things that can only be done because a TV company is paying for them, all under huge pressure so that they will inevitably make mistakes, Lord Sugar can routinely insult them and dismiss one of them for anything that takes his fancy. 

"You were disruptive"
"You were too quiet"
"You should have overruled the project manager"
"You should have supported the project manager"
"You didn't sell"
"I haven't seen very much of you" and if he has no real reason, but has to fire someone
"I've got an instinct we won't get on"

The latest task was as meaningless as the rest - create a "fashion house" by sketching out designs for three garments, concoct a name and logo and play a ridiculous game with real buyers for "how many units" of these non-existent brands they will "buy". Yes, I know I am using up an unsustainable amount of quotation marks but only in proportion to the ridiculousness [Sigh:Ed] of this method to assess whether the candidate is someone whose business warrants an investment.

Every episode features exactly the same elements:

• The candidates, who sleep jammed in a couple of rooms even though they have a twelve bedroom mansion at their disposal, are woken stupidly early in the morning by a phone call. The phone is not placed helpfully on the landing where they sleep. One of them has to go downstairs (filmed all the while, of course) to answer it. It is a different person each episode. Then, having been told where they are about to be taken and that the cars will be outside in 20 minutes (or maybe 40 minutes if they are having a lie-in), they must rush upstairs shouting "Guys, guys, wake up, we're going to Shoeburyness " (or whatever).
• There follows a minute of clips of young people washing, dressing and grooming before marching out of the house to climb into the four black taxis waiting outside. I have always assumed that they would wash, dress and groom anyway but the producers obviously feel this bit is terribly important and so they always show it.
• There follows some utterly pointless speculation about why they are going to Shoeburyness. 
• They arrive, line up, face the grim faced Baroness Brady and the impassive Tim Campbell and await either the entrance of Sugar or his appearance on a TV screen.
• "Well, you might be wondering why you are here on the old winkle-picking pier at Shoeburyness" his lordship will say "Shoes are a very important part of the economy, we all wear them, the market is worth £500 billion  and today you are going to design your own range of footwear, from sandals to slip-ons, from walking shoes to high-fashion dress shoes, plus Wellington boots, mountain climbing boots and football boots. Oh, and kids' shoes suitable both for school and the playground. You must then brand them, make a video and pitch it to industry experts and I'll see you back in the boardoom tonight where someone in the losing team will be fired" [A bit of exaggeration in this bit for heightened comic effect: Ed]
•  The teams then choose a project manager and a subteam leader, discuss their assignment vaguely and then march back to the cars to begin a hectic schedule of designing, filming and pitching. The two parts of each team are kept separated and only permitted one short contact, via a phone call in which it is customary for each to despair at the other's interpretation of the brief. The phone must be held horizontal to the ground and not, as intended by mobile phone designers, to the ear where it works most efficiently.
• The tasks finish to the accompaniment (on-screen) of a musical soundtrack with an increasingly urgent tempo and are edited to make it impossible for the viewers to understand which team is doing better.
• The teams file into the "boardroom", where there are insufficient chairs so that some must stand awkwardly behind those who sit.
• Lord Sugar emerges and always begins his opening remarks with "Well". "Well, today's task was about selling guns to insurgents in central Africa" or "Well, I laid on for you to run a whelk stall in Scunthorpe"
• When he asks his trusted advisors to reveal the financial results, he starts with Baroness Brady who always replies "Erm, well, Alan". Sugar then always says "Tim, the same question to you"
• We know, from what past candidates have said, that the boardroom sessions last several hours and involve very close questioning of how the tasks were managed. But very little of this is shown in the programme. Instead we must endure Sugar's weak puns which he delivers as though he was the third understudy in a failing pantomime who has spent the last five minutes frantically trying to learn them backstage.

There is one episode each series which breaks out of this stifling mould. The 11th is always the interview stage and here, with the candidates finally forced to explain what their businesses are about and why they want Sugar's cash, in front of four very able and determined appraisers. Most fans will relish Claude Littner's "It's a bloody disgrace" demolition of Solomon Akhtar in 2014 as the pinnacle of the art, but my favourite moment was in 2022 when Mike Soutar asked Kathryn Burn about the web site that was a key part of her business, and if she owned it. The candidate was not sure. Mike was. He had bought it himself when his investigation showed that the candidate had failed to register it.

I'm not going to bother discussing the final. If Sugar hasn't already decided which candidate and plan he likes best after the preceding 11 episodes, then clearly it doesn't matter which he chooses. And if he has decided, then the final is a sham. Either way, it is for me the least interesting part of the process. 

Is it worth sticking with the preceding 10 episodes to enjoy the demolition of the interviews? That is what we must ask ourselves. And each year I decide it is not but somehow, each year, I end up watching them anyway.