Been meaning to post about the following

First:   I started commenting recently that Biden's image as aged and decrepit is now largely from his gait, and I even suggested that people (including Biden) should be open about it and start saying why he had become stiffer and more awkward physically, but not mentally.   I have now seen a couple of posts like this, and they are useful:

 

Second:   I stand by my opinion that the movie has some of the worst B movie level clunky dialogue of any science fiction film ever made, and I am happy when anyone else makes legitimate criticism of its plot points as well:

Third:   I am bad!  I never provided a guest link to a New York Times article in April regarding the 300th birthday of Immanuel Kant.  Here it is:

Why the World Still Needs Immanuel Kant

And for those too lazy to click on it, some interesting points from it:

As the son of a saddle maker, Kant would have led a workman’s life himself, had a pastor not suggested the bright lad deserved some higher education. He came to love his studies and to “despise the common people who knew nothing,” until “Rousseau set me right,” he wrote. Kant rejected his earlier elitism and declared his philosophy would restore the rights of humanity — otherwise they would be more useless than the work of a common laborer.

Chutzpah indeed. The claim becomes even more astonishing if you read a random page of his texts. How on earth, you may ask, are human rights connected with proving our need to think in categories like “cause” or “substance?”....

Before Kant, it’s said, philosophers were divided between Rationalists and Empiricists, who were concerned about the sources of knowledge. Does it come from our senses, or our reason? Can we ever know if anything is real? By showing that knowledge requires sensory experience as well as reason, we’re told, Kant refuted the skeptics’ worry that we never know if anything exists at all.

All this is true, but it hardly explains why the poet Heinrich Heine found Kant more ruthlessly revolutionary than Robespierre. Nor does it explain why Kant himself said only pedants care about that kind of skepticism. Ordinary people do not fret over the reality of tables or chairs or billiard balls. They do, however, wonder if ideas like freedom and justice are merely fantasies. Kant’s main goal was to show they are not.

The point is often missed, because Kant was as bad a writer as he was a great philosopher. By the time he finishes proving the existence of the objects of ordinary experience and is ready to show how they differ from ideas of reason, the semester is nearly over. Long-windedness is not, however, the only reason his work is often misinterpreted.

All of it is worth reading.

Also, it alerts me to the fact a film has been made about him:

The start of the year saw special Kant editions of four prominent German magazines. A Kant movie made for television premiered on March 1, and another is in production. Four exhibits on Kant and the Enlightenment will open in Bonn, Lüneburg, Potsdam and Berlin. The conferences will be numerous, including one organized by the Divan, Berlin’s house for Arab culture.

Fourth:

Yeah, this short video of Sabine's is pretty good, especially given that only yesterday I Googled "what exactly counts as a quantum measurement for the Many Worlds interpretation?"

I also watched Sean Carroll talk about the topic on a couple of Youtube video recently.  (One with Lex Fridman, the other a talk with Brian Greene on the pretty good World Science Festival channel.)