Five Vintage SF Works About Travelling to the Moon
Apr. 13th, 2026 10:13 am
This is how we imagined humanity's first trip to the moon before Apollo 11...
Five Vintage SF Works About Travelling to the Moon

I was interested to run across this article announcement:
Nestlé researchers find Taurine-B vitamin blend may support motivation: A study in healthy adults found that daily supplementation had a positive impact on motivation, attention, mental energy and effort toward achieving goals after 14 days of intake…. Read more
It immediately raised the question: Why would Nestlé researchers do this study?
I went right to the source.
The study: A nutritional blend of taurine, vitamins B6, B9, and B12 improves motivated behaviors in healthy adults—a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Front. Nutr. 13:1711478. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1711478
Methods: …we identified candidate nutrients found in foods that could enhance brain GSH [glutathione] production as a possible approach to sustain motivated behaviors….we discovered that taurine was able to efficiently increase GSH production…but only when levels of vitamin B9 were adequate. The above led us to test a blend of taurine, vitamin B6, B9, and B12 in humans, in a randomized, double-blind, 2-arm, cross-over study with 44 participants aged 25–40 years old.
Results: Results showed significant improvements after 14 days supplementation in the first period, as well as after 28 days in the second administration period, compared to placebo.
Discussion: Overall, these findings demonstrate how targeted nutritional supplementation can sustain brain health and modulate behaviors, such as motivated and goal-oriented performance.
Funding: The study was sponsored by Société des Produits Nestlé SA.
Conflict of interest: 5 of 7 authors are employed by Société des Produits Nestlé SA. This study received funding from Société des Produits Nestlé SA. The funder was involved in the study design, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Comment: This is Nestlé research conducted by Nestlé employees. The company sells nutraceutical products, including supplements. This research seems aimed at providing a seemingly rational basis for marketing a taurine/B vitamin supplement to improve motivational behavior.
The post Industry-funded study of the week: Taurine supplements appeared first on Food Politics by Marion Nestle
Trump spends a lot of time at his own hotels and golf clubs. Philip Bump has been keeping track since the first term. During this second term so far, Trump spent 170 days in office on his own properties, or 38%, and 80% of weekend days. That seems like a lot given the state of things.
Tags: golf, Philip Bump, properties
Because there are so many excellent entries of interest to Language Log readers in various fields, I am including all of those in this extensive list;
[Thanks to:
Edward M "Ted" McClure, Librarian
https://patreon.com/Bluehorse887
https://researchbuzz.masto.host/@Bluehorse ]
ktschwarz reminds me that the NY Times has rebooted On Language:
Written memorably by William Safire for most of its run, the original column was a mainstay of the magazine for 32 years until 2011. Now that social media, online communities and contemporary political discourse are transforming language profoundly — and these new grammars and vocabularies are flowing into large language models that, slowly but surely, are becoming a dominant force — we think it’s high time to bring the column back. The primary writer will be Nitsuh Abebe. His first column published earlier this week, on the word “lethality.” That follows a string of great columns Nitsuh has written in recent months about the em-dash, the neologism “cope,” the suffix “-maxxing” and the reluctance people have to use periods in texts.
I had actually planned to write about it last week, but that “lethality” essay (archived) annoyed me by being so focused on the news of the day. The new one (archived), on “agentic,” is more to my taste, paying greater attention to word history:
There are various reports and they all seem to agree: The tech world is currently awash in the concept of agency. It is, more specifically, extremely into the word “agentic,” which peppers the language of the tech-associated, the tech-adjacent, the tech-adjacent-adjacent.
That’s “agentic” as in, you know, having agency — possessing the capacity “to influence and control outcomes through assertive individual action,” as the Oxford English Dictionary has it. The word holds a lot of meaning in computing, but Silicon Valley aspirants seem just as eager to apply it to themselves. They talk about being agentic people; sometimes they dress up the idea in a little rhetorical suit and talk about the Highly Agentic Individual. They are describing the kind of person who simply acts, assertively, to shape the world, rather than seeking approval or meekly following the herd. Candidates for tech jobs get asked if they’re agentic (good) or mimetic (yuck). On X, people debate whether the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, is in fact “the most agentic person alive.” One poster laments the way a cold can ruin your workday: “You won’t make any deals, you won’t be an agentic person. You’re milquetoast.” Another just needs an adequately agentic aide to help schedule medical appointments.
This sense of agency is hundreds of years old: That O.E.D. entry — II.4, “Ability or capacity to exert power” — features citations from the year 1606 onward, concerning things like “the moral Agency of the Supreme Being” versus that of humanity, or the state’s role in preserving the “personal free agency” of its citizens. But you could be forgiven for thinking it feels new, given how much our understanding of it has been shaped by recent thinking in psychology. In that field, agency is the ability to act independently and, by doing so, to feel control over your own direction — steering your fate instead of watching helplessly as life happens to you. (Children, for instance, are said to gradually develop more “agency and autonomy” as they grow.) Readers of things like feminist criticism will have watched a related usage bubble up from academic thought (1988: Unlike depictions of “women as victims of forces beyond their control,” Emma stands as “Austen’s most agentic heroine”) and eventually cross into everyday speech. […]
Most Americans remain more connected with a different meaning of “agent.” We’re used to the agent as representative — someone who acts on behalf of. Talent agents negotiate deals for actors, writers, models. Travel agents book vacation packages for tour groups. Customer-service agents appear, if you’re lucky, after a minute or two of wearily declaiming the word “AGENT” into a speech-recognition phone system.
The word’s etymology contains both strains: the agent as actor, yes, but also as advocate, instrument, emissary. That double meaning is incredibly handy for the tech industry. It can sound as though agentic A.I. models are meant to assist us — even when the people using the word are boasting that their models are just fine acting without us.
I had actually been wondering what all those people meant by “agentic,” so I’m glad to have it explained, and of course I’m glad the NYT has revived the column.
It's about time this topic has its own blog post. It's been an aside to other discussions on several occasions. It's not so much a difference between American and British English per se, but a difference in how our political systems work, and hence a difference in which words we need to use about them.
![]() |
| PM's Question Time at UK parliament (Wikimedia commons) |
The US has a presidential system, in which the president is elected independently of the legislature. The executive (presidential) and legislative branches of government are accorded their own powers, and the party in control of the executive branch may not be in control of either or both of the legislative chambers (the Senate and the House of Representatives). So when talking about the president and cabinet, it's inaccurate to say things like the Obama government (let me live in the past, please), since the president leads only one branch of the government. Instead, we usually speak of the Obama administration.
So, this isn't really a difference between AmE and BrE because if Americans talk about British politics, they would need the more parliamentary language, and if Britons talk about American politics, they'll need the more presidential language, for accuracy. But do people always speak accurately about these things?
For government, they mostly do. The images below show the most common words between the and government in the AmE & BrE parts of the Corpus of Global Web-Based English, which was collected in 2012–13, when the UK had a coalition government of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. There, you can see coalition and Labour in the UK data, but only general adjectives and countries in the American. That hasn't changed in more recent data. There's little talk about the Biden government or the Trump government.
![]() |
| Most common words before government in GloWbE AmE subcorpus |
![]() |
| Most common words before government in GloWbE BrE subcorpus |
![]() |
| most common words between the and administration in US GloWbE |
![]() |
| most common words between the and administration in UK GloWbE |
![]() |
| the + [UK party name] + administration |
![]() |
| the Labour/Conservative administration in the News on the Web corpus (UK part) |
The monumental 10-day Artemis II mission, which sent four astronauts on a record-breaking flyby of the moon, has concluded. Watch highlights of the mission from NASA, from the launch countdown to the astronauts' recovery after splashing down in the Pacific Ocean.
Or maybe "initialism lengths"? Wiktionary defines initialism as "a term formed from the initial letters of several words or parts of words, which is itself pronounced letter by letter"; while some (fussy) people argue that the term acronym should be reserved for words like laser (= "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation") or NATO (= "North Atlantic Treaty Organization").
Acronyms/Initialisms are (mostly) words, under any reasonable definition. But this category has the special property that most items have multiple specific and distinct senses, generally known to small groups and/or used in very special circumstances.
For example, American linguists know that LSA stands for "The Linguistic Society of America" — but the LSA didn't act in time to lock up https://lsa.org, which belongs to the "Louisiana Sheriffs' Association". And Acronym Finder gives 123 interpretations for LSA, including the linguists but (curiously) not the sheriffs.
Mark Davies' NOW ("News on the Web") Corpus has 3,680 hits for the string LSA — quickly checking a few of them (literally) at random gives us references to the Liangmai Sports Association's Badminton team; the Law Students Association at McGill; a recipe's abbreviation for a mix of ground linseed, sunflower seeds and almonds; Lifesaving South Africa; the Law Society of Alberta; and so forth. In that corpus, the Linguistic Society of America gets 55 hits, and the Louisiana Sheriffs Association has 6.
Someday it would be fun to run an acronym-finding script over that dataset, or a similar one. But this morning, as a crude approximation to the (non-frequency-weighted) distribution of initialism length, I checked the entry counts for probes of Acronym Finder with random letter-string samples of different lengths, generated by this simple R script.
A sample 20 random single letters yielded a mean of 65.5 hits and a median of 64.5:
G 66
V 65
Y 31
E 77
L 64
W 60
H 64
V 65
X 48
D 115
A two-letter sample yielded a mean of 58.1 and a median of 25.5:
ZZ 13
BO 85
UO 26
ND 82
OY 10
WY 8
MM 248
JR 25
YI 6
SK 78
A three-letter sample has a mean of 47.7 and a median of 41:
KXS 2
WRK 4
DCL 63
KNU 6
NPN 37
IPE 60
PVP 45
CCB 154
BJH 4
MCM 102
A four-letter sample has a mean of 1.4 and a median of 0:
EKCK 0
EPRL 6
BLUE 6
WIXI 0
QLCS 1
DZCZ 0
YJGM 0
BTDW 1
CWJI 0
FVOE 0
(Though the AcronymFinder's "acronym attic" has one unverified entry for EKCK as "Embassy in Kuwait City Kuwait".)
And a five-letter sample has mean and median of 0 — though ARKEM has one "unvalidated" entry in the AcronymFinder's attic, listed as "alarm remote keyless entry module":
RDZCI 0
LPEYZ 0
TUWRX 0
WMHXQ 0
ARKEM 0
VCEGP 0
MZMKH 0
WTFAY 0
RDITH 0
DBRBY 0
If we believed the unreliable probability estimates derived from those mean values, we'd estimate 6.55*26=170 single-letter entries, 5.81 *26^2=3928 two-letter entries, 4.77*26^3=83838 three-letter entries, and 0.14*26^4=63977 four-letter entries. Implausible estimates that still confirm my prejudice that three-letter initialisms are the most commonly used.
For sequence lengths of six and above, traditional initialisms or acronyms are increasingly unlikely, though "backronyms" like DREAM and PATRIOT buck the trend. And social-media and email names sometimes involve initialisms combined with abbreviations, like @FmrRepMTG.
The longest example I 've ever seen is MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+. For an explanation and motivation of all 16 characters in that one, see Lezard Dr, Percy, Noe Prefontaine, Dawn-Marie Cederwall, Corrina Sparrow, Sylvia Maracle, Albert Beck, and Albert McCleod. "2SLGBTQQIA+ Sub-Working Group MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+ National Action Plan Final report." (2021).
Every year(ish), since 2009, I’ve been gathering and visualising billions from news headlines and reports. These gargantuan numbers often make little sense unless put in context and comparison with other billions. So here’s the latest interactive edition.
» see the interactive visualisation
» check the data
Explore our companion visualisation, $$$TRILLIONS
I keep forgetting to post about this: we've been troubleshooting the "missing notifications" problem for the past few days. (Well, I say "we", really I mean Mark and Robby; I'm just the amanuensis.) It's been one of those annoying loops of "find a logical explanation for what could be causing the problem, fix that thing, observe that the problem gets better for some people but doesn't go away completely, go back to step one and start again", sigh.
Mark is hauling out the heavy debugging ordinance to try to find the root cause. Once he's done building all the extra logging tools he needs, he'll comment to this entry. After he does, if you find a comment that should have gone to your inbox and sent an email notification but didn't, leave him a link to the comment that should have sent the notification, as long as the comment itself was made after Mark says he's collecting them. (I'd wait and post this after he gets the debug code in but I need to go to sleep and he's not sure how long it will take!)
We're sorry about the hassle! Irregular/sporadic issues like this are really hard to troubleshoot because it's impossible to know if they're fixed or if they're just not happening while you're looking. With luck, this will give us enough information to figure out the root cause for real this time.