They’re just following John Green’s policy on electricians and witches: “If you don’t know how to do something well, hire someone who does. My policy is that I don’t change the wiring in my own house, and I don’t hex my own enemies.” (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mxdwS3f209E)

Julia Child did some 400° cooking, for a science-oriented TV series called “The Ring of Truth”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ3mjb9BSaU&t=850s
Later in the episode, she got to cook a diamond to amorphous carbon. “I’ll remember that recipe – one carat diamond, two and a half hours, three thousand degrees”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ3mjb9BSaU&t=1458s

I recall an anecdote about a mathematician being asked to clarify precisely what he meant by “a close approximation to three”. After thinking for a moment, he replied “any real number other than three”.

They’re similar in some respects, different in others; this happens to only show ways they’re similar. Specifically, it only shows dipole (two-pole) fields, with the field lines running from one pole (North or +) to the other (South or -).

But there are also electric monopoles: things that’re only + (e.g. protons) or - (e.g. electrons), which’ll have field lines radiating out in all directions rather than looping back. Magnets are different in that as far as we know, magnetic monopoles don’t exist. Every North pole’s directly attached to a South pole and vice versa. You can get magnets with more than two poles, or even more complex arrangements (e.g. refrigerator magnets normally have alternating North and South stripes), but they’ll always have equal amounts of Northness and Southness, so the net magnetic charge is always zero.

Another (related) difference is that moving electric charges (e.g. electric currents in a wire) create loops of magnetic field. That is, the field line just goes in a circle around the moving charge, rather than from N to S. Since there’s no such thing (as far as we know) as a magnetic charge, that can’t happen with the electric field.

“Sesame Street was brought to you today by the language R, and the number F.”

Hmm, I think we should start referring to the toll-like receptors as the awesome-ish receptors.
Another example: there’s a fruit-fly gene named decapentaplegic (which has to do with forming the 15 imaginal discs during embryonic development). When they discovered another gene that interfered with it, but only when inherited from the mother, they named that one “mothers against decapentaplegic”.

Nobody has ported Doom to a Himalayan salt lamp.
Yet.
This is your opportunity!

I am going to blame Microsoft, because “works out of the box” shouldn’t conflict with “secure out of the box.”

And while I won’t blame Linus for insecure-by-default Linux configs, I will blame whoever integrated the distro/dockerfile/etc.

I remember when the local Safeway had one of these! I’m pretty sure that was in the '70s, though. It’s just slightly possible that I might be old.

I’ve also been watching CtC quite a bit for the last couple of years. Unfortunately, they’ve lately been doing a lot of long, highly technical puzzles, which I don’t find as interesting (though their shorter videos are still good). If anyone’s interested in checking them out, I’ll recommend a couple of older videos that I really enjoyed:

• “The Sudoku Miracle” set by Mitchell Lee has just two given digits, and some inadequate-seeming rules.
• “Everything is Wrogn” set by DiMono has pretty much every rule in the book, and requires that the solution violate all of them.

If you enjoy watching people solve sudokus and other puzzles, I’ll also recommend Rangsk (generally does the daily NYT hard sudoku, a 6x6 intro-to-nonstandard-rules “sudoku adventure”, and a collection of wordle-ish (but not not actually wordle) games), Bremster, and zetamath (does quite a few live solves with audience participation, as well as reaction vids to other people solving his puzzles).