Disputed

 Ice Dance is a major event at winter Olympic, and the competition at Milano-Cortina

led to a result not everyone agreed with. The American team were favourites going into

the Free Dance segment but France eventually won the Gold. How I make sense of it:

                                                                        *     *     *

Copilot:

Milano-Cortina; what is figure skating in French?

If you’re thinking ahead to Milano–Cortina 2026, the French term you want is nice and simple:

🇫🇷 How to say figure skating in French

le patinage artistique

A couple of quick notes to make it feel natural in context:

An athlete is un patineur artistique (male) or une patineuse artistique (female).

The Olympic event is referred to as les épreuves de patinage artistique.

If you want, I can also give you the names of the specific disciplines in French—pairs, ice dance, short program, free skate, etc.—or help you phrase something about Milano–Cortina smoothly.

What is figure skating' in German?

In German, figure skating is:

🇩🇪 Eiskunstlauf

A couple of useful related terms:

Eiskunstläufer — male figure skater

Eiskunstläuferin — female figure skater

Paarlauf — pair skating

Eistanz — ice dance (distinct from pair skating)

If you want, I can also give you the German names for the specific elements or the competition segments.

define 'laufen'...

Happy to unpack that for you, Louise — laufen is one of those deceptively simple German verbs that opens into a whole family of meanings depending on context.

Here’s the clean, structured version.

🇩🇪 Meaning of laufen

At its core, laufen means to move using your legs, but German divides that idea more finely than English does.

1. To run / to jog

This is the most common everyday meaning.

Ich laufe jeden Morgen.  

“I run every morning.”

2. To walk (at a brisk or purposeful pace)

Especially when the movement is continuous or covers distance.

Wir laufen zur Schule.  

“We’re walking to school.”

3. To function / to operate (machines, systems)

Die Maschine läuft.  

“The machine is running.”

4. To flow (liquids)

Das Wasser läuft.  

“The water is running.”

5. To be in progress / underway

Der Film läuft gerade.  

“The movie is playing right now.”

🧊 Why it appears in Eiskunstlauf

Eiskunstlauf literally breaks down to:

Eis = ice

Kunst = art

Lauf (from laufen) = movement, running, gliding

So the term captures the idea of artistic movement on ice, not “running” but the broader sense of moving, progressing, flowing — which fits beautifully with the sport.

If you want, I can also break down:

why German uses laufen for skating but fahren for skiing,

how laufen changes in compounds (ablaufen, verlaufen, umlaufen…),

or how to hear the nuance between gehen, laufen, and rennen.

define the compound laufen...

Absolutely — laufen becomes even more interesting once you look at its compound forms, because each prefix reshapes the core idea of “moving / running / flowing” into a very specific meaning. German is wonderfully architectural that way.

Here’s a clear, structured map of the most common and useful compounds.

🇩🇪 Core idea of laufen

Movement, flow, progression — physical or metaphorical.

Everything below is built on that root.

🔹 1. ab‑laufen

Primary meanings

to run off / drain (liquid)

to expire (contracts, deadlines)

to proceed / unfold (events)

Examples

Das Wasser läuft ab. — The water drains away.

Der Vertrag ist abgelaufen. — The contract has expired.

🔹 2. an‑laufen

Primary meanings

to start running / begin operating

to approach at speed

to premiere (films)

Examples

Die Maschine läuft an. — The machine starts up.

Der Film läuft morgen an. — The film premieres tomorrow.

🔹 3. aus‑laufen

Primary meanings

to leak

to run out / come to an end

to expire (similar to ablaufen, but more gradual)

Examples

Die Milch läuft aus. — The milk is leaking.

Das Abkommen läuft nächstes Jahr aus. — The agreement expires next year.

🔹 4. ein‑laufen

Primary meanings

to shrink (clothes)

to arrive (ships, trains)

to break in (shoes)

Examples

Die Hose ist eingelaufen. — The pants shrank.

Das Schiff läuft den Hafen ein. — The ship enters the harbor.

🔹 5. ent‑laufen

Primary meaning

to escape / run away

Example

Die Katze ist entlaufen. — The cat ran away.

🔹 6. ver‑laufen

Primary meanings

to get lost (on foot)

to disperse / fade (colors, crowds)

to proceed (events)

Examples

Ich habe mich verlaufen. — I got lost.

Die Farben sind verlaufen. — The colors bled.

🔹 7. über‑laufen

Primary meanings

to overflow

to defect / switch sides

to run over (liquid)

Examples

Der Topf läuft über. — The pot is boiling over.

Er ist zur Konkurrenz übergelaufen. — He defected to the competition.

🔹 8. um‑laufen

Two meanings depending on stress

UMlaufen (stress on um): to run around something

umLAUfen (stress on laufen): to knock someone over by running into them

Examples

Ich umlaufe das Gebäude. — I run around the building.

Er hat mich umlaufen. — He ran into me and knocked me over.

🔹 9. durch‑laufen

Two meanings depending on stress

DURCHlaufen: to go through something (physically or metaphorically)

durchLAUfen: to run continuously without stopping

Examples

Sie hat eine harte Ausbildung durchlaufen. — She went through a tough training.

Der Motor läuft durch. — The motor runs continuously.

🔹 10. mit‑laufen

Primary meanings

to run along with

to accompany

to be included automatically

Examples

Ich laufe mit. — I’ll come along (on foot).

Das läuft automatisch mit. — That’s included automatically.

🧊 Why this matters for Eiskunstlauf

The Lauf in Eiskunstlauf isn’t “running” — it’s the broader sense of:

movement

flow

progression

the path traced on the ice

It’s the same semantic root that appears in all these compounds.

If you want, I can also map:

how laufen differs from gehen, rennen, fahren, gleiten

why German uses laufen for skating but fahren for skiing

or how stress patterns change the meaning of many German verbs

Just tell me where you want to go next.

Just wanted to make sure I was comparing the proper elements...

It sounds like you’re double‑checking that you were comparing the right elements between rhythm dance and free dance — and yes, you absolutely were. Let me give you a crisp confirmation so you can move forward confidently.

🧊 You were comparing the proper elements

In ice dance, the judging system is built around two distinct sets of expectations:

1. Rhythm Dance (RD)

This segment has:

A mandatory rhythm/theme for the season

Required pattern dance elements

Shorter, more constrained lifts

A tighter structure overall

The technical panel looks for:

Accuracy of the pattern

Timing to the required rhythm

Clean edges and unison

Execution of the required elements

2. Free Dance (FD)

This segment allows:

Any music

Longer, more complex lifts

More open choreography

Greater emphasis on storytelling and musical interpretation

Judges evaluate:

Creativity and composition

Transitions and difficulty

Interpretation and emotional expression

Flow, speed, and edge quality

So if you were comparing:

Pattern vs. no pattern

Restricted lifts vs. creative lifts

Required rhythm vs. free musical choice

Shorter vs. longer program

…then yes, you were absolutely comparing the correct structural and scoring elements.

If you want, I can also map:

how the American team’s RD and FD elements lined up against the Canadians and the French,

or how the PCS weighting tends to shift between the two segments.

Just tell me where you want to take the analysis next.

The American couple were very tight on certain technical elements: they rotated in perfect synchronicity, like automata. But nothing seemed to be going on emotionally (except acknowledging each other on hitting the elements of he dance). The French couple left me in tears, with a totally unexpected whale sound background. They were performing, with an original choreography that allowed them to respond to each other rather than do the technical elements in imitation.

What you’re describing is exactly the core aesthetic divide between two philosophies of ice dance — and you articulated it with the precision of someone who actually watches the blades, not just the scores.

Let me give you a structured way to think about what you saw, because your instincts were dead‑on.

🧊 1. The Americans: Technical Synchronization as Identity

Chock & Bates have long been known for:

razor‑tight unison

mirrored rotation

extremely clean entry/exit timing

a kind of “mechanical precision” that judges reward in TES and GOE

When you say they rotated “like automata,” that’s not an exaggeration — their style is built on:

simultaneity rather than interaction

matching shapes rather than responding shapes

technical clarity over emotional dynamism

This is why their programs often feel like:

two skaters executing the same idea

rather than two characters in a shared world

It’s not wrong — it’s just a particular aesthetic that maximizes points in certain categories (especially GOE on synchronized turns, twizzles, and step sequences).

🧊 2. The French: Emotional Dialogue as Technique

Fournier Beaudry & Cizeron (and before that, Papadakis & Cizeron) skate in a completely different paradigm.

Their hallmark is:

movement as conversation

asymmetry used intentionally

response rather than imitation

emotional phrasing that shapes the technical elements

When you mention the whale‑sound background — that’s a classic Cizeron signature:

unexpected soundscapes

long, sustained phrasing

choreography that breathes rather than counts

And yes, this creates the effect you felt:

the technical elements don’t look like “elements”

they look like emotional consequences

the dance feels lived rather than executed

This is why their skating often hits people in the chest. It’s not sentimental — it’s embodied.

Do we know where the next Winter Olympics will be held?

Here’s the up‑to‑date answer, Louise, based on the freshest reporting available.

❄️ Where the next Winter Olympics will be held

According to multiple 2026 news sources, the next Winter Olympics after Milano–Cortina 2026 will take place in:

🇫🇷 The French Alps — 2030 Winter Olympics

This is confirmed by TIME’s coverage of future host cities. 

The French Alps bid includes venues such as:

Courchevel

Meribel

La Plagne

Tignes

Val d’Isère

These locations were highlighted during the ceremony marking the arrival of the Olympic rings. 

If you want, I can also map:

how the French Alps plan to distribute events,

what comes after 2030 (the IOC has already lined up hosts through 2034),

or how climate constraints are shaping future Winter Games locations.

Where will they be in 2034?

Yes — that one is fully settled.

❄️ 2034 Winter Olympics Host City

The 2034 Winter Olympics will be held in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

The IOC confirmed this as part of its long‑term hosting strategy:

2030 → French Alps

2034 → Salt Lake City

Salt Lake City was chosen largely because:

it already has Olympic‑ready venues from 2002

strong public and political support

reliable winter conditions at altitude

a well‑developed transportation and lodging infrastructure

If you’re curious, I can also walk you through:

how the IOC made the decision

what events will likely be held where in Utah

or how climate constraints are shaping future Winter Games planning.

         

Troubled_Times

 The Swiss Franc is growing in value in a spectacular way:

https://archive.ph/hqniT

Bala

 A balaclava is a ski mask. This one - which I spotted on Amazon - does have that

O-open mouth that is noticeable on the Guthrie asailant video. It is from China!

                                            source: Wikipedia

*     *     *

The sweater still eludes me, but it is a men's full-zipper blockcolor fleece jacket. Perhaps

in a larger size to accomodate a thicker waist...

Cretacious

 

Getting clear on time periods in the Earth Sciences. Got a clean view from Gemini ai.

(One needs to be careful in the later orderings. Geologists study earth rocks from the bottom

up, and ai gives us the categories 'backwards').

Earth Sciences; could you define the following terms for me: Eon, Era, Period, Epoch, Age , and furnish an example...

Gemini said

Think of the geologic time scale as the Earth’s personal calendar. Because our planet is about 4.5 billion years old, scientists use a hierarchical system to break that massive span of time into manageable "chapters."

Here is the breakdown from the largest division to the smallest:

1. Eon

The largest formal unit of geologic time, typically spanning hundreds of millions to billions of years. Eons represent the broadest phases of Earth's history, such as the transition from a molten rock ball to a planet with complex life.

Example: The Phanerozoic Eon (the current eon, which began about 541 million years ago when "visible life" became abundant).

2. Era

Eons are divided into Eras. These are defined by major changes in the Earth’s crust and the types of life forms that dominated the planet (often bookended by mass extinctions).

Example: The Mesozoic Era (famously known as the "Age of Reptiles" or the time of the dinosaurs).

3. Period

Eras are subdivided into Periods. These units are usually based on specific "systems" of rock layers found across the globe and represent distinct shifts in the fossil record.

Example: The Jurassic Period (a slice of the Mesozoic Era characterized by a specific climate and the rise of giant sauropods).

4. Epoch

Periods are further split into Epochs. These are shorter spans of time that are particularly useful for the more recent geologic periods where the rock and fossil records are more detailed and easier to distinguish.

Example: The Holocene Epoch (the current epoch we live in, which started after the last major ice age about 11,700 years ago).

5. Age

The smallest hierarchical unit of geologic time. An Age is a subdivision of an Epoch and usually lasts a few million years. They are often named after the specific geographic location where the corresponding rock strata were first identified.

Example: The Meghalayan Age (the most recent age of the Holocene, which began roughly 4,200 years ago).

Summary Table: Putting it all together

If we look at where we are right now in Earth's history, the hierarchy looks like this:

Level Current Unit

Eon         Phanerozoic

Era         Cenozoic

Period Quaternary

Epoch Holocene

Age         Meghalayan

Would you like me to dive deeper into a specific period, like the Cretaceous, or perhaps explain how scientists actually determine these dates using radiometric layering?

Are these categories those used by geologists?

Spot on. These are exactly the formal units used by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS).

Geologists and paleontologists use this specific hierarchy—which they call Geochronology—to ensure they are speaking the same language. Whether a scientist is in Brazil or Japan, referring to the "Cretaceous Period" points to the exact same interval of time and specific layers of rock.

How they decide "When" is "When"

Geologists don't just pick these names out of a hat. They rely on two main methods to define these categories:

Chronostratigraphy: This is based on the physical layers of rock (strata). A geologist looks for a "Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point" (GSSP)—informally called a Golden Spike. This is an actual physical location in the world where the rock record perfectly shows the transition from one time unit to the next.

Geochronology: This is the measurement of time in years, often using radioactive decay (like Carbon-14 or Uranium-Lead dating) to put an absolute number on those rock layers.

The "Anthropocene" Debate

To show you how "official" this is: there is currently a massive, years-long debate among geologists about whether we should officially add a new epoch called the Anthropocene (the age of human impact).

Even though "Anthropocene" is used widely in news and art, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) actually voted against making it an official geologic epoch as recently as 2024. They argued that while human impact is real, it doesn't yet meet the strict, long-term criteria required for the formal geologic time scale. It’s a very rigorous club to get into!

Would you like to see how a specific event, like the extinction of the dinosaurs, looks when mapped across these categories?

Tell me about the Cretaceous Period...

Gemini said

The Cretaceous Period is the grand finale of the Mesozoic Era. It lasted roughly 79 million years (145 to 66 million years ago), making it the longest period of the Phanerozoic Eon.

If you were to hitch a ride on a time machine back to the Cretaceous, here is what you’d find:

1. The World Map Was "Buffering"

During the Cretaceous, the supercontinent Pangea continued to break apart. This was a busy time for plate tectonics:

The Atlantic Ocean opened up significantly.

India began its long "sprint" toward Asia.

Sea levels were at an all-time high—so high that a massive "Western Interior Seaway" cut North America right in half, turning it into two separate island continents.

2. High Heat and No Ice

The climate was a "greenhouse" world. There were no polar ice caps; instead, lush forests and even dinosaurs lived near the South Pole. Global temperatures were significantly warmer than today, driven by intense volcanic activity that pumped CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. The Rise of the Flower Power

This is arguably the most important biological event of the period. Before the Cretaceous, the world was dominated by ferns and conifers. During this time, angiosperms (flowering plants) evolved.

This led to a co-evolutionary explosion with insects like bees and butterflies.

By the end of the period, the landscape looked much more like the one we recognize today.

4. The Heavyweights of History

While the Jurassic had the biggest long-necked giants, the Cretaceous was the era of specialized "celebrity" dinosaurs:

Tyrannosaurus rex and Triceratops (North America).

Spinosaurus (the semi-aquatic predator of Africa).

Argentinosaurus (potentially the largest land animal to ever live).

Pterosaurs like Quetzalcoatlus—reptiles the size of a small airplane—ruled the skies.

5. The Dramatic Finish: The K-Pg Boundary

The period ended 66 million years ago with the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction event. A 6-mile-wide asteroid struck the Yucatán Peninsula (the Chicxulub crater), triggering:

Global wildfires and tsunamis.

A "nuclear winter" effect that blocked the sun for years.

The extinction of roughly 75% of all species, including all non-avian dinosaurs.

How Geologists Identify It

Geologists identify Cretaceous rock layers by their massive chalk deposits (the name comes from the Latin creta, meaning "chalk"). These were formed by the accumulation of trillions of tiny marine organisms called coccolithophores on the ocean floor. The famous White Cliffs of Dover are actually massive piles of Cretaceous-aged marine skeletons!

Would you like me to explain the "Iridium Layer" that proved the asteroid theory, or should we look at the period that followed, when mammals finally got their turn to lead?  

Where were we in all this; who were the ancestors to or primitive mammals?

While the Cretaceous is famous for massive dinosaurs like T. rex, our ancestors were scurrying beneath their feet. It’s a common myth that mammals only appeared after the dinosaurs died out; in reality, mammals and dinosaurs evolved around the same time (in the Triassic) and lived side-by-side for over 150 million years.

During the Cretaceous, our ancestors were playing a high-stakes game of "hide and seek."

1. The "Small and Scrappy" Strategy

Most Cretaceous mammals were the size of mice, rats, or opossums. Because dinosaurs dominated the daytime and the "large animal" niches, mammals became nocturnal specialists.

Physical Traits: They developed large eye sockets for night vision, sensitive whiskers, and—most importantly—high-frequency hearing to detect insects and predators in the dark.

The Middle Ear: This is when the three tiny bones in our middle ear (the hammer, anvil, and stirrup) fully detached from the jawbone, giving mammals the best hearing on the planet.

2. The Three Big Branches

By the Mid-to-Late Cretaceous, the three main groups of mammals we see today had already split:

Monotremes: Egg-laying mammals (ancestors to the platypus and echidna).

Metatherians: The ancestors of Marsupials (like kangaroos and opossums).

Eutherians: The ancestors of Placental mammals (that’s us!).

3. Key Cretaceous Ancestors

If you want to look at your "Great-Great-times-a-million" grandparents, these are the candidates:

Eomaia ("Dawn Mother"): Found in China, this 5-inch-long creature is one of the earliest known relatives of placental mammals. It was a nimble climber, likely living in trees to stay away from ground-dwelling raptors.

Didelphodon: A tougher, badger-sized marsupial relative from North America. It had incredibly strong jaws—possibly strong enough to crush the shells of snails or even scavenge on small dinosaur carcasses.

Repenomamus: The "Dino-Eater." While most mammals were small, this one was the size of a large cat. Fossil evidence actually shows the remains of a baby Psittacosaurus (a small dinosaur) inside its stomach!

4. Why Mammals Survived the Asteroid

When the asteroid hit at the end of the Cretaceous, being small was a superpower:

Burrowing: Mammals lived in holes or dens, protecting them from the initial heat pulse and firestorms.

Generalist Diets: While the giant herbivores starved because plants died, and giant carnivores starved because the herbivores died, mammals could eat almost anything—insects, roots, rotting wood, and carcasses.

Rapid Breeding: Mammals reproduce much faster than large dinosaurs, allowing their populations to bounce back quickly in a devastated world.

The Turning Point

The moment the non-avian dinosaurs vanished, the Cenozoic Era (the "Age of Mammals") began. Within just 10 million years—a blink of an eye in geologic time—mammals grew from the size of house cats to the size of rhinos.

Would you like to see how these small tree-climbers eventually evolved into the first primates during the Paleocene epoch?

If I were to ask for the full map of possible time terms, how many boxes would there be?

If you were to build a "full map" of every officially named box in the Geologic Time Scale, you would be looking at a surprisingly crowded chart.

As of the latest data from the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), here is the "box count" for the Phanerozoic Eon (the last 541 million years) and the Precambrian:

The Grand Total: ~180 Boxes

The exact number can shift slightly as geologists refine the "Ages," but here is the approximate breakdown of the official hierarchy:

                                                                                          

Why is the map "Bottom-Heavy"?

You’ll notice that as you go smaller (from Eon to Age), the number of boxes explodes. There are two main reasons for this:

The "Preservation" Bias: Older rocks (from 3 billion years ago) have been crushed, melted, or eroded away. It’s hard to find enough evidence to divide the Archean Eon into tiny "Ages." Conversely, recent rocks (from the last 20 million years) are sitting right on top, full of detailed fossils, allowing us to slice the time much thinner.

The Fossil Explosion: Before the Cambrian Period, life was mostly microscopic. Once "hard parts" (shells and bones) evolved, the fossil record became much clearer, allowing geologists to create more "boxes" based on which species lived when.

The "Precambrian" vs. The Rest

If you drew this map to scale, it would look very strange:

The first 3 Eons (Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic) represent about 88% of Earth's history, but they only have a handful of named Periods.

The Phanerozoic Eon represents only 12% of Earth's history, but it contains the vast majority of the named Epochs and Ages.

A Fun Comparison

If Earth's history were a 24-hour clock:

Eras would be like Hours.

Periods would be like 20-minute blocks.

Epochs would be like 5-minute intervals.

Ages would be the Individual minutes.

Most of our "mammal" history wouldn't even show up until the final 20 minutes of the day!

Would you like me to generate a simplified table of just the "Periods" so you can see the backbone of the map without getting lost in the 100+ Ages?

Please...

Here is the "backbone" of Earth's history. These 22 Periods are the most commonly used terms by geologists and are the best way to orient yourself on the map of time.

I’ve broken them down by Era, starting from the most recent and going back to the beginning of complex life.

                                                                                              

The "Deep Time" Periods (Precambrian)

Before the Cambrian Period, the "Periods" become much longer and harder to distinguish because fossils were mostly microscopic.

Proterozoic Eon (10 Periods): Includes the Ediacaran (strange, soft-bodied jellies) and the Cryogenian (the "Snowball Earth" phase where the planet may have been entirely frozen).

Archean Eon (4 Eras): No official Periods are defined here; we only divide this into Eras like the Neoarchean.

Hadean Eon (No subdivisions): This is the first 500 million years. The Earth was a molten hellscape; no rocks survive from this time, so there are no "boxes" to draw!

Why the "Carboniferous" is Special

In the U.S., geologists often split the Carboniferous Period into two smaller boxes: the Mississippian and the Pennsylvanian. This is because the rock layers in North America from that time are so distinct (limestones vs. coal beds) that they deserve their own names locally.

Since you're interested in the "map," would you like to see a specific breakdown of the Cenozoic (our current era) to see exactly where humans fit into the last 66 million years?

Yes...

This is the "final chapter" of Earth's history—the Cenozoic Era. It spans from the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago to the very second you are reading this.

While the previous eras lasted hundreds of millions of years, the Cenozoic is a fast-paced story of cooling temperatures, rising mountains (like the Himalayas), and the evolution of the mammals that eventually became us.

                                                                                   

Where We Fit In: The Human Timeline

To see how small our "box" is compared to the rest of the map, look at the Quaternary Period. It only represents the last 2.5 million years.

The Pleistocene (The "Ice Age"): This is where most of human evolution happened. Homo erectus appeared, followed by Neanderthals and eventually Homo sapiens.

The Holocene (Our "Slice"): This is a tiny sliver of time—only about 11,700 years. It covers everything from the invention of the wheel to the launch of the James Webb Telescope.

Why the Epochs Matter Here

In the Mesozoic (Dinosaur era), we mostly talk about Periods (Jurassic, Cretaceous). But in the Cenozoic, geologists almost always talk in Epochs (Eocene, Miocene, etc.).

This is because we have so much more "data" for the Cenozoic. The rocks haven't been buried as deep or eroded as much, so we can see the differences between a forest from 40 million years ago (Eocene) and a grassland from 15 million years ago (Miocene) very clearly.

The "Golden Spike" for Today

If you were to look for the "Age" we live in right now, you would find the Meghalayan Age. It began roughly 4,200 years ago when a massive global drought disrupted civilizations in Egypt, Greece, and Mesopotamia. Geologists use a specific stalagmite found in a cave in India as the "physical evidence" for the start of this current age.

Would you like to see how our current "Ice Age" (the Pleistocene) compares to the "Greenhouse" world of the Eocene, or perhaps look at some of the "Terror Birds" that ruled before humans arrived?

Please...

Doomed

 It is Valentine's Day and I am home alone... might try to make it to the new

Renaud Bray store where I live. (It's snowing, Oh Hum). These stores have a wonderful 

array of books and cute decorative stuff. R_B is the bookstore near the University of Montreal!!

                                                           *     *     *

Found an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times this morning. Bringing

perspective to the Epstein files brouhaha.

https://archive.ph/BPYLQ

                                                         *     *     *

But first, I need to go avocado shopping...

Copilot:

If I have an avocado that is still hard, could a microwave oven be of any use?

A microwave can soften a hard avocado, but it can’t truly ripen it. Ripening is a biochemical process driven by ethylene gas, and a microwave can’t fake that. What it can do is temporarily make the flesh less rock‑hard so you can mash it in a pinch.

Here’s the honest breakdown.

🥑 What a microwave can do

Warm the flesh, which makes it feel softer.

Loosen the cell structure slightly so it’s easier to mash.

Help if you need guacamole right now and don’t care about perfect flavor.

🥑 What a microwave cannot do

Develop flavor — microwaved avocados stay bland because ripening never happened.

Fix stringiness — underripe avocados often have fibrous texture that heat won’t change.

Create creaminess — that comes from natural ripening, not heat.

⚡ If you still want to try it

Use this only as an emergency hack:

Pierce the skin a few times with a fork (so it doesn’t pop).

Wrap in a paper towel.

Microwave 30 seconds at a time, checking softness.

Stop as soon as it yields slightly under gentle pressure.

It will be warm, softer, and mashable — but it won’t taste like a naturally ripe avocado.

🧪 Why the flavor stays “off”

You’re essentially cooking the avocado, not ripening it. The enzymes that develop the nutty, buttery flavor only activate during natural ethylene-driven ripening. Heat shuts them down.

If you want, we can talk about faster real-ripening methods that actually work (paper bag, banana trick, etc.), or even how to choose avocados that ripen predictably.

How-to-chose avocados...

Here’s a clear, practical way to choose avocados that actually ripen well — and avoid the duds that stay rubbery or turn brown inside. Since you’re in Québec, where supply chains can be a bit uneven, these cues matter even more.

🥑 Step 1 — Look at the stem button

This is the single most reliable indicator.

If the little nub at the top pops off easily and the flesh underneath is green, it’s a good avocado.

If it’s brown underneath, the inside is likely already browning.

If the stem won’t come off, it’s still underripe.

🥑 Step 2 — Check the skin texture

Different varieties behave differently, but for Hass (the most common):

Bumpy, matte, darkening skin → approaching ripe.

Shiny, smooth, bright green → very underripe.

Black with sunken spots → overripe or bruised.

🥑 Step 3 — Use the gentle pressure test

Press near the top (the “neck”), not the belly.

Slight give → ready to eat.

Firm but not rock-hard → will ripen in 1–3 days.

Soft everywhere → likely mushy or stringy inside.

🥑 Step 4 — Avoid these red flags

These almost always mean trouble:

Large flat areas → internal bruising.

Cracks in the skin → overripe or damaged.

Cold spots (from refrigeration) → risk of grey, watery flesh.

Perfectly hard AND very dark → picked too early, may never ripen.

                                                                                         

🥑 Step 6 — For consistent results, buy in pairs

Because even good-looking avocados can surprise you, the best strategy is:

Buy one ready and one unripe.

Let the unripe one ripen at home where conditions are stable.

🥑 Bonus — How to ripen them properly (not with a microwave)

If you want, I can walk you through the fastest reliable ripening methods — paper bag, banana trick, oven (with caveats), or how to slow ripening once it’s perfect.

If you want, we can also talk about why some avocados never ripen at all, which is a surprisingly interesting little biochemical story.

I'm curious; why do some avocados never ripen at all??

Some avocados never ripen because something physically or biochemically went wrong long before you bought them. It’s one of those deceptively simple fruits with a surprisingly fragile supply chain. Here’s the real story — and why you sometimes meet the “eternal rock.”

🥑 1. Picked too early (the #1 culprit)

Avocados only ripen after they’re harvested, but only if they reached physiological maturity on the tree.

If they were picked too young:

They stay rubbery

They never develop oils

They may soften slightly, then turn stringy or rubbery

Sometimes they just sit there like a green stone until they rot

This is extremely common when growers rush harvests.

🥑 2. Cold damage during transport

Avocados are tropical fruits. If they’re exposed to temperatures below about 5–7°C for too long (common in shipping to Québec):

The ripening enzymes get shut down

The flesh turns grey, watery, or fibrous

They soften unevenly or not at all

Sometimes the outside looks perfect but the inside is a disaster

This is called chilling injury, and it’s irreversible.

🥑 3. Ethylene exposure was disrupted

Avocados ripen because they produce and respond to ethylene gas.

If something interferes with that:

Wax coatings that are too thick

Storage in low‑oxygen environments

Chemical treatments meant to delay ripening

…then the fruit can’t “hear” its own ripening signal.

🥑 4. Varietal quirks

Some lesser‑known varieties (especially those not meant for long-distance shipping) can behave unpredictably if they enter the mainstream supply chain. They may:

Ripen unevenly

Stay firm in some zones and mushy in others

Never reach that buttery texture

Most Québec supermarkets carry Hass, but off‑varieties do show up occasionally.

🥑 5. Bruising that stops ripening

If the fruit was dropped or squeezed hard:

The bruised areas oxidize

The enzymes in those zones die

Ripening becomes patchy or stalls entirely

You’ll see this when one half is perfect and the other half is brown rubber.

🧬 The biochemical core of the problem

Ripening requires:

Active ethylene synthesis

Functional cell-wall–softening enzymes

Intact oil bodies in the flesh

Proper temperature range

If any of these are disrupted, the fruit simply can’t complete the ripening cascade.

🥑 Why this happens more often in Québec

You’re in a colder climate with long transport chains:

More chances for cold damage

More aggressive storage treatments

More variability in harvest maturity

So you’ll occasionally get the “never-ripens” even if you choose well.

If you want, I can walk you through how to detect the doomed ones before buying, or how to test at home whether an avocado is likely to ripen or is a lost cause.

Scenario Reporting

This showed up on my Facebook feed this afternoon. Needed more info...

 https://www.facebook.com/share/v/183wQVHb7X/

Gemini:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/183wQVHb7X/ Is this a possible scenario??

I can’t see the content of that Facebook video from here, so I can’t directly judge whether the specific scenario it shows is realistic, satire, or fabricated.

To give you a meaningful answer, I’d need a short description of what happens in the video (who is involved, what event or outcome is being claimed, and roughly when/where it’s supposed to occur). Once you describe it in a few sentences, I can:

Assess whether it’s plausible given current events and known constraints.

Help you check for common red flags (AI-generated audio/video, miscaptioned old footage, fake “breaking news,” etc.).

Suggest concrete ways to verify it (official sources, reputable news, reverse image/video checks).

Reply with a brief description of the scenario the video is presenting, and I’ll evaluate how likely it is.

Hydro-Quebec just lifted electricity prices to the US in the context of Trumpian intransigence in the current Canada/US trade negotiations...

It’s a politically charged but currently speculative scenario: there is no solid evidence that Hydro‑Québec has suddenly jacked up contracted export prices “as retaliation” in the middle of 2026 trade talks, but Quebec hydropower is a real lever and some non‑contract exports have already tightened.

What is actually happening

New England and New York are indeed heavily integrating Quebec hydropower into their grids through big long‑term contracts and new lines like Champlain Hudson Power Express and New England Clean Energy Connect.

Hydro‑Québec has recently reduced some exports, but the main reasons documented so far are low reservoir levels, higher domestic demand, and spot‑market price conditions, not an official political embargo.

Trump’s team has openly talked about revisiting or even breaking up CUSMA/USMCA and using tariffs aggressively, including on Canadian energy, which logically raises the question of Canadian counter‑leverage.

Is “price revenge” a plausible tool?

As a mechanism, yes: Hydro‑Québec can prioritize the Quebec market, limit discretionary exports, and adjust pricing within the flex allowed by contracts, which would raise power costs and stress for parts of the U.S. Northeast.

However, long‑term power purchase agreements have regulated price formulas and volume commitments, so Hydro‑Québec cannot simply triple the price overnight; most “revenge” would show up by cutting spot‑market sales and being very tough in renegotiations.

How to read that video

A recent YouTube‑style analysis video frames this as “Canada’s $290B electricity revenge,” explicitly presenting it as commentary and scenario‑building, not as a confirmed policy announcement by Hydro‑Québec or the Quebec government.

Canadian and Quebec‑focused reporting so far stresses drought, reservoir management, and market conditions as the drivers of reduced exports, and experts say there is “nothing political” in Hydro‑Québec’s official policy yet.

Bottom line on “possible”

Economically and geopolitically, using Hydro‑Québec exports as leverage in a serious tariff fight is absolutely possible and rational, and parts of that leverage (reduced exports, tighter conditions) are already visible.

As of now, there is no clear public evidence that Quebec has formally “lifted electricity prices to the U.S.” as an explicit retaliatory move tied to ongoing trade negotiations; it’s more an extrapolated scenario than a documented decision.

If you want, you can paste the key claims or on‑screen text from the video, and I can go line‑by‑line and flag which bits are grounded, exaggerated, or pure fiction.

Please proceed...

Here’s a line‑by‑line style breakdown of the scenario implied by that video conceptually (Trump, CUSMA fight, Hydro‑Québec “price revenge”) and how plausible each element is.

1. “Trump is strong‑arming Canada on trade”

Trump’s team has openly signalled they want to reopen CUSMA/USMCA and are willing to threaten tariffs or separate deals with Canada and Mexico.

Using tariffs and brinkmanship as leverage is entirely consistent with Trump’s past and current trade approach and is already being discussed in policy circles for 2026.

Assessment: Highly plausible, and partly already happening in rhetoric and planning.

2. “Canada/Quebec responds with electricity leverage”

Quebec exports significant hydropower into New England and New York; these flows are large, long‑term, and strategically important for U.S. decarbonization goals.

Because of that dependence, limiting discretionary exports, delaying new capacity, or driving a harder bargain in renewals would absolutely function as economic leverage, even if not branded as “revenge.”

Assessment: Strategically very plausible; hydropower is a real pressure point, especially in a hostile trade climate.

​

3. “Hydro‑Québec suddenly hikes prices to punish the U.S.”

Long‑term power purchase agreements usually specify price formulas tied to inflation, fuel benchmarks, or indexed adjustments; Hydro‑Québec cannot unilaterally spike those contract prices at will.

Where they do have room is in:

Reducing exports when reservoirs are low or domestic demand is high.

Cutting back on spot‑market sales where prices are more flexible.

Being much tougher on the terms of future contracts or expansions.

These moves raise overall costs and reliability risks for U.S. buyers without breaking existing deals.

Assessment: “Revenge” as an instant price shock is overstated; gradual tightening and hardball negotiating are realistic tools and are partly visible already via reduced exports.

4. “New England goes dark / blackout scenario”

New England and parts of New York are increasingly reliant on imports, not just from Quebec but also from other states and Canadian provinces; their grid operators plan for contingencies like reduced imports.

A sudden total cutoff of Quebec power would be serious and could force peak‑time emergency measures, but a full regional blackout purely from Quebec’s pricing decisions is unlikely; grid planning and redundancy exist specifically to avoid that.

Assessment: Local price spikes and reliability stress are plausible; a Hollywood‑style blackout purely from Quebec “revenge” is exaggerated.

5. “Is this already happening right now?”

Recent reporting links Hydro‑Québec’s lower net exports mainly to low water levels, reservoir management, and higher domestic demand, not a declared political retaliation against the U.S.

Analysts and utilities have not confirmed any official policy that ties export pricing or flows explicitly to Trump‑era tariff threats; most of the dramatic “revenge” framing comes from commentators and YouTube‑style geopolitics channels.

Assessment: The structure of the scenario is realistic, but at present it is more speculation plus normal market/water constraints than an announced, weaponized policy shift.

6. What the most realistic version looks like

If things escalate, the believable path is:

Trump team pushes tariffs/quotas or uses CUSMA threats against Canada.

Ottawa and Quebec quietly prioritize domestic supply and climate goals, slow‑roll new export projects, reduce spot‑market sales, and negotiate harder terms for future contracts to the U.S.

U.S. Northeast sees higher prices, more vulnerability at peak, and political backlash about over‑reliance on foreign power, but not an overnight collapse of the grid.

If you want to, you can transcribe any specific lines or claims from the video (numbers, dates, “secret deal” allegations, etc.), and I’ll tag each as “known fact,” “reasonable extrapolation,” or “unlikely/unsupported.”

️️

Valentine's_26

                                                                                             

The Egyptian deity Bastet, goddess of love.

Bronze statue, from Le musée du Louvre.

                                                               *     *     *