Not sure how this approach to waste management might accomodate the Fast Fashion waste
India is currently complaining about, but it is interesting...
Lyse added me to her Disney+ 'family', and it's great fun. Watched a
sadistically violent (aka 'action') movie with charming dialogue - Stuber -
and I now know where Disney has gone with adult entertainment: fine tuning
relationships.
The movie was released in 2019 but it does capture the whole Uber movement:
foreign driver, Canadian candy (my much appreciated Coffee Crisp), chitter chatter.
The car is electric, and is running out of juice as the action part of the plot gets serious.
It's a stoner movie without the drugs!
The critics were lukewarm on this movie, but they can just go... well, you know.
God knows what they are watching they would consider better than this. Nothing I can
afford, for sure.
Recommend:
From le Monde:
So we do seem to have entered Phase 3 of Nuclear Deterrence... where 'deterrence' comes
down to building more powerful nuclear weapons, without countries explicitly citing numbers.
That and Middle powers such as India, fighting limited wars with neighbours with conventional
weapons, even in situations where both sides possess nuclear ones. An expensive phase...
* * *
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-24-sussex-drive-carney-prime-minister-residence/
My view on it all: the site is superb, but it is near a river and will always be attractive
to rodents. Tear it all down, build something entirely new less susceptibe to invasion,
and move on with our national life. The Prime Minister needs a place to live!!
* * *
I was asked about. this follow-up question from yesterday. Here is the info!
Gemini:
Is eye 'color' the only truly Mendelian broken genetic particuliarity, or are there others?
It’s a common misconception that eye color is the only trait that works this way, but it is actually part of a small group of "discrete" traits. However, even eye color isn't "truly" Mendelian in the strictest sense because of that polygenic "blending" we discussed.
A "true" Mendelian trait is one controlled by a single gene with very little outside influence. In humans, these are often referred to as monogenic traits. While most of our obvious features (height, skin, intelligence) are a messy mix of hundreds of genes, there are several "broken" or "switched" genetic peculiarities that follow the Mendelian rules much more strictly.
1. Tasting Bitterness (PTC Tasting)
One of the most famous Mendelian traits in humans is the ability to taste phenylthiocarbamide (PTC).
The Switch: A single gene (TAS2R38) determines if you can taste this specific bitter chemical.
The "Peculiarity": To some, it tastes incredibly bitter (Dominant); to others, it is completely tasteless (Recessive). It is a binary "on/off" switch for a sensory experience.
2. Earwax Type (Wet vs. Dry)
This is one of the "cleanest" examples of Mendelian inheritance in humans.
The Switch: A single mutation in the ABCC11 gene.
The "Peculiarity":
Wet earwax (golden-brown and sticky) is dominant.
Dry earwax (grey, flaky, and odorless) is recessive.
This trait is highly regional; dry earwax is extremely common in East Asian populations but rare in European and African populations.
3. Sickle Cell Trait
While many think of this only as a disease, it is a classic Mendelian "broken" protein.
The Switch: A single point mutation in the HBB gene.
The "Peculiarity": It changes the shape of the hemoglobin molecule. If you inherit one "broken" copy, you have the sickle cell trait (which provides some protection against malaria). If you inherit two, you have the full anemia. It is a "digital" error in the code that results in a physical change in cell structure.
4. Albinism (Oculocutaneous Albinism)
This is perhaps the ultimate "broken factory" trait.
The Switch: Mutations in genes like TYR or OCA2.
The "Peculiarity": Unlike skin "tanning" or "shades," albinism is a total shutdown of melanin production. If you inherit two non-functional copies of the gene, the "pigment factory" simply never opens, regardless of what your ancestry's "target" skin tone was supposed to be.
The "Mendelian Myths"
It's worth noting that many things we were taught were Mendelian in school are actually not. Science has updated since the 1990s:
Tongue Rolling: Long thought to be a single gene, it’s now known to be influenced by multiple genes and even environmental factors (you can practice and learn it).
Attached Earlobes: This is actually polygenic. There is no single "earlobe switch."
Widow’s Peak: Again, this is a "blended" trait with multiple genetic influences, not a simple dominant/recessive flip.
Why do we call them "Broken"?
In genetics, we often use the term "loss-of-function mutation." Blue eyes are a "loss-of-function" of melanin in the iris. Dry earwax is a "loss-of-function" of a specific transport protein. We call them "peculiarities" because they represent a clean break in the biological machinery rather than a subtle adjustment of the "volume."
Since you mentioned your eyes are amber (a rare variation of the "melanin switch"), do you find that other members of your family have these "on/off" traits, like being unable to taste bitterness or having dry earwax?
* * *
Gemini:
This has long been a mystery to me: one does not necessarily pass on to one's child the genes that one is oneself exhibiting. Only this does not appear to be the case for eye colour. Why is that??
It is a common observation that eye color seems to follow "stricter" rules than other traits, often appearing to skip generations or "breed true" in a way that skin or hair color doesn't.
The reason for this lies in the difference between Mendelian (Discrete) Genetics and Polygenic (Continuous) Genetics.
1. The "Mixing" vs. "Switching" Effect
Most human traits, like height or skin tone, are polygenic. They are controlled by dozens or even hundreds of different genes that act like "volume sliders." When two people of different heights or skin tones have a child, the result is often a "blend" because the child inherits a random mix of those sliders.
Eye color, however, is dominated by a few specific "switches." While there are about 16 genes involved in eye color, two genes located right next to each other on chromosome 15 (OCA2 and HERC2) do about 90% of the work.
HERC2 acts as the master switch.
OCA2 is the pigment factory.
Because just a couple of genes have such a high "weighted vote," eye color behaves more like a digital signal (On/Off) rather than an analog signal (Blending).
2. Recessive Genes: The Hidden Blueprint
The mystery of why we don't always pass on the genes we exhibit is solved by understanding that every person carries two versions (alleles) of every gene—one from each parent—but only the "dominant" one is visible.
Brown eyes are generally dominant. You only need one "Brown" allele to have brown eyes.
Blue eyes are recessive. You need two "Blue" alleles for them to show up.
If you have brown eyes but carry a "hidden" blue allele (inherited from a grandparent), you are a carrier. You don't "exhibit" the blue gene, but you have a 50% chance of passing that blue blueprint to your child. If your partner is also a carrier, your child can inherit a "Blue" allele from both of you, resulting in a blue-eyed child from two brown-eyed parents.
3. Why Skin and Hair are Different
Skin and hair are far more "blendy" because they lack a single master switch.
Skin Color: There isn't one "dark" or "light" gene that can stay hidden for generations in the same way. Since so many genes contribute small amounts of pigment, the child's tone usually falls somewhere on a spectrum between the parents.
Eye Color: Because the HERC2 mutation is a "broken" switch (it literally breaks the ability to put pigment in the iris), it stays "broken" as it moves through generations. It doesn't dilute; it’s either there or it isn't.
4. The "Mystery" of Green and Hazel
You might wonder why, if it's just a switch, we have green or hazel eyes. This is where the other 10% of the genes come in.
Green eyes happen when the "Brown" switch is off (blue base), but a separate gene for a yellow-toned pigment called lipochrome is turned on. Blue + Yellow = Green.
Hazel eyes occur when the "Brown" switch is only partially turned on, leading to a mix of brown and green.
Because eye color relies on these specific genetic "breaks" and "switches," it feels much more like a predictable lottery than the gradual blending we see in other human features.
Are you looking at this from a family history perspective, or are you more interested in the specific molecular biology of how the HERC2 switch works?
Can two blue-eyed parents have a brown-eyed child?
The short answer is yes, although for a long time, high school biology textbooks taught that it was impossible.
Under the old "Mendelian" model, it was assumed that blue was a pure recessive trait (bb) and brown was dominant (B). Since two blue-eyed parents would only have "b" genes to give, it was thought they could only produce "bb" (blue-eyed) children. We now know that eye color is much more complex.
1. The "Broken Switch" vs. The "Empty Factory"
As we discussed, eye color is controlled by multiple genes. The two most important are HERC2 and OCA2.
HERC2 is the "master switch" that tells the body to turn on the pigment factory.
OCA2 is the "factory" that actually produces the brown pigment (melanin).
For a child to have brown eyes, they need both a working switch and a working factory. If a parent has blue eyes, it could be because their "switch" is broken, even if their "factory" is perfectly functional.
2. How the "Impossible" Happens
Imagine two blue-eyed parents:
Parent A has a broken switch but a working factory. Their eyes are blue because the factory never got the signal to start.
Parent B has a working switch but a broken factory. Their eyes are blue because there is no machinery to make the pigment.
If their child inherits the working switch from Parent B and the working factory from Parent A, the child will have both components necessary to produce melanin. The result? A brown-eyed child from two blue-eyed parents.
3. Oculocutaneous Albinism and Eye Color
In some cases, a parent might carry genes for a very mild form of albinism or other genetic variations that suppress pigment in the eye so completely that they appear blue-eyed, even if they technically carry "brown" genetic information. When combined with the DNA of a partner, those suppressed "brown" traits can be "unlocked" in the next generation.
4. Variations in "Blue"
It is also important to note that many eyes labeled "blue" actually contain small amounts of brown or yellow pigment (seen as green or hazel flecks).
If both parents have "blue" eyes that are actually a very light hazel, they are already carrying the instructions for brown pigment.
The concentration of that pigment can increase in the child, leading to a clearly brown-eyed result.
Summary
While it is statistically rare, it is genetically possible because eye color is polygenic (involving many genes) rather than a simple "either/or" trait. The "switch" and the "factory" can be inherited separately, allowing a child to "reassemble" the tools for brown eyes that were non-functional in their parents.
Does this clear up the "logic" of the inheritance for you, or were you thinking of a specific case where this happened?
I have a grey-eyed mother, and a hazel-eyed father. My eyes are yellow-brown(a bit like a cat's). Am I possible?
You are absolutely possible! In fact, your specific combination—often described as amber eyes—is a perfect example of how eye color is a spectrum rather than just a few distinct categories.
To understand how you ended up with "cat-like" yellow-brown eyes from a grey-eyed mother and a hazel-eyed father, we can look at the specific types of pigment involved.
1. The "Amber" Secret: Lipochrome
While most discussions about eye color focus on melanin (the brown pigment), there is a second pigment called lipochrome (also known as pheomelanin).
Amber/Yellow eyes contain very little melanin but a high concentration of this yellowish, golden pigment.
This pigment is also present in many hazel and green eyes, but in your case, it is the dominant feature.
2. How the Genetics Line Up
Your parents' eyes already carry the "ingredients" for your color:
Your Father (Hazel): Hazel eyes are essentially a mixture of brown melanin and green/yellow tones. This means your father carries the genetic instructions for producing that yellowish pigment and at least a moderate amount of melanin.
Your Mother (Grey): Grey eyes are a variation of blue. They have very little melanin in the front of the iris, but the structure of the iris scatters light differently (similar to why the sky looks grey on a cloudy day instead of blue).
The Result: You likely inherited the "low melanin" genes from your mother (which prevented your eyes from becoming dark brown) and the "yellow/golden pigment" genes from your father. Without enough dark melanin to mask it, the yellow lipochrome stands out, giving you that striking amber appearance.
3. The "Spectrum" Effect
Think of your family's genetics like a paint palette:
Grey is a very diluted, scattered blue.
Hazel is a muddy mix of green, gold, and brown.
Amber (You) is what happens when you take the gold from the hazel and place it on a clearer, lighter base inherited from the grey side.
Is it Rare?
Yes! Amber eyes are considered one of the rarest eye colors in humans, occurring in roughly 5% or less of the global population. They are much more common in the animal kingdom (like cats, owls, and wolves), which is why people often make that feline comparison.
It’s a beautiful genetic "shuffling of the deck" that demonstrates exactly why eye color doesn't always result in a direct copy of the parents.
Copilot:
Is it the case that blue-eyed people often have lesser vision acuity, or is it just prejudice on my part?
Short answer: No — blue eyes do not have worse visual acuity. What they do have is less melanin, which makes them more sensitive to bright light and glare, but not less sharp in terms of detail resolution.
🌟 What the science actually shows
Across multiple sources, the evidence is consistent:
Visual acuity (sharpness of detail) is determined by the retina, optic nerve, and eye shape, not iris color.
Sources confirm no difference in best‑corrected acuity between eye colors.
Blue eyes contain less melanin, which means:
More light enters the eye
More internal light scatter occurs
This leads to greater sensitivity to bright light (photophobia) and more glare discomfort
This is the main functional difference.
Light sensitivity ≠ worse vision.
It just means blue‑eyed people may squint more in bright sun or find headlights harsher at night.
Night vision is not better or worse in blue eyes.
Night vision depends on rod cells, vitamin A, age, and retinal health — not iris color.
🧠 Why the myth exists
Your intuition isn’t prejudice — it’s a misinterpretation of a real effect.
Because blue‑eyed people are more sensitive to glare, they may appear to struggle more in bright conditions, which can be mistaken for “worse vision.”
But their acuity — the ability to resolve fine detail — is just as good as anyone else’s.
🔬 What blue eyes are at higher risk for
Because melanin protects against UV and oxidative stress, lighter eyes have slightly higher susceptibility to:
Age‑related macular degeneration (AMD)
Uveal melanoma (rare)
This is due to reduced pigment protection, not reduced acuity.
This is why sunglasses are especially important for light‑eyed people.
🧩 Summary table
If you want to go deeper
I can also explain:
Why melanin acts like “built‑in sunglasses”
How structural color makes eyes look blue
Whether eye color affects contrast sensitivity
Evolutionary reasons for light vs. dark eyes
Would you like a deeper dive into any of these?
How does structural color make eyes look blue?
Blue eyes look blue because of structural color: tiny particles in the iris scatter short‑wavelength (blue) light back toward the observer, even though there is no blue pigment in the eye.
🌌 The core mechanism: structural color
Human irises contain only one pigment: melanin, which is brown. Blue eyes appear blue because of Tyndall scattering, a form of light scattering in the iris stroma — the same physics that makes the sky look blue.
Key points supported by sources:
The iris has two layers:
Posterior epithelium — always dark with dense melanin.
Stroma — a front layer that may contain very little or no melanin in blue eyes.
In blue eyes, the stroma is nearly pigment‑free, so incoming white light interacts with microscopic collagen fibers.
These fibers scatter shorter wavelengths (blue) more efficiently than longer ones.
The longer wavelengths (reds, yellows) pass through the stroma and are absorbed by the dark posterior layer, while the scattered blue light is reflected back to the viewer.
This is why blue eyes change appearance with lighting — structural color depends on illumination, not pigment.
🧬 How this differs from pigment-based color
No blue pigment exists in the human iris.
Blue, green, and hazel eyes all arise from light scattering, not dye.
Brown eyes contain enough melanin in the stroma to absorb most light, so scattering doesn’t dominate.
Blue eyes have no melanin in the stroma and no excess collagen deposits, making the scattering effect pure and strong.
🔬 Why the effect is so striking
Structural color is a physical phenomenon also seen in:
The blue sky (Rayleigh scattering)
Blue morpho butterflies
Some bird feathers
Certain berries
In all these cases, microstructure, not pigment, creates the color.
🧩 Summary table
If you want, I can also explain
Why green and hazel eyes are mixed structural + pigment effects
How genetics (OCA2, HERC2) control melanin distribution
Why blue eyes are more light‑sensitive
Would you like to explore one of these next?
Ah, finally an explanation of why blue-eyed celebrities sometimes appear to have brownish eyes...
Exactly — and now you can see why it happens. What you’ve noticed in celebrity photos isn’t your imagination at all; it’s a perfect real‑world demonstration of structural color.
Here’s the intuitive version, grounded in the physics:
🌈 Why blue eyes sometimes look brownish, grey, or even green
Because blue eyes have no blue pigment, their apparent color depends entirely on:
Lighting direction
Front lighting = more blue scattered back → eyes look bright blue
Backlighting or dim light = less scattering → the dark brown layer underneath shows through
Pupil dilation
In low light, the pupil expands
The iris becomes narrower
More of the dark posterior layer is visible → eyes look darker
Camera settings
White balance, exposure, and contrast can mute the scattered blue light
High ISO or low contrast makes the iris look “muddy” or brownish
Makeup and clothing color
Surrounding colors influence perceived eye color through contrast effects
Warm tones (gold, brown, copper) make blue eyes appear darker or greener
Moisture and tear film
A glossy surface reduces scattering and increases light absorption
Eyes can look darker when watery or under studio lights
🔬 The physics behind the shift
Blue eyes rely on Tyndall scattering in the iris stroma. This effect is:
Strongest when bright, diffuse light hits the eye from the front
Weakest when light is dim, directional, or coming from behind
When scattering weakens, the brown melanin layer at the back of the iris becomes more visible. That’s why the same person can look:
Ice‑blue in daylight
Grey indoors
Greenish under warm lights
Brownish in shadow or low light
It’s the same principle that makes the sky turn from bright blue to grey to deep navy depending on lighting.
🎥 Why celebrities show this effect so dramatically
Studio environments exaggerate every variable:
Harsh spotlights
Backlighting
Heavy makeup
Color grading
High‑contrast lenses
Post‑production filters
All of these can suppress the blue scattering and reveal the underlying brown tones.
That’s why someone like Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Craig, or Cate Blanchett can look like they have:
Pale blue eyes in one photo
Grey eyes in another
Almost hazel eyes in a dimly lit film scene
It’s not inconsistency — it’s physics.
🧩 The elegant takeaway
Blue eyes are structural, not pigmented.
So they behave like optical illusions shaped by light, not like painted surfaces.
That’s why they’re so changeable — and why your observation about celebrities is spot‑on.
If you want, I can also explain:
Why green eyes are even more variable
Why babies’ eyes often start blue and then darken
How genetics (OCA2, HERC2) control melanin in the iris
Just tell me which direction you want to explore.
My late mother basically had grey or very pale blue eyes. Explain to me about that!
Your mother’s very pale blue or grey eyes fit beautifully into the physics of structural color, but with a twist: grey eyes are not simply “light blue.” They’re a distinct optical outcome created by a different balance of scattering, pigment, and microstructure.
Let me give you the clear, intuitive model — the one that makes you say “Ah, that explains exactly what I saw.”
🌫️ Why some eyes look grey instead of blue
Grey eyes happen when the iris has:
Very little melanin in the stroma (like blue eyes)
Larger or denser collagen fibers in the stroma
More uniform scattering across wavelengths
This combination weakens the pure blue scattering effect. Instead of strongly favoring short wavelengths (blue), the iris scatters light more evenly. The result is a soft, desaturated, smoky color — what we perceive as grey.
Think of it like this:
Blue eyes = strong selective scattering → vivid blue
Grey eyes = weak selective scattering + more broadband scatter → silvery, misty, steel‑blue tones
Grey eyes are essentially blue eyes with the “saturation dial” turned down by the microstructure.
🌟 Why her eyes looked very pale
Extremely pale blue or grey eyes usually mean:
Almost no melanin in the stroma
A very light, translucent iris
High reflectivity of the underlying layers
Strong sensitivity to lighting
These eyes behave like a thin veil over a dark background. Depending on the light, they can look:
Icy blue
Silver
Grey
Slightly greenish
Even faintly brownish in dim light
This variability is a hallmark of structural color.
🔦 Why they changed with lighting
Because the color wasn’t pigment‑based, her eyes would have shifted dramatically depending on:
Cloudy vs. sunny days
Indoor vs. outdoor light
Warm vs. cool bulbs
Whether her pupils were dilated
The colors she wore
Grey eyes are the most chameleon‑like of all eye colors.
🧬 The genetic side (in simple terms)
Grey eyes arise from the same genetic pathways as blue eyes — mainly OCA2 and HERC2, which regulate melanin production in the iris. But grey eyes add an extra layer:
Genes affecting collagen structure in the stroma
Genes influencing light scattering properties
So your mother likely had the “blue‑eye melanin profile” plus a stroma that scattered light in a more diffuse, broadband way.
🧩 Why this matters for your own intuition
You’ve been noticing subtle optical effects your whole life — the way blue eyes shift, the way grey eyes seem to glow or fade depending on the environment. What you saw in your mother’s eyes was a perfect example of structural color at its most delicate.
Her eye color wasn’t just pale — it was optically complex, which is why it stood out.
If you want, I can also explain:
Why grey eyes are more common in certain regions
How grey differs from green at the structural level
Why some people’s eyes look almost silver in childhood and darken later
Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.
Strangely (to me), eye color appears consistent in the Chinese. Why is that?
The consistency you’re noticing in Chinese (and more broadly East Asian) eye color is absolutely real — and it has a clean, elegant genetic explanation. It’s not that “everyone has the same eyes,” but rather that the genetic variation that produces blue/grey/green eyes in Europeans is largely absent in East Asian populations, so the range of possible outcomes is narrower.
Let me break it down in a way that matches the clarity you like.
🌏 Why eye color is so consistent in East Asian populations
1. High melanin in the iris stroma
Most East Asian populations have high melanin levels in both layers of the iris:
The posterior epithelium (always dark in all humans)
The anterior stroma (the variable layer)
When the stroma contains a lot of melanin, it absorbs most incoming light.
That means structural scattering never gets a chance to dominate, so you don’t see blue, grey, or green.
Result: dark brown eyes that look consistent across lighting conditions.
This is the opposite of your mother’s pale blue/grey eyes, where the stroma had almost no melanin.
2. The key European mutation (HERC2–OCA2) is rare in East Asia
Blue eyes in Europeans come from a specific regulatory mutation in the HERC2 gene that reduces melanin production in the iris.
This mutation:
Appeared once, about 6–10 thousand years ago
Spread through Europe
Remains extremely rare in East Asian populations
Without this mutation, the iris simply doesn’t lighten enough for structural color to dominate.
So the “palette” is different:
Europe: high variation in melanin → blue, grey, green, hazel, brown
East Asia: consistently high melanin → shades of brown
3. Variation does exist — but it’s subtle
East Asian eyes are not all identical. The variation tends to be:
Dark brown
Medium brown
Amber
Very dark brown (almost black‑looking)
But because melanin levels stay above the threshold where scattering becomes visible, the differences are shades, not different types of color.
This is why you don’t see the dramatic shifts you saw in your mother’s eyes.
4. Structural color is “hidden” by pigment
In blue or grey eyes, the stroma is translucent enough that light scattering determines the color.
In dark brown eyes:
The stroma is full of melanin
Light is absorbed before it can scatter
The underlying structural effects are masked
So even though the same physics is present, it’s overwhelmed by pigment.
5. Evolutionary pressures shaped this pattern
In northern Europe:
Low UV exposure
Less need for melanin protection
Genetic drift + sexual selection allowed lighter eyes to spread
In East Asia:
Higher UV exposure historically
Stronger selection for melanin protection
Less drift toward depigmentation
So the population-level pattern is stable.
🧩 The intuitive takeaway
Your mother’s pale blue/grey eyes were the result of extremely low melanin + structural scattering, which makes color highly variable and light‑dependent.
In contrast, most Chinese eyes have high melanin, which:
Absorbs light
Masks scattering
Produces stable, consistent brown tones
It’s not that East Asian eyes lack complexity — it’s that the physics of structural color is “buried” under pigment.
If you want, I can also explain:
Why some East Asians have amber or golden eyes
Why babies in East Asia rarely have the “blue newborn eyes” common in Europe
How eye color interacts with eyelid anatomy and perceived darkness
Just tell me which direction you want to explore.
Got interested in the evolution skin-tone from the following.
Ancient DNA Reveals Most Europeans Had Dark Skin Until Just 3,000 Years Ago
Eventually needed help from Gemini Ai to see what was going on.
https://gemini.google.com/share/e950c9ba3e26We will no doubt be hearing more about this a time wears on...
Is The Met on the Upper East Side of New York?
Yes — the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the “Met”) is located on the Upper East Side of New York City.
The main building sits at 1000 Fifth Avenue, directly along Central Park, which is firmly within the Upper East Side.
🗺️ Where exactly on the Upper East Side?
Neighborhood: Upper East Side, Manhattan
Border: Along Fifth Avenue between East 80th and East 84th Streets
Setting: Faces Central Park (the “Museum Mile” stretch)
This is the iconic building where the Met Gala is held each year — the red carpet you see in photos is on the museum’s grand staircase on Fifth Avenue.
🧭 Why the location matters
The Upper East Side is known for:
historic mansions and prewar apartment buildings
cultural institutions (the Guggenheim, Neue Galerie, Frick Collection)
proximity to Central Park
the “Museum Mile,” a dense cluster of major museums
The Met is the anchor of that cultural corridor.
🏛️ Are there other Met locations?
Yes — the Met has three sites, but only one is on the Upper East Side:
Only the Fifth Avenue building is the famous one associated with the Gala.
If you want, I can also map out:
how far it is from major NYC landmarks
the easiest subway routes
or how the Met Gala uses the museum’s interior spaces each year.
The UES has long been seen as where wealthy New Yorker live; is that still true today?
Yes — the Upper East Side (UES) is still considered one of New York City’s wealthiest neighborhoods today, though the city’s overall “wealth map” has become more complex in recent years.
🧵 What the data shows
Several recent real‑estate analyses confirm that the UES remains a prestigious, high‑cost enclave:
The UES is identified as one of the top-performing luxury housing markets globally, with new condos and pre‑war residences reaching upwards of $7,000 per square foot.
Brokers reported their busiest months on record in early 2026, indicating strong demand from affluent buyers.
Median sale prices remain extremely high: around $1.8 million overall, with condos averaging $2.1 million.
The neighborhood continues to attract buyers seeking prestige, stability, and cultural proximity (Central Park, the Met, top schools).
These numbers place the UES firmly in the “wealthy” category by any metric.
🧵 But the landscape has shifted
While the UES remains wealthy, it is no longer the only or even the automatic center of elite New York life. Recent analyses show:
Tribeca is now a major heavyweight, with median prices around $3.8 million and a reputation for “quiet luxury.”
Billionaires’ Row (57th Street) has become a vertical enclave of extreme wealth, with penthouses selling for $50+ million.
The Financial District has seen a surprising surge in interest (up 47% in early 2026), driven by lifestyle changes and proximity to work.
So while the UES remains wealthy, it now shares the stage with several other ultra‑affluent zones.
🧵 What makes the UES still “old money” territory
Despite competition from newer luxury districts, the UES retains a unique profile:
Generational wealth and long‑held family properties are common — even court‑ordered sales involve homes valued at $10–34 million.
The area’s pre‑war co‑ops, cultural institutions, and quiet residential character continue to attract affluent families.
The market shows remarkable stability, with steady demand and long‑term value retention.
This is why the UES is still shorthand for “established wealth,” even as new money gravitates to Tribeca or Billionaires’ Row.
🧵 Bottom line
Yes — the Upper East Side is still a wealthy neighborhood today.
But it is now part of a broader constellation of high‑end districts, rather than the single dominant center of New York wealth.
If you want, I can compare the UES to Tribeca or Billionaires’ Row in terms of lifestyle, architecture, or price dynamics — which angle interests you most?
What kind of visitor does The Met attract: New Yorkers, American tourists, foreign tourists?
The Met attracts mostly New Yorkers, followed by American tourists, with foreign tourists making up the smallest share today.
This is based on the museum’s most recent attendance data, which is very clear and consistent across multiple reports.
🧭 Visitor Breakdown (Based on FY2024–FY2025 data)
1. Local visitors (New York + tri‑state area): ~60–62% of all visitors
Local attendance has fully rebounded and even surpassed pre‑pandemic levels.
In FY2025, 62% of all visitors were locals from New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey.
In FY2024, locals made up 60% of all visitors.
This means the majority of people in the museum on any given day are New Yorkers or nearby residents.
2. Domestic U.S. tourists (outside the tri‑state): ~23%
Domestic out‑of‑state visitors are the second‑largest group.
FY2025: 23% of visitors came from elsewhere in the U.S.
FY2024: Domestic visitors reached pre‑pandemic levels at 1.3 million, also about 23%.
So roughly one in four visitors is an American tourist.
3. International tourists: ~15–16%
Foreign tourism has not fully recovered.
FY2025: International visitors were 15% of total attendance.
FY2024: They were 16%, about half of 2019 levels.
This means international tourists are now the smallest segment, even though they used to be a major share before 2020.
🧵 What this means for the Met today
The museum has become more local than ever, with New Yorkers forming the core of its audience.
Domestic tourism is strong, but international tourism remains the slowest to recover.
Exhibitions with strong cultural resonance (e.g., Sargent and Paris, Superfine: Tailoring Black Style) are major drivers of local engagement.
If you’d like, I can also break down:
how this compares to MoMA or the Guggenheim,
how visitor patterns affect the Met Gala’s cultural role,
or why New Yorkers have become such a dominant share of the museum’s audience.
And the met goe back to the same sources of financing - for the Costume Institute - year after year: the Fashion Houses. Doe anyone ever dare complain??
Short answer: yes — the Costume Institute depends on the same small circle of fashion‑industry funders every single year, and yes, people do complain, but very quietly and usually in industry‑insider spaces rather than in public.
Let me unpack this clearly, because it’s one of the most fascinating (and least talked‑about) parts of the Met Gala.
🎭 1. The Costume Institute is the only Met department that must fund itself
Unlike the rest of the museum, the Costume Institute receives no annual budget from the Met.
It must raise 100% of its operating costs every year.
That means:
exhibitions
conservation
storage
staff
acquisitions
are all paid for by donors, fashion houses, and the Met Gala.
This creates a structural dependency.
👜 2. The same fashion houses pay the bills every year
The “big five” that appear again and again:
Chanel
Louis Vuitton / LVMH
Gucci / Kering
Versace
Prada
Plus a rotating set of:
beauty sponsors (Estée Lauder, L’Oréal)
tech sponsors (Instagram, TikTok)
luxury jewelry houses (Cartier, Tiffany)
These brands sponsor:
the Gala tables
the exhibition
the catalogue
the red carpet build
the after‑party
It’s the same ecosystem, year after year.
🤐 3. Does anyone complain?
Yes — but not loudly.
Here’s why.
Who complains?
Independent designers
Fashion critics
Some museum scholars
Cultural commentators who dislike the “fashion‑industry takeover” of a public museum
What they complain about?
Commercial influence
The Costume Institute’s exhibitions often align with the interests of the sponsoring houses.
Example: A major sponsor’s designer is suddenly the subject of a retrospective.
Lack of diversity in who gets visibility
Smaller designers rarely get the spotlight because they can’t afford a table.
The Gala’s dominance over the museum’s identity
Some critics argue the Met has become “a backdrop for a fashion industry marketing event.”
The same donors controlling the narrative
The repetition of the same luxury conglomerates creates a sense of “closed circle patronage.”
Why the complaints stay quiet
The fashion industry is small and reputation‑driven.
Designers depend on these houses for jobs, collaborations, and visibility.
The Met depends on them financially.
Journalists depend on them for access.
So criticism tends to be:
indirect
coded
academic
or whispered in industry circles
Rarely does anyone publicly attack the system.
🧵 4. Why the system persists
Because it works.
The Met Gala raises $15–20 million in a single night.
The Costume Institute gets guaranteed funding.
Fashion houses get global visibility.
Celebrities get prestige.
The museum gets blockbuster attendance.
Everyone benefits — except the people who feel excluded.
🧩 Bottom line
Yes, the Costume Institute relies on the same fashion houses every year.
Yes, people complain — but quietly, because the entire system depends on those donors.
If you want, I can also break down:
how Anna Wintour built this funding model
how much a table costs and who actually pays
why the Met allows this level of corporate influence
or how this compares to European museum funding models
Which angle interests you most, Louise?
So the Devil does wear Prada, after all!!
It does feel like that sometimes, doesn’t it, Louise — the same luxury houses underwriting the same cultural machinery, year after year, until the whole thing starts to look like a very elegant ouroboros.
But here’s the deeper truth behind your quip:
👜 “The Devil Wears Prada” isn’t just a joke — it’s a structural reality
The Costume Institute’s funding model forces it into the arms of the fashion conglomerates.
Not because anyone is wicked, but because:
It is the only Met department that must raise 100% of its own budget
The Met Gala is its primary revenue engine
And the Gala is powered by Prada, Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Versace, Gucci, Dior, Valentino…
These houses buy the tables, dress the celebrities, sponsor the exhibitions, and shape the narrative
So yes — the same houses appear again and again, and the system is designed so that they must.
Your line — “the Devil does wear Prada” — captures the irony perfectly:
the Costume Institute survives because the fashion industry bankrolls it, and the fashion industry bankrolls it because the Met Gala is the most powerful branding event on earth.
No one complains loudly because:
the museum needs the money
the designers need the visibility
the celebrities need the platform
the journalists need the access
and the public loves the spectacle
It’s a closed ecosystem where everyone benefits, so criticism tends to be whispered, coded, or academic — never shouted.
🎭 Is it corrupt? No. Is it cozy? Extremely.
It’s not “devilish” in the moral sense — it’s just the inevitable outcome of a funding model that ties art, celebrity, and luxury commerce together in a single glittering knot.
And honestly, the Met Gala leans into that tension.
It’s part of the mythology now.
If you want, we can go deeper into:
how Anna Wintour engineered this system
why the Met allows such corporate influence
or how European museums avoid this dynamic entirely
Which thread would you like to pull next, Louise?
