What bakes my noodle is the thought that "true location" is a bit of a Newtonian concept. When you factor in the warping of spacetime, the whole universe is a little wibbly wobbly.

It's easy to think of stars and galaxies like they're all in a fishbowl and you're watching them from the outside, but that's not how we experience the universe.

In other words, the 'where' of where something is all depends on how you plan to get there.

From the point of view of the light beam hitting your eye, the star is exactly where it appears to be. From the point of view of traveling there slower than light, your path and the star's position would only converge sometime in the future.

The mental model you present in your question is absolute, that salt hydrates or dehydrates. The truth is somewhere in between those extremes.

In this case, your body has a certain salt concentration it likes to maintain, so when you hydrate, it will try and maintain that concentration. If it can't it will either reject some of that water (if there's not enough salt) or require more water (if there's too much salt). A fluid that hydrates optimally contains the exact salt concentration your body prefers.

I've been saying this in other ways for a long time, but this is the most concise I've got it.

The ego is an effective substitute for talent in the minds of the deluded.

It's interesting because when dealing with inanimate objects, the term manipulation is pretty neutral. It's only when we refer to people that the term manipulation takes on a negative implication.

I think it's the lack of reciprocity that's the difference. If someone manipulates me to be more productive at work, but I don't see any benefit in return, it's different than if I get a raise or a bonus as a result.

Even if I do get a raise or bonus, the manipulation can violate a personal boundary, and as a result, have mixed positive and negative consequences.

Art needs some kind of meaning for us to like it. Sometimes it's not about knowing the technique and the meaning emerges from elsewhere. For example:

• It's an image of a character, location, or story you already know about.
• It matches an aesthetic you're familiar with.
• It's a collector's item and will grow in value.
• It's a souvenir of a place you've been.

The deeper that art penetrates our personal web of experience, the deeper the meaning we feel. 'Good' art often serves as conceptual glue, holding a number of ideas in a single expression of an image. But humans and art are both open containers and anything can go inside, which is why the term 'art' can be hard to define and highly personal.

I have seen many definitions of narcissism, but I rarely see its opposite defined in those places. This leaves me with questions about where we should be drawing the line between normal human imperfections and narcissistic behavior. In other words, what is forgivable as normal, and what counts as manipulation?

We all have to get what we need from others. And we have to be persuasive in those requests. What's the tipping point from healthy persuasion to unhealthy, according to these studies?

In addition, the covert presentation, with fears, hypersensitivity, and dependence, also happens to healthy people. We aren't all at our best all the time. So where is the line drawn between healthy vulnerability and narcissistic vulnerability?

Is it when it becomes a problem for others? For ourselves? Or are there objective ways to measure narcissism?

The trouble is if you don't have at least one secure relationship, resentment's the only thing left.

I've been there. I didn't have a secure relationship until my late 30s and it is not fun.

DNA is one of two common "coding languages" for life on Earth. The other is RNA.

The mere fact that we know of two functioning "coding languages" increases the odds of one of them being found elsewhere.

There may, however, be other possible languages that use the same or similar building blocks in different ways. Scientists on Earth have done some limited research in this area and it looks plausible. This also increases the odds.

Finally, finding these building blocks on objects outside the Earth's atmosphere increases those odds as well.

I can't cite specific numbers, but the chance of discovering alien life looks more promising the more we discover about the universe.

If one assumes these compounds are common enough to be present in numerous asteroid bombardments, then this may well be a contributor to life on Earth.

The more reassuring assumption for me is that this means these compounds likely arise everywhere in the universe as a result of natural processes, lending credence to the idea that life might be common.