I think Krugman has generally focused on labor productivity when talking about technology and the economy. He made that prediction in the 90s, when the productivity paradox was a topic.

Obviously I was wrong about the internet petering out, and have admitted that. So it goes. Show me an economist who claims never to have made a bad prediction, and I’ll show you someone who’s either dishonest or unwilling to take intellectual risks.

He has a recent-ish oped (direct nyt link) where he admits he was wrong but then brings up labor productivity again, waggles his eyebrows, and gives you a smouldering look. He sounded convincing to me, but I don’t have the background knowledge to know if he’s cherry picking his numbers.

I can’t imagine even the skinniest fit and thinnest 100% cotton denim fabric to mold to the legs enough to differentiate between toned and untoned calf muscles. I can’t even imagine the new 98% cotton, 2% elastane jeans to be that tight.

I can only conclude OOP’s definition of toned leg ∨ definition of jeans differ significantly from mine.

Counterpoint: can’t be horny on main if there’s no main

I’m much more familiar with those terms being used in the active present tense sense than in a past tense sense. The elastic interval on the strain axis tends to be surprisingly short and plastic deformation can be difficult to detect with the naked eye.

Holding that rubber band and having it stretch due to gravity is almost certainly an elastic deformation. I would be very surprised if there was no plastic deformation from that disposable spoon bending.

A good rule of thumb is: if I cycled this change a bajillion times, would I eventually detect a difference? If you answer yes, then plastic deformation is occurring.

I found it super helpful to have the Sun’s center of mass labeled!

I only wish Jupiter’s center of mass was also labeled in this graphic. I’ve been trying to puzzle it out myself, but I’m stumped!