"It tasted like food tasted when I had COVID." -- Ryan's not impressed by dragon fruit's "flavor" (January 2026). "Seating is for the weak." -- At a games night, El doesn't need no stinking chair (January 2026). "I consider my knees bad...[though] on the scale of people in this room..." -- El (Claudia) realized, given everyone in the room played ultimate, including one who had knee surgery 3 days earlier and the host had ACL surgery 3.5 months ago, that she needed to qualify her assessment (January 2026). "There're two pieces of Popeye's Chicken, if anyone wants Popeye's Chicken." "Where's it from?" "Popeye's." -- Alan wasn't being sarcastic, and Ray just answered the question, unintentially channeling Abbot and Costello (January 2026). "Don't worry, I'm not trying to steal your blood." -- Questionable reassurance from a phlebotomist. She pocketed the vial to protect it from the light (March 2026). "It was hailed as a final solution. But now police are healing AI as the final soution. So we always have a final solution." -- Phrasing! I glanced over at someone else whose eyebrows were equally raised. The keynote was talking about how the latest technology is always pitched as something that will fix everything for police, whether it was computers in the 1970s or AI in the 2020s. And while fluent in English, she might not have been aware of the historical baggage associated with that two-word phrase (March 2026). "You can pay the tab with SEKs." -- Only Mark pronounces the Swedish currency acronym (March 2026). "I left the bar, and was in bed by 3am, with Jessica." -- This came out differently than Mark intended (March 2026). "Is there any big, ugly stuff still around?" "I'm right here!" -- Aaron had the perfect response, though I was asking if any big furniture still needed to go into the moving van (April 2026). "Why did you put googly eyes on [your dessert]?" "Why DON'T you?!?" -- Katie gives the logical answer to Jenny's question (April 2026). > It found two correlations, one of them helped get the predictions > from 45 minutes to 1 hour with < 1 false alaram per day, very good. > The other one got 100% accuracy with 0 failures. The AI said > something like, the best correlation occured when the prediction > was done at time delta 0, the prediction of the event equaled the > actual event with 100% accuracy. Would I like to change the > prediction code to wait until the event occured? > > we're doomed. That is a great summary of AI. It can build all this cool, complex stuff (based on existing cool, complex stuff), but it'll still recommend the 100% accurate "prediction" of what your blood sugar is right now. "Oh, you needed to take that exit." -- Moof tells Frank about using AI to build a program to provide early warning on low blood sugar but early warning is "now"; Frank summarizes (May 2026). I think that we can do better than this peacock splashed over a car window. -- A criticism of a potential graphic for an add (May 2026).