May 27, 2021

Episode 16 - The one where we wonder if Entropy made life inevitable, if Indiana Jones caused World War II and why Hot Chocolate sing that they remove umbilicals


Our Brainy Lecture discusses entropy, and considers the theory that life is just a consequence of entropy. We try and bring some structure and order to the debate.

Our Songs under the Microscope continues with its next top ten misheard lyrics. Listen on if you want to know who removes umbilicals and who pees in the corner.

In A Sauce A Sauce my Kingdom for a Sauce - we go back to the fundamentals of French cuisine with the Sauce Supreme a daughter sauce of the Velouté that we first met way back in Episode 1.

Following on from our pioneering work last week with the first podcast in colour, we are continue our optically stimulating section and in anticipation you are going to divert your browsers to Pantone 2206C, a colour that is so much more than a 2014 Renault 19.

We have our anagram poetry section that goes by many names including Mangy Port Area and Rate my paragon.

In Literally the Last section we consider not only the question of whether Indiana Jones is just the worst archeologist but also whether he was one of the worst human beings.

 

Transcript

Episode 16

Hello, and welcome to Frenzied and Sustained.

In this week’s podcast for a post stupid society our Brainy Lecture discusses entropy, and considers the theory that life is just a consequence of entropy. We try and bring some structure and order to the debate.

Our Songs under the Microscope continues with its next top ten misheard lyrics. Listen on if you want to know who removes umbilicals and who pees in the corner.

In A Sauce A Sauce my Kingdom for a Sauce - we go back to the fundamentals of French cuisine with the Sauce Supreme.

Following on from our pioneering work last week with the first podcast in colour, we are continue our optically stimulating section and in anticipation you are going to divert your browsers to Pantone 2206C, a colour that is so much more than a 2014 Renault 19.

We have time for a quick anagram poem in our section that goes by many names including Mangy Port Area and Rate my paragon.

In Literally the Last section we consider not only the question of whether Indiana Jones is just the worst archeologist but also whether he was one of the worst human beings.

It is currently 4 degrees Celsius and rainy in Hobart  and 21 degrees Celsius and rainy in Waxahachie but thankfully you are listening to frenzied and sustained,  and I  am Ian Spector and this is a 

Brainy lecture - Entropy and its role in the creation of life

Spector’s Second Law of Entropy states that the total amount of confusion in the world on the understanding of entropy always increases when you explain it.

I hear many unhelpful definitions of entropy, which is surprising as Einstein said that the second law of thermodynamics was the only fundamental law he believed would never be disproved. 

Typically people say that entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system or the universe and that entropy always increases thus causing an endlessly disordering universe. I have also heard it described as a move towards blandness. Over time things will just get blander and blander. This is not only profoundly unhelpful, it is also terribly worrying. A logical conclusion that, given enough time, the whole world will be…Belgium. 

One of the problems with this explanation is that it is manifestly wrong. We build things, we cook things, we create complex babies, iPhones and cities. In fact, all of life seems to be concerned with blowing a raspberry in the face of entropy.

First of all the second law of thermodynamics and entropy apply to closed systems and particularly to the entire universe. The laws of thermodynamics did not feel violated when people decided to turn sand and cement in to Brussels, sure, along with the rest of us it preferred that they didn’t, but it was not a violation of thermodynamics, just of good taste.

And from the universe’s point of view, the act of making cement, steel, glass etc causes a huge amount of potential energy in chemical bonds to be released, as well as a huge amount of heat. So even though the Carrefour market in Rue de Marché Poulets looks pretty ordered, in building it the universe ended up spreading out more energy than was captured.

So as a baby grows by hydrolysing ATP to produce 57KJ/mol, that energy originally came from the sun as UV light and has been converted by wheat then ATP in the cells so the universe is quite happy with the arrangement as it has taken its concentrated energy in the sun and converted it to infrared heat given off by human bodies.

So entropy is a measure of the Belgification of the universe, the tendency of the whole universe to become the same temperature and an overall tendency towards lower forms of energy. But you see the word tendency, life may create local microsystems that increase complexity, but from an overall universes’s point of view entropy goes only in one way. It sounds trivial but the second law of thermodynamics comes down to the fact that if you put a hot body next to a cold body then heat will only flow in one direction unless you put extra energy in. 

If you leave a planet basking in the heat of the sun with water and chemicals loads of things can quite happily occur without breaching any laws of thermodynamics. Even life itself.

Jeremy England, a physicist at MIT, has proposed that life is something that matter just does when exposed to an external energy source like the sun and surrounded by a heat bath like the ocean. According to England, atoms actually form organic molecules and eventually life because it’s a naturally more efficient way to dissipate energy.

They have to be getting that energy from somewhere and be surrounded by a bath like an ocean or atmosphere to dump heat in, but that’s exactly the conditions of this new place called Earth. This also supports why life reproduces; reproduction makes more compounds that dissipate more energy. Therefore when natural selection is applied, successful life forms should waste as little energy as possible reproducing but should still be above a theoretical minimum. When England looked at E. coli in 2012, he found that the bacteria operated just above this minimum floor of waste heat.

Thats as may be. Whenever we have a gradient typically stuff happens. When there is heat from the sun and there is coolth from a pond or the sea then this gradient will certainly encourage non-life chemistry. Abiogenesis is the origin of living organisms from inorganic, or nonliving material.  It's important to distinguish this from evolution. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is the process of development or diversification of living things from earlier forms of living things. Evolution does not say anything about how life first originated.

I am thinking about doing a big bumper edition of the origins of life. This Brainy Lecture is to explain that life is not an affront to entropy and I am allowed to tidy my desk without having the entropy police come in and mess it up again.

But I also do not go as far as Jeremy England and say that life was inevitable as it is the most efficient way to disperse heat. There is no natural selection in basic chemistry. And if it is so inevitable then why is life not everywhere? I put it to you again, where are all the smart aliens? 

I certainly see how entropy will naturally encourage the lipid structures. Lipid molecules have a unique structure. There is a round part and a long tail part. It so happens that the round part is ionic and loves water. It's hydrophilic. The tail part however is non-ionic and hates water. It's hydrophobic. So what tends to happen is, when a bunch of lipids are floating around in water, they tend to gather together and self assemble in spheres. Why does this happen?...because the tail part of the molecule, since it wants to get away from water, automatically faces other tails that also dislike water. And the round part which likes water, exposes itself to the water outside and inside the sphere. It is what these types of molecules do naturally. So it has a tendency to self-assemble into natural spheres. We can use our knowledge of thermodynamics to show why this is likely to occur. 

But I cannot say this often enough. The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe is always increasing. Also the entropy within a system tends to increase.

So back to life, well at least to spontaneous reactions. In thermodynamics we refer to Gibbs Free Energy (G) to inform us of the spontaneity of a process, i.e. will it simply happen on its own.  We don’t have many formulae on Frenzied and Sustained but this one is important. 

delta G = delta H - T.delta S

H is the enthalpy, or total energy, T is temperature and S is entropy.

And the rule is simple, if your reaction gives a negative G then your process will be spontaneous.

And an example is our ADP conversion that has a Gibbs free energy of -57 KJ/K so it will happen without external encouragement. Stand back from your keyboards, I know, sometimes you need an activation energy but then the total endogeny of the system will be greater than the energy put in, and then the reaction can continue without any external help. You uncontacted Arrow people from the Brazilian Amazon are sticklers for your thermodynamics.

I think that we all can agree that if it is positive it is non-spontaneous. 

So if a process is energetically favourable (it gives off energy) and it has a positive S meaning it is entropically positive then it will always result in a spontaneous reaction.  

a positive minus a negative which will always be positive or nonspontaneous. 

If only one of the two is favourable we have to do some maths. If delta H is positive or endothermic (for the punctilious Arrow People yes I mean endogenic not endothermic as the energy absorbed need not necessarily be heat), that energetic unfavourability could be outweighed by the other term if the process is entropically favourable, and since T is here this factor will increase with a larger T so entropically favourable processes are more likely to be spontaneous at higher temperatures. Conversely if it is energetically favourable but entropically unfavourable the entropic unfavourability will be minimised at lower temperatures. This is a very important equation to understand because it describes all of the spontaneous processes in the universe.

There are those who incorrectly use entropy and the second law of thermodynamics to imply that order can't happen spontaneously, but we just showed that entropically unfavourable processes can be spontaneous at lower temperatures if they are energetically favourable. If you happen to meet those people you can point and laugh. Yes, I think that it is OK to point and laugh.

Systems can defy entropy on the small scale but the 2nd law does hold true in that the entropy of the universe is always increasing.

And that is the end of…..

sorry I have just got a message, sorry, I thought I turned my phone off.  Uncontacted@arrowpeople.com

Why does Entropy always increase? A man with a massive beard called Boltzman (the man was called Boltzman, not his beard) figured this out.

He said that entropy is just a measure of the proportion of possible states that are indistinguishable from the current state. If you consider a room full of air then the air molecules are moving randomly and over time they pass through all possible arrangements. In most of those random arrangements the room is filled pretty evenly and we can't tell those arrangements apart from each other. That's a high entropy situation because a high proportion of all possible states look just like this one. But in a tiny fraction of those possible distributions all of the air molecules end up randomly bunched together in one corner.

If you count up all the possible arrangements of particles, only  tiny proportion do weird highly ordered stuff like that so they would be a low entropy situation. Entropy increases because particle positions and velocities get randomised over time.

Boltzmann's interpretation of Entropy leads to some fantastic conclusions. His statistical interpretation doesn't prohibit entropy from decreasing in fact it allows it.

For example tiny localised dips in entropy happen all the time when you get a chance convergence of a few particles in one corner of the room. The larger the Random Dip in entropy the less probable it is. But improbable isn't impossible. There's an Incredibly tiny chance that all the particles in a room of gas will happen to all end up in one corner of the room.  Due to their random motion. It would take vastly longer than the age of the universe for it to happen so in practice we never observe the second law of thermodynamics being broken on macroscopic scales

But given infinite time any non impossible arrangement will happen. It has to happen, it is bound to happen.

So if you take the universe and you waited an infinite amount of time all sorts of local dips in entropy would occur.

What about the state where all the atoms in the universe just happened to appear in almost the exact same location. Obviously this would not last very long and an instant later all the particles would be flying apart again. What would this look like. Like the Big Bang.

But you will say how can that be, the universe has not existed for an infinite time, just 13.8 billion years. Oh no my dear listeners, the universe is infinitely old, it has just been 13.8 billion years since that freak event that had all the particles in the same location.

Given an infinite time then what we call big bangs happen all the time. Perhaps they are not that unusual and maybe we should just refer to them as bangs.

This line of thinking can lead us to conclude that humanity does not actually but just that you, and I mean just you, thinks that it does. We will be picking that up next week.

And I think that is now the 

And now in Colour

Following our upgrade last week to be the first podcast to be produced in colour, we are continuing with our optically stimulated emissions this week with a colour called Nattier (N a t t i e r ) and it is pretty close to Pantone 2206C. You can google it or just ask Siri or Alexa to show it. It is a steely grey blue. Jean-Marc Nattier was the official painter of Louis 15th’s daughters. That is really awkward as I have not yet appointed an official painter for Emma and Helena. I mean, I could say that they are strong independent women and they are their own official painters. technically their work will be paintees. I wonder if all their images will be from the perspective looking down their arm, a pallette’s eye view so to speak.

Anyway, Louis Quinze, who clearly loved his daughters more than I love mine, and appointed Nattier. One of the distinguishing elements of Nattier prolific canon is his use of a metallic, slate, grey blue. He mastered this extraordinary effect and quite rightly today he is immortalised with Pantone 2206C called Nattier. Technically Nattier is the hex value #6FA0BF but Pantone 2206C is a pretty close equivalent. The colour is pleasant enough but do cast an eye over some of Nattier’s works and enjoy the glory of his shiny, glistening metallic hues. 

Cleverly the car manufacturer Renault introduced a paint option for the Renault 19 of Nattier. This colour is not actually the Pantone 2206C being a much darker metallic blue. I am pretty sure that they took the colour from Nattier’s wonderful Comtesse de Tillères from 1750. Shockingly Nattier fell out of fashion in the late 1750’s and his works were openly mocked. He died penniless and had to sell all his art collection and the contents of his studio to survive. If only he knew that abstract artist Blinky Palermo’s panting called Untitled, well actually all his paintings are called untitled, but it is a square of blue and a smaller square of a lighter shade of blue beneath it, was sold for $1.7million. Someone paid $1.7 million for something decidedly less interesting than Nattier’s palette. In this infinitely baffling universe Nattier’s 1734 painting Portrait de Marie-Geneviève Gaudart de Laverdine is currently on auction in montbazon in France with an estimate of 100 000 to 150 000 euros. It currently has no bids. 

Following on from your rousing endorsement of our 

songs under the microscope - misheard lyrics edition, 

we are back with a new top ten this week.

Call the Midwife because straight into the charts at number ten for is  Hot Chocolate’s sexy thing: with “I remove umbilicals".  On reflection it would have made more sense to me had I sung it as "I believe in miracles" 

It is all going up in flames at number nine as the Kings of Leon are singing Ohh, dyslexics on fire". 

I may have read those lyrics wrongly perhaps it says "Ohh, this sex is on fire" 

New entry at number 8 for the first food based song of the week where Cutting Crew quite clearly are singing "I just died in your barn tonight, mustard no mayonnaise instead". 

No one is going to believe it was "I just died in your arms tonight, It must have been something you said" . Oh hang on, the actual title is 'I just died in your arms tonight'.

Down four  places to number seven for John Travolta & Olivia Newton-John with You're the wobbly one". the happy couple have asked me to emphasise that  the Correct lyric is "You're the one that I want"  

Eighteenth week in the chart at number six where Elvis Presley is still complaining that "We're caught in a trout".  Forgive me for not believing you, Elvis, but the lyric was from the song Suspicious Minds. Oh, you now want to change it to "We're caught in a trap" 

Dental work at number five where Abba are instructing someone to  "Take your teeth out, tell me what's wrong". 

Some people mishear that as  "Chiquitita, tell me what's wrong" which is, quite frankly ridiculous. From the single, oh,  'Chiquitita'.

At number four where Will Smith is encouraging casual animal cruelty where he exclaims: "Kick a chicken with it".  Following threats from the RSPCA he maintains it should have been "Gettin' jiggy with it" 

Nirvana are in a low entropy state at number three when they sing "Here we are now, in containers". 

Apparently, they had intended to write “Here we are now, entertain us"  so ‘now I don’t know what’s going on with ‘Smells like teen spirit'.

No “lockdown hairdressing required for the Bee Gees at number 2 with the lyric “Bald-headed woman… bald-headed woman to me". 

After “covid they will start singing it as More than a woman… more than a woman to me" 

And “finally marking their territory all over  number one is R.E.M. with Let's pee in the corner, let's pee in the spotlight". 

Although their are some of you who sing this as: "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" from 'Losing my religion'. (I think that they need Creedence Clearwater revival’s Bathroom on the Right)

Hang on what’s this?

A Sauce A Sauce my Kingdom for a Sauce - Sauce Supreme

500ML OF CHICKEN STOCK 

15 GRAMS BUTTER ( for the roux)

15 GRAMS ALL PURPOSE FLOUR ( for the roux)

150 ML OF DOUBLE CREAM ( HEAVY WHIPPING CREAM)

25 GRAMS BUTTER

2 TABLESPOON LEMON JUICE  (optional)

A PINCH OF CAYENNE PEPPER

A PINCH OF SALT AND WHITE PEPPER

A PINCH OF GRATED NUTMEG

This is one of Escoffier’s daughter sauces, it is a daughter of the great sauce velouté.

First we will take the butter and melt it gently in a pan then add the flour and mix it together till it forms a paste. That is our roux. Turn the heat down as low as possible and cook this paste for 4 to six minutes. It will be a blond colour. Take this roux off the heat.

Next incorporate your chicken stock, I hope that you make your own chicken stock, if I find out that you are not then I may have to hold an intervention. Bring the  chicken stock to the boil and add it all to the roux and mix well and be sure you incorporate all the bits. Escoffier adds 50ml of mushroom cooking liquor but if I did that I get feedback from Lindy, probably Emma as well. Anyway, the classic French way is to use the mushroom liquor, it intensifies the flavour, you just have to be ruthless in your selection of friends and family.

After you have whisked this around for a couple of minutes you can put the heat back on and then leave it to simmer for two or three minutes and to make sure it reduced. This by the way is a chicken volouté, one of the five classic mother sauces in French cooking. Of course for Tim there are six classic sauces as he has chocolate sauce as the first sauce.

Add the cream slowly whisking all the time. Keep it simmering for a few minutes to reduce until it will coat the back of a wooden spoon.

The traditional supreme sauce is very white, but why not add a slight additional dimension by hitting it with a pinch of cayenne pepper and white pepper.

Now add a few grinds of fresh nutmeg.

Now in try Frenzied and Sustained style pass your sauce through a fine sieve into a small clean pan. Mix in the lemon juice, add the remaining butter then gently move the pan to incorporate it as it melts. Taste and add salt as necessary.

Serve it with chicken, fill your chicken pies with it, add it to baked potatoes. It is not called sauce supreme for nothing. 

Now our bit on anagram poetry that we call 

A Greyer Tampon

This week it is Hickory dickory dock’s turn in the wringer. This is what I came up with

Rich cooky dorky dick

A Punk Tumor Cheesecloth 

Hot lent cocksucker

Haunted Newsroom

Cocky dorky choir kid

Now it’s time for our Advert - Ironic Sun Protection

Missing your vacations on hot sunny beaches. Perhaps you cannot function without the natural heady sweetness of Ambre Solaire. Whether it is raining in Reykjavik, drizzling in Driffield or pouring in Portland splash, slosh slop on  ironic sunscreen. Did you just knock over a Pina Colada or are you about to head out into the bucketing gloaming with new Ironic Sun Protection.  Don’t mind the mist, scorn the storms and attack the tempest with our new Cloud protection Factor 50, waterproof, water-soluble, watercolored ironic sun protection. Sun protection factor? zero, it is really just water paint.  Have you always wanted to know what it is like to be a ginger? Well squirt, soak and spray on our special February formula of ironic sun protection. Moisturise whilst you moisten, now in damp leaf, wet trainers and leaky Scottish Rental House fragrances.

Literally the Last Section

Why Indiana Jones is just the worst archeologist

In March 2001 the Taliban declared that the 55 metre high Bamiyan Buddhas built in the 6th century were idols and blew them up. Whilst that action brought about international condemnation, I suspect that the artefact destroyer in chief, Indiana Jones was cheering. “One less thing for me to do” he muttered. You see, Indiana Jones hates archeological sites and has spent the entire Franchise roaming the world, stealing, looting and efficiently dispatching the last remaining relics of ancient civilisations.

At the start of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Indiana Jones takes a golden idol from the temple, setting off many booby traps along the way. These are booby traps of a mind bending complexity and ingenuity that were still functioning after thousands of years. My garden gate is not shutting properly because I have not lubricated it this year. Given the choice of a meticulous study of the entire complex or filching a ghastly gold doll, Jones was all in on the doll and thereby set off the destruction of the entire dig.

Jones made no attempt  to document what he had found, in fact he showed no interest in the archaeology at all, he was all about the looting. Can you imagine destroying all the evidence of a civilisation and showing no remorse. When normal thieves decide to blag a museum they just take the item and run, none of them blow up the museum as part of the getaway. Jones on the other hand left a trail of destruction that left the Taliban saying “what a philistine”.

And we always see Jones teaching archeology. What are his lessons like? How deep should you place the explosive charges? Essay, fire or water, which technique is best to erase a culture.

Think how much we could have learned from the temple and its engineering marvels as opposed to the golden calf.

I have not really researched this, but I always imagined that real archeologists would have some kind of rules, at least guidelines, against disturbing human remains. When Jones thought that the catacombs in Venice were somewhat gloomy, he rips the arm off a corpse and lights it as a torch. Maybe I am wrong and this is standard archaeology practice. He just wandered the world destroying knowledge.

Does Indiplunder Jones wonder why he ends up being chased by indigenous peoples when he keeps entering, violating and looting their temples. He never studies the people (remember he is an archeologist and an anthropologist), never learned their language and showed not the slightest concern for their safety. 

It is just the sheer entitlement of it. He thinks he has a right to steal from ancient peoples just for monetary gain. He thinks he is perfectly justified in removing national treasures so that they can sit in his dumb museum.

The only time we saw him in a legal archaeological site was when he was after the Ark of the Covenant. Sure the site was being operated by the Nazis but they were undertaking a methodological and legal dig.


 The Nazi archaeologists were certainly up to no good, but presumably they had legally obtained permission to excavate. They were properly excavating the site instead of just dropping in, taking the most valuable thing, and running away like Indiana Jones was definitely trying to do.

Oh, and by Jones’s dumb actions he was responsible for the holocaust. 

Had Jones not stolen the Ark of the Covenant from the Nazis then the Nazis would not have felt the need to test it was still functioning before opening in front of Hitler. Thus had it have been  opened for the first time for the Fuhrer it would have melted Hitler’s face along with the rest of his military leaders and avoiding World War II.

In the end, the ark is lost again, so Indy gains nothing for the museum or for archeology in general.

But just how big a tool is Jones when he is judged to be in a weaker legal position than the Nazis.


 After losing the Ark of the Covenant to the Nazis, Indiana Jones gets trapped in the Well of Souls. In his attempt to escape, he topples an Anubis statue and takes out an entire wall of the site.

Jones just does not give a toss. He is after one thing and everything else is expendable, destructible when he has the one thing. Who knows what secrets about the Ark could have been gleaned from the parts of the site that are now rubble?
 Maybe if Jones would stop being such a dick the whole world may stop throwing him in snake pits.
 
 In Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones becomes (once again) embroiled in the illegal antiquities trade when he delivers the remains of Emperor Nurhachi to the gangster Lao Che in return for a large diamond once owned by Alexander the Great.
 This scene raises a number of issues. First, Indy most likely looted the Emperor's remains from somewhere, removing it from its context (the most important aspect of a site for archaeologists). Second, he sold the extremely important archaeological find to an antiquities dealer, even abandoning his usual commitment to bringing artefacts to a museum. Sure, the diamond could be an important artefact, as well, but is it more important than the Emperor's remains? Third, he is bartering with human remains, raising an entirely different ethical problem.

There is such a market in the trade of looted archeological finds it is somewhat astonishing that the hero of this franchise would so clearly live the wrong side of the debate.


 
 Indiana Jones claims that the artefacts he seeks "belong in a museum" – but whose museum? Dr. Jones attempts to take items from all over the world back to his own university's museum, ignoring their cultural heritage. Here's the thing: that isn't actually at all okay with real archaeologists.
 National Geographic archaeological fellow Fred Hiebert explains, “Cultural artefacts need to stay in the place where they come from. Where they belong." Because this enables them to contribute to preserving a cultural heritage and learning about a place's past.
 
 Jones has an infantile impulsivity. He finds one thing then is happy to allow, or indeed cause, the destruction of the whole site. In The Last Crusade, Indiana Jones searches for clues regarding the location of the Holy Grail in the knight's tomb in the catacombs. He finds valuable information on the knight's shield in his grave. Once he possesses this, Jones is willing to do away with the entire grave site.
 The grail protectors set the petroleum in the catacombs on fire, and Jones has to seek an escape route. The first idea to come into his mind, apparently, is to dump the knight's body, throw the coffin upside down, and use it as an air pocket.
 
 
 When Indiana Jones returns to his university in Raiders of the Lost Ark, he brings back several artefacts that he offers to British archaeologist, Dr. Marcus Brody. Brody tells him the museum will buy them, trusting that Jones followed antiquities laws. Legally the museum is exposed as they are buying looted artefacts from an international artefact plunderer. Since Jones never actually undertook anything that may even loosely describe as archaeology, he likely smuggled those artefacts into the country. The artefacts ended up in Brody's museum, probably with little information about them or the context in which they were found, essentially turning valuable archaeological finds into art pieces. Without information on where they came from and how they were created, archaeological objects become nice things to look at, but there's little that can be learned from them. Any Archaeologist undergrad would have done a better job at documenting the sites, finds and contexts than the swag swiper in chief.

For someone dedicating his life to ancient things it is somewhat ironic that in Raiders of the Lost Ark it turns out he used to date Marion Ravenwood when she was just 15. We did not find out what caused the falling out. Although she does scream at Jones “I was just a child” and he basically said get over it.

Jones has bunked off work to fly around the world on his plundering thievery tours yet in Last Crusade, when his teaching duties just get too much for him  rather than methodically dealing with his students and their questions, he simply slopes out of his office window.  I would dearly like to read his 360 degree feedback.

Still on the Last Crusade, it is clear that his father is a much better archeologist as he at least made detailed notes in the super useful Grail Diary. Sadly Indiana Jones decided to choose to trust Nazi Dr Elsa Schneider rather than Sean Connery and actually gave her the Grail Diary.

And murder is still a thing. The guy with the swirly trick with the sword, Jones just shot him down in the street. He also blew up another whole truck load of people thinking incorrectly that they were the bad guys. I will check with a real archaeologist and anthropologist before I release this but I am pretty sure there is not some blank immunity. What I really need is an archaeologist and anthropologist who is also a criminal barrister, but there cannot be that many of them.

Now for a refreshing change of pace, let’s turn our attention to a much more honest tomb raider, Lara Croft - Tomb raider. She doesn't pretend to be an academic or make speeches about what belongs in a museum. She's a wealthy, corrupt tomb raider and she doesn't hide it. She does not leave behind legions of disgruntled students with no lectures and she does not pretend to be doing anything for humanity. Lara Croft raided tombs as was clearly explained in her branding. Indiana Jones, on the other hand shagged Nazis and caused world war 2.

And that is the end of Literally the Last Section. It is also the end of this week’s podcast.

In next week’s frenzied and sustained the brainy lecture considers the Boltzmann Brain, we will have more misheard song lyrics, anagram poetry, sports that should definitely be in the olympics and literally the last section. Was going to be about Great Expectations, but I just read it and it was not as good as I hoped it would be

I just read Great Expectations. It wasn’t as good as I thought it would be.