As for future entries, I certainly have a lot of plans for this, but 1) they got postponed by Thanksgiving, 2) I have a lot of other things that I want to do now that I know my stuff can make it, so I may need time to take stock. Anyway, it's certainly not done yet!

Thank you so much for sharing! I'm honored that such an official group thinks my work is worth the attention.

This Diplodocus from the Denver Museum is always a goodie.

I have a cat treat bowl on my windowsill, and my boy Raja has finally got the message that he gets cookies when I start working.

I've noticed they tend to use them in the more questionable studies and topics anyway, so the assumptions run both ways. A bad presentation's gonna use AI, and AI is a sign of a bad presentation.

I have absolutely no context for this, but any enemy of Drumpf is probably worth the follow.

I just also think some problems with the particular format they chose are also worth addressing. While I'd still call this a great documentary, an "Ice Age 2" may be the perfect Pleistocene documentary, and it will need to learn from the (admittedly) few pitfalls here.

There isn't much else I can talk about without going into spoilers, and, again, as many people should see this as possible. The effort to make this both as scientifically accurate and as believable as possible cannot be overstated, and I'm glad to see these shows get the budget they deserve.

The two biggest victims of this are the sloths and scimitar cats. Three or four distinct populations of each are shown, but we aren't given much to distinguish them, not even size differences. We're probably missing out on some major disparities that justify speciation, but it's hard to tell.

There's also the content of what he says here. Many of the animals are only introduced with their common names, sometimes only their family names, and the series jumps locations so much that you aren't going to know what species they mean unless you're familiar with the fossil sites yourself.