More About Energy Drinks

I have previously posted about Bing energy drink, a made-in-Colorado product made from real fruit juices and real sugar. It's still my favorite energy drink, for all the reasons I gave back then.

Now there's an alternative to Bing -- not a competitor, just an alternative. It's called Huxley. It's relatively new, having started in Minnesota in 2023 and just now reaching Colorado. It's a regional energy drink, like Bing in Colorado and Guru in Canada.

Like Bing, Huxley is made with real fruit juice, 11 percent versus Bing's 5 percent. Like Bing, Huxley is sweetened with only 5 grams of cane sugar and has only 40 calories. Like Bing, Huxley has a modest amount of caffeine, 90 mg versus Bing's 120 mg. (Remember, an 8-ounce cup of coffee has 96-195 mg).

Huxley has a few other selling points: its caffeine is derived from the cascara coffee bean, making it supposedly better than regular caffeine. Eh. I'm a chemical engineer; to me, caffeine is caffeine. It also contains l-theanine, which is supposed to moderate the buzz from that initial caffeine hit, and electrolytes to counteract the dehydrating effect of caffeine. I'm skeptical about those last two claims, but we'll see.

Bing also contains electrolytes, plus a full suite of B vitamins. As I've said before, we buy energy drinks for the caffeine and the sugar.

Huxley's primary claim is that it tastes good. As I wrote previously, one of the things I like best about Bing is the way it tastes. Like Bing, Huxley has a small product line, featuring only four flavors (so far): Peach, Mango, Strawberry, and Tangerine. I will be doing some, ahem, empirical research in the next few weeks to see if Huxley's claim is valid. I will update this entry with the results of my research.

As far as price is concerned, the regular prices of Huxley and Bing are more or less equal.

Variety pack shown, does not include Peach

Today's Useless Science: The Can-Balancing Trick

Have you ever noticed that a half-full can of soda is less prone to tipping over and spilling than a full one?

Have you ever noticed that a nearly-empty can of soda is MORE prone to tipping than a half-full one? 

Have you ever taught your grandchildren that trick of balancing a can of soda at a 45 degree angle, on the grooves on the bottom of the can?

Try balancing it like this.

 Here's the science behind it.

The good folks at the Department of Useless Science have taken the specs on the aluminum used in a can of soda, and the density of a typical carbonated drink, and calculated the center of gravity for that can of soda - from the moment before it is opened, to the moment the last drop is drained. Here's what they found.

The center of gravity is lowest when the can is a bit less than one quarter full. Knowing that, you can do that cool balancing trick to impress your grandkids.

You can also predict the most likely moment that the youngest grandchild will knock over any random open can of soda.

MAGA Christians vs. Matthew 25 Christians

 A new trend popped up in the media this week. Someone coined the term "Matthew 25 Christians," and it gained immediate traction.

Background: MAGA Christians

The term "Matthew 25 Christians" was created by someone trying to differentiate between MAGA Christians and true Christians. A MAGA Christian believes in a Christianity that promotes equality, peace, love, charity, and religious freedom -- but only if you're a white, Protestant American, born and living in the USA, and of western European ancestry. Even Jesus Christ himself wouldn't qualify to be a Christian under this definition.

Closely related to MAGA Christianity is Christian Nationalism, which title claims two pieces of virtue that it does not deserve. Christian Nationalism is the belief that the USA was founded on Christian principles, as a Christian nation, and that that makes it a special nation among all the nations of the world. (Parenthetical comment: other ideologies also have this belief. But they don't turn it into a blunt weapon like Christian Nationalism does.) Christian Nationalists wish to force their beliefs onto everyone in the USA, through laws, regulations, and physical enforcement. 

If the two overlapping groups, MAGA Christians and Christian Nationalists, have their way, then the country will be run by an American Taliban, indistinguishable from the despots currently oppressing Afghanistan, Iran, and other nations under the color of religion.

Much of this is being driven by evangelical Christians, whose professed beliefs are often so far removed from true Christianity as to be unrecognizable. And the evangelicals are the best at setting themselves up to judge who is and isn't Christian.

(To be fair: It's not just the evangelicals. Every single slice of Christianity is expert at judging and condemning their fellow Christians, putting themselves with the sheep and everyone else with the goats, arrogating the authority of Him Whose Right It Is To Judge. But if my own children's high school experience is any indicator, the evangelicals are the worst offenders. If you are an evangelical Christian, and you object to this characterization, then show it to me by the way you live. See By Their Fruits, below.)

The Quiet Rise of the Matthew 25 Christians

The people who coined the term "Matthew 25 Christians" were pointing out the wide divide between true Christianity and MAGA Christianity.

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, Jesus gives the great parable about separating the sheep (his followers) from the goats (everybody else) at his Second Coming. The whole parable is summarized in verse 40: "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

MAGA Christianity denies aid to the poor, sanctuary to the immigrant, health care to the sick, and kindness to the prisoner, actions that Jesus specifically calls out in this parable. He condemns those who practice MAGA Christianity with this counterpoint in verse 45: "Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me."

More and more Christians are standing up and denouncing MAGA Christianity. They are finally saying, "That's not who I am. That's not what I believe."

"But, but --" the MAGAs Protest

During the 2012 elections, evangelical Christians mobilized and became a potent political power. Their leaders became kingmakers. One evangelical leader was interviewed on the radio, and he was condemning certain political candidates for not being Christian, and therefore, of course, unworthy to hold public office.

The interviewer asked him what constitutes a Christian.

"One who believes in the Bible."

The interviewer pointed out that nearly everyone calling themselves a Christian believes in the Bible.

"Well then, one who believes in my Bible."

Not a word about believing in the person, Jesus Christ. Not a word about believing that He was the Son of God. Not a word about believing in His divine mission. Not a word about knowing what is written in the Bible and putting it into practice in their daily lives.

This has been carried to extremes in the last three years. To a MAGA Christian, you are only a Christian if you hold the same political views that they hold, if you agree with their "othering" of the American population, and if you agree with the supremacy of white, Protestant, natural-born American citizens over everyone else.

Nothing in there about their namesake, Jesus Christ.

How to Tell the Difference

The easiest way to tell the difference between the MAGA Christians and the Matthew 25 Christians is to use Jesus' own Sermon on the Mount as a yardstick. This sermon, the greatest guide on true Christian living, is found in chapters 5 through 7 of the Gospel of Matthew.

"Lord, Lord"

In chapter 7, Jesus himself warned: "Not everyone that says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will get into the kingdom of heaven." He told of those who would plead with, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? And in our name cast out devils? And in your name done might works?" 

He told them that he would say, "I never knew you; get away from me, you who work iniquity."

About Public Displays of Christianity

One of the most insidious things in today's world is the rise of performative Christianity. Once confined to gatherings like church camps, rallies, and jamborees, now Christian "influencers" have a louder and louder voice, through TikTok, Instagram, podcasts, and other social media. All of this "influence" draws people away from true Christianity and closer to the extreme, damaging positions espoused by MAGA and Christian Nationalists.

Jesus warned about these types in chapter 6, when he said: "Moreover, when you do your alms, don't sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the churches and in the streets, so that they can receive the glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward."

They do good because they want the public praise and adulation -- and, in 2026, Likes and followers. That is their reward. As far as Jesus is concerned, that's all they get.

"But," He continued, "when YOU do alms, let not your right hand know what your left hand is doing: that your alms may be seen in secret, and your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly."

By Their Fruits

Again in chapter 7 of Matthew, Jesus himself tells how you can tell the difference between a MAGA Christian and a Matthew 25 Christian: "You shall know them by their fruits."

Whose words and deeds correspond more closely to the deeds and the teachings of the Master?

Whose life more closely follows the admonition, "Follow me, and do the things that you have seen me do"?

Who spreads out their hands and echoes the Master's invitation, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest?" 

Who is brave enough to tell someone who lives a lifestyle different from theirs, "Neither do I condemn thee"?

Who emulates the Master by simply "[going] about doing good?"

No, way too many of us are on the wrong side of Jesus's warning from Matthew chapter 6: "Judge not, that you be not judged." And especially the MAGA Christians. They have everyone judged, condemned, marginalized, disenfranchised, and in many cases deported. That's so much easier to do.

Pure Religion and Undefiled

Jesus' apostle James wrote this in his tiny part of the Bible: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." I submit that this is only a tiny slice of true Christianity, but MAGA Christians can't even do this part.

"You must choose. But choose wisely."

The old knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade said these words: "You must choose. But choose wisely."

So, which one are you going to be? A goat, or a sheep? A MAGA Christian? A Christian Nationalist? Or a Matthew 25 Christian? You must choose. Choose wisely.

Choose wisely.

Tracing the Depew lineage: how far back can we go?

For years, my Depew ancestry was stuck at 1850, with Joseph Depew in Montrose, Iowa. Joseph and his wife, Wealthy Elmer, had migrated with the Mormons to Nauvoo, Illinois, and had settled in Montrose, just across the Mississippi River from Nauvoo. Family legend was that, when the family was packing up to leave Montrose and head west with the Saints, Joseph was nowhere to be found. Wealthy and her sons were in her parents’ wagon, ready to move out, when Joseph showed up drunk. He yelled that no wife of his was going west with the Mormons, and pulled her off the wagon. Her father got the horses moving, the wagon started rolling, and Joseph couldn’t stop it. So Joseph and Wealthy stayed behind while their boys went to Payson, where they were raised by their grandparents.

The oldest record of Joseph Depew was an 1850 census record, saying that he was born “about 1800” in “Pennsylvania.”

My brother, Craig Depew, has done a lot of digging over the years, and we think that Joseph’s reputation has been rehabilitated. He may or may not have been the town drunk, but he did move west with his family. He never made it to Utah. Both Joseph and Wealthy died of illness in Winter Quarters, Nebraska. Their sons did go to Payson, where they were raised by their grandparents.

Uncle Craig also found that Joseph was descended from Nicolas DuPuy, a Dutch immigrant who arrived in New Amsterdam (now New York) in the 1663. Nicolas was born in Holland in 1627.

Further digging gets us tangled up with questionable sources, including a French historian named Louis Moréri, who never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

If Moréri is to be believed, Nicolas’ lineage can be traced from Holland to France, where the DuPuy family were knights and noblemen, originally from the Dauphiné region of southeastern France. They converted to the Huguenot religion, which put them at odds with the Catholic church and the French king, and eventually made them outcasts. That’s why they fled to Holland, and from there to the New World.

In the Dauphiné, Hugues DuPuy was born in 1055, in Peyrins, France. He and his three sons went to the Holy Land with the First Crusade, and acquitted themselves well. One of his three sons, Raymond DuPuy, was the “second Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller, of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem.” He was a Big Cheese. No, I’m not named after him. And no, I’m not descended from him.

If you go back further, and if Moréri can be believed, Hugues was the son of Raphael de Podio, who was born in 1011 in Lucca, Tuscany, Italy. (Italy!) He was a military commander and the Grand Chamberlain of Conrad II, the Holy Roman Emperor. Conrad gave Raphael a governorship in the Dauphiné, so he moved to Peyrins and Frenchified his last name to DuPuy.

Both “DuPuy” and “de Podio” translate literally to “of (or from) the podium,” but can also be translated to “of (or from) the heights.” Many French geographical names include “Puy” in reference to a hill, a ridge, or another high place.

Raphael himself was a descendant of Norman Anglie de Podio, born in A.D. 905. Norm was the first to bear the “de Podio” surname, his father being named Adminius Amélius Simplicius. It would be really great if we could say that the Depew family line goes all the way back to Norm, in A.D. 905.

Norman’s name is dangerously anachronistic, and I have a couple of problems with it.

First, the term “Norman” meant “Northman” or “Norseman.” Originally, it referred to the Vikings, the Scandinavian raiders that terrorized Europe and Britain for a century or more. The term wasn’t generally used until after Norm was born. The earliest it could have been used is A.D. 911. That’s when king Charles III of France and the Viking leader Rollo signed a treaty, giving Rollo and his people the land that is now called Normandy, in exchange for no longer raiding the rest of France. Over time, Rollo’s people became known as “Normans.” But that began in 911, and our man Norm was born in 905.

Second, the middle name “Anglie,” or “Anglo saxony” as one source renders it, refers to two Germanic tribes, the Angles and the Saxons, who invaded the island of Britain in the 5th Century, and by A.D. 899 were united in one kingdom under Alfred the Great. The year 899 is when Alfred the great died.

Our man Norm was born in 905. The term “Norman” didn’t exist until after 911. And the term “Anglo Saxon” referred to a people on an island all the way on the other side of the continent, a people that didn’t exist as a unified people until 899. I will state plainly that I think someone in a later century made up the name “Norman Anglie”, and they may have even made up the person.

To complicate things even further, it looks like the Amelii line is from southwestern France, near the Pyrenees and Spain. While Moréri has been quick to connect the Ameliis in the southwest with the de Podios in the southeast (and in Italy!), other reputable historians have not been able to confirm that connection, and there is considerable arguing between the two factions.

So, depending on how much you believe, we can trace our Depew lineage back to Joseph in 1850, Nicholas in 1627, Hugues in 1055, or Norman in 905. 

"Other" and "Othering"

"Other" is a powerful weapon. It's a cruel weapon.

"Other" allows us to divide the world into two groups: people who are like us, and people who aren't like us.

We can then marginalize the "other" group. We can ignore them. We can resent them. We can fear them, and hate them, whoever they are. When you "other" someone, you can feel justified in mistreating them, excluding them, denying them respect, denying them basic humanity. You can feel justified in bullying them, hurting them or casting them out.

"Othering" someone lets you assign a label to them, to make them easier to identify because of their "otherness." Often, the label acquires a pejorative connotation, if it didn't have one to start with. "Others" become "extremists," "terrorists," "criminals," "undesirables."

It's easy to generalize about an entire population of "others" based on the public actions of one or more bad actors. But it's just as easy to justify or rationalize the bad actors in our own group, the population of people like us, and to say "the rest of us aren't like that." That's called the Fundamental Attribution Error. More about that in another post.

If we succeed in getting rid of all the "others," if we end up with a population that is just like us, then we end up in a bland, boring world. We end up with a plate of plain, white rice. Every day. For every meal. BORING.

I used to attend a regular weekly meeting (high priests group; if you know you know) where everyone thought the same thoughts and said the same things, all the time, week after week. Saying something different was, um, not well received. I finally started finding excuses to skip the meetings. I would rather pull the veins out of my forearm with a fork than sit through that again.

The fact that we are not all the same should make us stronger and more united, not weaker and less united. Granite is made of four different minerals, none of them as strong in their pure form as when they are combined in granite.

Our differences are what make life interesting. A smarter man than me once sang:

    Rejoicing in the differences, there's no one just like me
    Yet as different as we are, we're still the same.

We need to recognize that we are all children of the same God. He loves us equally, and therefore we should love each other equally. When we truly understand this, the "other" designations melt away. Rather than building walls, or fences, or detention/isolation centers, we should be building bridges. Remember, we are stronger together. 

Oh Please, Not an AI Music Composer

A Hamilton player piano:
 an old-fashioned music machine.

Facebook just fed me an advertisement for an AI music composer -- an AI engine that will write music for you. Does nobody remember George Orwell's 1984? In that dystopian novel, all of the pop music was written by computers. It was glurge that appealed to the masses, and pacified them, but it was emphatically not high art.

So far, I'm not all that impressed with AI. I know it's "the future," and I know "the future is now," but frankly, the way most humans wield AI is clumsy and talentless. We are excited about the sloppy software, and B-grade graphics that people have generated using AI. And we've read story after story about people using AI to make resumes, term papers, book reports, newspaper articles, speeches, and even legal briefs -- all of them marred by sloppy logic, inaccurate "facts" and analyses, made-up references, and so on.

If AI music promises to be of the same quality as the rest of this garbage, then I will only listen to musc created before 2025, thankyouverymuch.

To be clear, ultimately it's not the AI engine or Large Language Model (LLM) that's the problem. The AI is just a tool. The problem lies with the human using the tool.

Most of you are too young to remember the original Apple Macintosh computer. It was released in 1984 -- gasp okay, that's ironic. Anyway, the Mac came with a suite of software including a desktop publishing program called Aldus PageMaker. This was really putting power in the hands of the people. Suddenly, any idiot could be a desktop publisher.

And do you know what? Every idiot became a desktop publisher. The world was papered with ugly, lousy, amateur posters and newsletters and banners. You could spot a PageMaker document a mile away, not because of any defects in the software, but because of the human who had used PageMaker with all the skill of a lefthanded troll to create such an ugly document.

Now we're seeing the same misuse of AI. We're already seeing the PageMaker-quality output in words, in images, and in video. Are you ready to hear it in music? With AI, any idiot can become a composer.

I read today that composer John Williams has just finished writing a piano concerto. The man is 93 years old. He has a lifetime of talent and experience behind him. AI music may be able to imitate his compositions, but it will never match his genius or the quality of his work. There is no shortcut to that kind of quality.

About Energy Drinks

UPDATE, AUGUST 18, 2026: There's a new kid on the block. Read about it here.