Fortunately, life doesn't meet expectations provided by childhood TV shows

It's a writer's cliché to address things that, in our childhood, seemed like they would happen by now: Flying cars. Colonization of the moon. Robot servants.

Those are disappointments (particularly the robots), but let's discuss another series of things that might have surprised us: Confusing events that happened so frequently on TV shows that they seemed a lock to happen to us as adults.

These three things were on TV so often during my childhood that at least I presumed they would happen to me:

Discovering a new student at my school who looks just like me, but wears glasses.

Here's the common plot: A "new student" appears at school who looks exactly like one of the main characters, except for the glasses (or if the character wore glasses, the "new kid" doesn't). This invariably leads to hijinks where the regular character is blamed for something he or she didn't do or the main character gets away with something that was blamed on the "new kid." At age 10, I would said there was a 70% chance that a surprising "twin" would enroll in my junior high or high school. Apparently, that doesn't happen often.

Suffering as someone uses a voodoo doll.

Voodoo was a strangely common theme on TV shows several decades ago – or at least the TV-show version of voodoo, which involved someone making a doll that somewhat resembles another person, then making the doll do crazy things that then happen to the person. Childhood Brad expected to have at least one experience where I couldn't control my limbs or when I inexplicably fell down as my arch enemy twirled a doll version of me. Apparently (fortunately), it doesn't work.

Accidentally bidding on something at an auction.

My childhood experience (on TV) convinced me that every adult ultimately winds up at an auction where expensive pieces of art or museum-level artifacts are being sold to the highest bidder. These auctions are populated by snooty people, many of them with British accents, who use slight nods to make a bid. An unintended twitch or a scratch would be seen as a bid. So was a slight uplift of an arm. At  these auctions, everyone except the TV character was able to control their itching and body movement. Invariably, the main character (who never had money) ended up accidentally winning the auction, putting them in the undesirable spot of having to talk their way out of it. Young Brad was convinced he'd attend an auction and accidentally buy something. Young Brad wasn't confident he'd be able to talk his way out of it. Turns out I've never been to an auction and I've never heard of someone accidentally winning an auction.

I guess TV shows don't accurately reflect real life. Although I'll avoid high-priced auctions, just in case.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Warriors dynasty puts them near (or at?) top of Bay Area sports history

When the Golden State Warriors won their fourth championship in eight years Thursday by beating the Boston Celtics in the NBA Finals, they solidified their position as the greatest professional sports dynasty in Bay Area history. Or second-greatest.

I'm not sure.

The Warriors' feat – winning titles in 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2022 – is further enhanced by the fact that they also reached the NBA Finals in 2016 and 2019. Six Finals appearances in eight years is remarkable.

There are four elite dynasties in Bay Area professional team sports history and all are worthy of being among the great dynasties of their eras. Only one (or two?) are the greatest.

The Fab Four, in reverse order:

4. 2010-2014 San Francisco Giants. The even-year champions won three titles in five years, mesmerizing their fans and convincing many that there was some sort of magic. Buster Posey. Tim Lincecum. Matt Cain. Bruce Bochy. The greatest era in Giants history featured spectacular postseasons, but their highest regular-season win total in that era was 94. And they missed the postseason in 2011 and 2013. They rank fourth, but what a dream era for Giants fans.

3. 1971-1975 Oakland A's. The "Swingin' A's" won three World Series in the middle years of this period and also won division titles in 1971 and 1975. With an amazing collection of talent – Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter, Sal Bando, Rollie Fingers and a bunch of scrappy, talented teammates – they were the underappreciated even in their era. Unfortunately, the A's had a dreadful owner (sound familiar, A's fans?) and averaged about 12,000 fans per game (the dynasty Giants averaged 40,000). The lack of area-wide passion for the team hurts their standing, as does the fact that they never won more than 94 games in a championship season. Still, three titles and five division championships in a five-year period is amazing.

1b. 1981-94 San Francisco 49ers. The glory days of the 49ers, with five Super Bowls in 14 seasons, including four in the 1980s. This is the traditional gold standard of Bay Area sports eras, with a flood of Hall of Famers (Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott, Bill Walsh), dramatic wins ("The Catch" against the Cowboys, the Montana-to-John Taylor Super Bowl) and an awkward, but successful transition from Montana to Steve Young at quarterback for the final championship. If you weren't around then, it's hard to imagine how one sports team could so dominate a region's passion. But it did.

1a. 2015-2022 Golden State Warriors. Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Draymond Green have been the heartbeat of the NBA's best team for more than a decade (they rank second, third and fourth among current NBA players for length of time with one team). This year's performance elevates by Curry likely vaults him into the top 10 players in NBA history. Thompson is a beloved free spirit. Green is the heartbeat of the team. The rebirth of Andrew Wiggins solidified the franchise's reputation as an elite developer and refiner of talent. The Warriors have a veteran core and a group young stars (Jordan Poole, Jonathan Kuminga, James Wiseman), which means this could continue for a while. The five titles by the 49ers is within reach.

The Warriors' run of success is the greatest, but the dynasty 49ers' hold on the region was more intense. Let's call it a tie and see if the Warriors can run it back next season and make it five titles in nine years.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Moloka'i vacation shows isolation isn't perfect, even in paradise

If you've dreamed of life on a deserted island, I've got the place for you: Moloka'i, one of the Hawaiian islands.

Warning: It sounds great, but it's only good.

I mean, it's Hawaii, right?

Mrs. Brad and I recently spent 12 days on Moloka'i, made famous as that place Hawaiians with Hansen's Disease (leprosy) were sent from the 1866 until 1969 (10 years after Hawaii became a state!). That area is still populated and you can visit as part of a chaperoned tour, but that's just a small part of the island.

Here's what we knew about Moloka'i before going: It is sparsely populated (only about 7,000 people), there are only a few restaurants, one grocery store and two gas stations.

On the entire island.

Renting a condo near the beach was cheap (less than $100 per night). Fantastic, right? Kind of.

Our condo was in the private part of a hotel resort that went belly up (the hotel, restaurant and golf course were abandoned) in 2008, making it feel like a ghost town. The golf course largely returned to nature over the 14 years of benign neglect, leaving only cart paths. The boarded-up hotel rooms and restaurant felt something from a post-apocalyptic movie. There were maybe 40 people in a huge resort designed for hundreds, who reportedly paid upward of $400 per night to stay there in the 1990s.

Not now.

We learned a lot in our 12 days on Moloka'i. First of all, we discovered that all Hawaiian beaches aren't created equal. Beaches within walking distance of our condo were great, but the water was rough and choppy. Nobody seems to surf on Moloka'i and the few people on the beaches (most of the time, Mrs. Brad and I were the only people there) avoided the water because it was unpleasant.

We also learned that while we don't need nightclubs and trendy restaurants while on vacation, it's nice to have options. We ate four restaurant meals – three of them at a picnic table outside a hamburger place, one a to-go order from the island's only pizza parlor. Otherwise? Microwaved meals, cold cereal, polish dogs.

It was magnificent to have so much time to relax – my favorite vacation perk is the opportunity to nap whenever the desire strikes and having an open schedule. We each read several books, but learned that we need more than that.

Consider our normal schedule: Get up around 6:30 a.m. (no curtains in the condo, so it was light early) and relax for an hour. Then walk along the ocean on the deserted golf course for another hour. Then breakfast and a trip to the beach for three or four hours before coming home.

That made it about 1 p.m. After a shower, it was 1:30 p.m.

Having more to do would be helpful, even in paradise. Fortunately, we vacationed during the NBA playoffs, so there was a game at 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m. every day so we watched that, ate dinner, then went walking again before sundown.

It was great.

Until it wasn't enough.

It's weird and seems ungrateful to say a Hawaii vacation wasn't great. It was great. It was relaxing and it was Hawaii!

But it was also informative: We learned that completely unscheduled time, with no options, isn't perfect.

It was trouble in paradise. But, again to be fair, it was in paradise.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Lessons of three partially true cliches for graduates (and others)

Editor's note: Following is Brad Stanhope's prepared graduation speech, which he has maintained and updated every year since the late 1980s, yet never delivered.

Hello graduates and congratulations on making it through the toughest few years since World War II. You endured distance learning, wearing masks and a reasonable concern that every cough was the start of COVID. You are experiencing our nation's deepest division since the Civil War. Plus you've had to act like you understand cryptocurrency.

Now graduation, which is filled with advice. Today, I'm presenting three things you'll hear and why they're true and why they're false.

Find something you love to do and you'll never work a day in your life.

Oh, sure. Passion is important, so don't settle for a job if the only benefit is money. (Unless, of course, you really need the money.)

However, doing something you love might be something like watching Netflix all night or getting high all the time. If pursue those, you might never work a day in your life, but you'll also not have any income or happiness.

The truth: Follow what you love, but also learn to love new things. You'll probably change jobs multiple times in your life.

By the way, whoever said, "find something you love to do and you'll never work a day in your life," must never have had a real job. In any job, there are days that feel like work. That's called being human.

It's not the destination, it's the journey.

Oh, sure. If you're too focused on the goal (making a million dollars, playing professional sports, becoming a famous musician, becoming an assistant manager at a fast-food restaurant, earning enough to move out), you can miss the memorable parts along the way. As John Lennon (who died 20-plus years before you were born) said, "life is what happens while you're making other plans," so be sure to enjoy your journey.

The truth: The destination is important. That's what determines the journey, right? (By the way, it's OK to change your destination, which is why our phone GPS allows us to put in new destinations all the time).

By the way, whoever said, "it's not the destination, it's the journey," clearly never drove down I-5 to Disneyland or across Nevada and Utah on I-80. Those journeys suck.

You'll always regret what you didn't do rather than what you did.

Oh, sure. Many of us wish we would have taken that job offer or asked that person on a date or tried out for that part or for that team. We wish we would have moved to a different town or learned that new skill or joined that club.

The truth: We tend to compartmentalize this and forget the wise decisions to skip things – staying home from that party that ended disastrously; turning down a job that would have been a catastrophe; asking out that person who ended up as a serial killer (OK, maybe extreme). Sometimes, it's wise to not take action.

By the way, whoever said, "you'll always regret what you didn't do rather than what you did" never talked to someone in prison.

Here's some solid, reasonable advice: Follow your passion (within reason). Enjoy the journey (but also remember the destination). Take risks (but not all of them, particularly the kind that you'll regret forever).

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Spending $114 (or less) on these six items is the smartest investment you every make

Selling inexpensive, but long-lasting household items has to be a scam, right?

Consider this: Based on my research (looking for the normal sales price on Amazon), you can spend $114 and buy six essential household items that you never need to replace.

Invest $114 in 2022 dollars and you're done. Forever. There must be a trick to this, right? If so, I can't figure it out. How do companies make money when they sell items cheaply and we never need to replace them?

I'll share the six items and when your read each, think about when you last purchased one. Odds are, you've had the item for years and won't need a replacement for years. Maybe forever.

The sensational six:

1. Ironing board ($30). An amazing feat of engineering, this folds up and slips beside your chest of drawers or beside your coats in the hall closet or something else. Once you buy an ironing board, you're set for life (to prove this point, think about the ironing board in your childhood home. It's no different than what you have now). Do ironing board manufacturers sell these so they can sell you irons? Maybe that explains it.

2. Clothes hamper ($25). Not a laundry basket, which suffices for many of us. This goes in a bedroom corner or in the closet. Maybe it's made of wicker or plastic or metal. But it lasts a long, long, long time. Do clothes hamper manufacturers make their money off college kids who destroy these? Maybe that's the profit.

3. Kitchen trash can ($30). This price seemed high to me, but maybe that's because we have a cheap version. Whether it's the kind with the pedal that opens the lid or if it fits in a cupboard (correct location for that option: under the sink, right side), the kitchen trash can lasts forever. We had a hideous yellow plastic version my whole childhood. They last forever and are cheap.

4. Plunger ($18). You probably bought your first plunger after the first experience of learning you needed one. Once you have one, there's (hopefully) no need for a replacement – plungers last forever. They're the CPR of household necessities: rarely used, always valuable. And also unclear how the plunger industry makes a lot of money.

5. Dustpan ($10). A $10 dustpan is likely an elite dustpan, since even one that costs $5 lasts forever. Brooms may break or fray, but the old, reliable dustpan only needs to be replaced when you lose it – and how would you lose a dustpan? Of course, you could go for the Cadillac of dustpans – the kind school janitors have, where the handle stands up and you don't have to bend over to use it. Go ahead, moneybags. The rest of us will use this long-lasting, low-priced dustpan.

6. Flyswatter ($1). How many flyswatters were in your childhood home? One. It probably had a tear in the plastic, but who cared? The job is to kill flies and that doesn't require a perfect swatting surface, just enough to get it done. This $1 investment lasts a lifetime.

All of those items have been in your house for a long time and you won't need to buy replacements this year or next year. That $114 is the best investment you'll ever make.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Are you part of the 10% of insane people who want the T-rex to return?

At least 10% of Americans have apparently never watched a science fiction movie.

That's the only rational explanation for the fact that one-tenth of our population supports the idea of scientists bringing back the tyrannosaurus rex.

Seriously. This was from a survey conducted by YouGov, which asked respondents a series of questions about extinct animals and whether those animals should be brought back.

One out of 10 respondents said the T-rex should come back. One-tenth!

Think of a group of 20 people you know, friends and family. Based on this study, two of them – two! – think we should bring back the T-Rex. And by that, they mean the dinosaur, not T. Rex, the band that sang "Get it on (Bang a Gong)."

Although frankly, either idea is bad. The founder of T. Rex died in a car wreck in 1977.

Anyway, the survey asked a series of questions:

• Should scientists try to prevent animals from going extinct? (Most say yes.)
• Should scientists bring back extinct animals? (Most are squeamish about it.)
• Should scientists bring back specific extinct animals?

To the last question, interviewees were presented with options, and the answers varied. This isn't necessarily a moral question, it's a strategic question: Which animals would be good to bring back?

The most popular animal to bring back was the giant tortoise (supported by 50% of respondents), followed by the passenger pigeon and the northern white rhino (44% support for each).

OK. This kind of makes sense. We like those animals – or at least think they're worth saving. The world would be better with them, presumably.

Then came the less-desired-to-be-returned animals. The wooly mammoth. The saber-tooth tiger. Neither were very popular (return supported by 24% and 20% of respondents, which seems high).

Then came the dinosaurs: 12% of people said they'd support the return of the triceratops. Eleven percent said they'd be OK if scientists brought back the pterodactyl. And the aforementioned 10% who thought it would be cool if the T-rex returned.

A weird thing is that only 70% of people think it's a bad idea to bring back those animals to their original habitats, which means about 20% of us (again, that would be an additional four out of your group of 20 friends) don't have an opinion. ON WHETHER WE SHOULD BRING BACK THE T-REX.

What?

Have they not seen Jurassic Park? Or The Lost World Jurassic Park? Or Jurassic Park 3? Or Jurassic World? Or Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom?

This is a baffling result. I guess some people think the world should be returned to whatever stage they think was the right era. It's kind of like people who want the world to be like it was when they were a kid, ignoring all the problems that existed in their childhood world. (In my childhood world, for instance, there was no internet and no cupholders in cars.)

Here's what I know: If scientists can bring back extinct animals including dinosaurs, it's there's a 100% chance that some rogue scientists will do so. Then we'll have a runaway T-rex (or a pack of them) causing havoc – knocking over garbage cans, trampling golf courses and eating all the apples off your trees. Oh, and killing people and reasserting their position as the apex predators in the world.

If that happens, the 10% of people who think this is a good idea (and maybe the 20% who are undecided) we fight off the inevitable T-rex invasion.

I'll be on an island with all the other people, living in peace with a group of giant tortoises.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Remote office work is here to stay and the implications are largely positive

Hybrid working schedules are here for good. I know, because I drive a hybrid to my office every day.

Get it? MY CAR IS A TOYOTA PRIUS. A HYBRID CAR!

Anyway, I've been back at my office for nearly a year, but that scenario is far from universal. In fact, a recent Gallup poll of nearly 12,000 U.S. employees in remote-capable jobs showed that nearly 40% are working either partly or entirely from home.  Nearly half!

To emphasize the obvious, many jobs can't be done remotely. You can't be a restaurant server from home. You can't be a bus driver or a police officer or professional mime (unfortunately). So the Gallup survey was of those who can work remotely.

While 40% of remote-potential workers work at least partially remotely, a full 70% of all such workers say would prefer that scenario (which suggests that about 30% of them – the gap between those who do work remotely and those who wish they could – are looking for another job).

As hybrid work becomes more common, a late-March Gallup article highlighted four important dynamics of hybrid work, including some things that we used to think were untrue.

The first principle is counterintuitive (at least to companies that have long refused to allow remote work): Folks who work remotely (or who mix on-site and remote work) are more engaged and less likely to experience burnout. Counter to what employers have long said, providing flexible working arrangements makes people feel more connected and makes the job better.

A downside of remote work from the Gallup study and article is that remote work results in a decrease in feedback from the manager. That makes sense in a way because being out of sight (and away from the site) can put someone out of mind. And you don't get the kind of accidental feedback that sometimes happen when there's zero chance you'll walk by your boss's office or meet her while getting coffee.

Maybe the most affirming conclusion of the Gallup report is that despite what management presumed for years, people are actually more productive working remotely than while at the office. This runs counter to the longstanding management theory that employees will only work when they're being watched. Which is insulting and clearly wrong (since we can't be watched all the time anyway).

The final conclusion from Gallup is an argument against remote work. The ability to build and perpetuate workplace culture is much easier to do when there is shared time. That, of course, presumes the workplace culture is positive. The survey didn't address whether some negative workplaces might improve morale by decreasing exposure to "culture."

The Gallup poll and follow-up article ultimately addressed what's becoming obvious: Some version of remote or hybrid work is here for good. The future involves many or most office workers doing their jobs from home.

More than two years after the pandemic started and more than a year after most people were vaccinated, it's clear that there is a permanent change.

Take it from someone who works in a 10-story building that used to have hundreds of people in it and now has a few dozen: Hybrid work is here to stay.

Trust me, I know: As I wrote earlier, I drive a hybrid to work every day.

Get it?

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Most important current Bay Area sports figures

It's easy to determine the most important current Bay Area sports figure.

But who's second and third? Who's fifth and 10th? Glad you asked. Following is the latest ratings of sports figures for major Bay Area professional teams.

It's sports figures, not just athletes: Announcers are eligible, as are coaches and managers. Heck, a mascot could make it someday (hint: Not this day).

This list obviously changes over time. For instance, six of the 10 figures on my 2018 list are now gone: one (Buster Posey) retired, two (Derek Carr and Jon Gruden) left for Las Vegas and three (Joe Thornton, Madison Bumgarner, Kevin Durant) departed as free agents. Another member of the 2018 list (Jimmy Garropolo) is about to be traded.

And away we go . . .

10. Tomas Hertl, Sharks. I had to pick at least one NHL player and he's the best in San Jose. For years, Joe Thornton was the most beloved Sharks player, but now it's Hertl, who just finished his ninth season and is just 28.

9. Trey Lance, 49ers. The best bet on this list to make a big leap in the next year. The 49ers quarterback: the glamour position on the area's glamour team.

8. Ken Korach, A's. It would be nice to pick an Oakland player, but ownership is bent on trading off everyone who can get anything in return. Korach has been the radio voice of the team since 1996 and is quietly as good (or better) at radio play-by-play as Jon Miller or Dave Flemming of the Giants.

7. Nick Bosa, 49ers. A freakishly great defensive end who (if he stays healthy) will be one of the NFL's top players for the next several years. One of the greatest defensive linemen in team history.

6. Draymond Green, Warriors. The Warriors have been led by Green, Klay Thompson and Steph Curry for 10 seasons. For perspective, only six NBA players have spent the last 10 seasons with the same team, meaning that group makes up half of that list. Green is the heartbeat and the NBA's best defensive player.

5. Brandon Crawford, Giants. Grew up in Pleasanton, joined the Giants in 2011, played on two World Series champions and was the best player on last year's 107-win team. Quietly a Giants legend.

4. Klay Thompson, Warriors. He spent more than 900 days off the court with two major leg injuries and somehow became even more popular. Like Curry and Green, fans feel like they've seen him grow up.

3. George Kittle, 49ers. This could have been Deebo Samuels' spot had he not gotten into a baffling contract squabble with the Niners this offseason that end with him being traded. Kittle is an aggressive, athletic, one-of-a-kind tight end who thrills fans with his skills. And joy.

2. Duane Kuiper and Mike Krukow, Giants. The beloved Giants TV broadcasters have been a pairing since the early 1990s and the tragedy in recent years (illness for Krukow, cancer for Kuiper, followed by Kuiper's wife's death last winter) has made them even more treasured. Maybe the most beloved local sportscasters in America.

1. Stephen Curry, Warriors. The greatest-ever Bay Area basketball player, a modern-day version of Willie Mays (had Mays started his career in San Francisco). Arguably the most popular NBA player, he's the top Bay Area sports figure by the same margin by which he'll ultimately hold the NBA 3-pointer record: It's not even close.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

 

Fifty years ago, we began America's middle-school decade

Decades have an image in our collective memory.

The 1960s were about social change.

The 1980s featured yuppies, the end of the Cold War and cocaine.

The 1990s saw the rise of grunge, growing wealth and the emergence of the internet.

The 2000s were about hip-hop music, 9/11 and the Great Recession.

The 2010s highlighted social media's explosion, political division and the Giants and Warriors each winning three championships (maybe that's just me).

The 1970s? They were America's middle school years – particularly the decade from 1972 to 1981 (from Watergate to Ronald Reagan becoming president).

Stay with me, especially if you have fond memories of that era. I do.

Fifty years ago we began the middle school decade of American history.

Think of middle school. It's when kids are most awkward. Photos from sixth, seventh and eighth grades are put away, often forever. In middle school, we try to fit in but don't know how. We know what and who is cool, but can't figure out why.

In middle school, we're awkward and uncomfortable and wish we could just hit a fast-forward button.

Just like the 1970s. Don't just think of Watergate and disco and runaway inflation (although those fit this narrative).

The styles were also awful. Wild, unkempt hair. Sloppy clothes. Caught between the 1960s (traditional or hippy) and the 1980s (preppy or cool street clothes). It was an embarrassing time, the middle school of style.

Cars were awkward. Sedans (including the Ford Pinto and AMC Pacer!) and small trucks (the Chevy Luv! Pickups made by Datsun and Toyota!). Heck, in the late 1970s, the Ford Mustang looked like something a middle-aged businessman would drive to work, not a sports car. That decade was the middle school era of cars.

Watch video from that era, particularly news reports that show how everyday people looked and acted: They looked terrible. Tired. Sad.

Part of the reason for the visual awkwardness of 1972-1981 was the quality of the videotape used. By the 1970s, videotape replaced film for news footage and for many TV shows, meaning this era was preserved with fading, poor video. Compare the quality of the video on "I Love Lucy" or "Leave it to Beaver" with "Happy Days" or "Laverne and Shirley." The latter shows look old and tired because they were shot on videotape (also true: They were old and tired shows).

Likewise, video of Jimmy Carter or the coverage of the Three Mile Island disaster looks older and more tired than coverage of Civil Rights marches and the Vietnam War a decade earlier.

It's as if those filming knew it was middle school and history would spend time looking at childhood (the 1960s and before) and adulthood (the 1980s and later).

I loved the 1970s. I'm embarrassed by the 1970s.

We're supposed to reflect on our younger years with nostalgia and warmth, but as someone who wore a leisure suit, drove a Volkswagen Rabbit and watched "Happy Days," I also acknowledge the truth: Those were the middle school days.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Ancient octopus figures include 330 million years, 10 legs, two spellings

It's almost like everything you've been told about octopi is a lie.

Eight legs? Not always. Found in the ocean? Not necessarily. That octopi is the plural of octopus? Not always.

For some of those findings, we can thank scientists, who recently published a report about a 330-million-year-old fossil of an octopus in Montana.

Yes. Three-hundred-thirty million years.

Yes. Montana.

Even stranger than its age is this: the old octopus had 10 limbs, which really qualifies it as a decapus if my memory of prefixes is correct.

Even stranger, the scientists say that each of the 10 limbs had two suckers, giving it 20 total.

So if you're keeping track, this is the oldest fossil found since the Tampa Bay Bucs signed Tom Brady. It's the most suckers in one place since the last cryptocurrency convention.

I jest. Maybe.

Anyway, scientists say the octopus in question lived millions of years before what they previously believed was the oldest octopus – making it kind of the Dick Clark of octopus, to use a 40-year-old joke. While the scientists used some fancy science wizardry to determine the octopus' age (not counting rings, I hope), they were also tipped off to the fact that it was really old when it started complaining about modern music and telling stories about when it cost just a quarter to go to the movies during the Great Depression.

Of course, all of this could have been discovered three decades ago, when the fossil was only 229,999,970 years old. The specimen was discovered in the Bear Gulch limestone formation in Montana and was one of several octopi (more on that word later) donated to the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada in 1988, when the octopus' childhood friend Ronald Reagan was president.

It sat there for years, forgotten and presumably offended that it was called an octopus, despite having 10 limbs.

Then . . . years later . . . scientists noticed the 10 little limbs, encased in limestone.

What's more, the fossilized octopus had the remnants of an ink bag, used presumably to squirt at predators and to sign ancient octopus documents with a quill.

According to an article by The Associated Press, "The creature, a vampyropod, was likely the ancestor of both modern octopuses and vampire squid ..."

There was more information, but I like the idea of ending a sentence with the words "vampire squid," which will haunt your dreams. The AP article also quoted the journal Nature Communications as saying "the 'oldest known definitive' vampyropod was from around 240 million years ago."

That means the Montana octopus (perhaps the first time those words have ever appeared consecutively in print) was around 90 million years before the birth of what was formerly presumed to be the first octopus.

While doing my research (reading the article, using a calculator to subtract 30 from 3 million, thinking of dumb jokes about old things), I also discovered that octopi isn't the only plural for octopus. Many sources say the correct word is octopuses, although Merriam-Webster Dictionary says either one is fine.

So here's what we've learned today:

• Millions of years ago, octopuses had 10 limbs.
• Ronald Reagan was childhood friends with an octopus.
• Octopi and octopuses are both right.
• There's such a thing as a vampire squid.

Good luck thinking about that tonight when you turn out the lights.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.