it doesn't seem to make any sense : either nonsense or not getting the sense

talk about some far-fetched sense : on the origin of life on Earth
---

To state the obvious, the human brain is the most powerful natural brain on earth.  It is curious that being the #1 top-performing brain in the world, it has a very big gap in terms of the things that it can do over the #2 brain on the animal brain list.  Assuming that there has been a fair game of developing different types of brain from the same set of resources, one can say that the game's current state is highly anomalous.  The human brain is a quintessential outlier relative to the set of naturally thriving brains today.  Adding more damage to this almost "whitewash game" is that this brain is capable of designing artificial brains (i.e. A.I.).  The development of these factitious brains tries to match what the natural human brain is capable of, or even surpass it.

After many years from now, mankind maybe capable of transporting these brains to other prospective worlds in space; and if these are "ultra sophisticated" enough, e.g. self-replicating and capable of evolving on its own under the environmental conditions where it is designed to thrive (yes, designed; i.e. ensuring with the highest possible probability that a biological system will still develop under the harshest possible factors in that alien world, e.g. self-assembling lego parts to create different "living" creatures - somewhat an open-ended result as long as the lego parts keep on thriving), then a different biological system will develop in that world, not necessarily similar to that of the Earth as we know it.  Think about a chain reaction of artificial brains landing on different worlds in the universe.  A brain that developed in a certain world has evolved into something that is capable of creating another brain and then might be interested to propagate it to another alien world.  In this case, this is even beyond what Star Trek or Star Wars has depicted.  That chain reaction is in itself a quandary, and borrowing terms from mathematics, each brain should still have an "origin" for that "chain line" (from the "number line").  Think about the number line.  What is considered to be observable is just a portion of that line; but then the other portions are not necessarily falsehoods, and they cannot be even dismissed in an instant as non-existent.

on the plight of dunkirk

With the Hollywood film year about to end, Dunkirk still stays inside my head as one of the year's best (hey, definitely it will standout considering that you have watched only one of those less crappy films this year). Well, it's not a bad thing, considering its quality being comparable to some of the acclaimed films in the previous years, e.g. "A Separation", "Zero Dark Thirty", "12 Years a Slave", "Lincoln", etc.  One of the reasons is that it is different from other World War II films, and it takes a different perspective when compared to the likes of "Saving Private Ryan" and "Letters from Iwo Jima".  Will it win Best Picture at the Oscars? It has a high probability that it will get nominated, but I think its chances of winning is actually uncertain. 

One reason is that it might be labeled as one of those bland films among the Academy voters.  They might find it inglorious in the emotions department, and would rather view it as something more of a technical film; and at the end of the day, throw multiple awards in the technical department.  So if a more dramatic and more emotionally satisfying film pops up at the end of the year, its chances of winning will be significantly lowered.  Another reason is that it doesn't actually have a well developed "personal" viewpoint in it that will help the voters find the perspective of the characters compelling.  So if a more personal and also substantially technical film comes up at the end of the year, it's then a no-win for Dunkirk.  Does it really matter? I think not.  Whether with an Academy win, intrinsically, I think Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is still a film to beat in many years to come.

So how about the animated film department? Sure, "The LEGO Batman Movie" is a fun movie, and a really good one as well.  However compared to last year's very competitive year for animated movies, in which many films in the lineup deserve to be considered as top animated film, it seems that it may not be as competitive this year.  The upcoming "Coco" film from Disney/Pixar - with Lee Unkrich from "Toy Story 3" around - is potentially a film to beat.  Otherwise, "Ferdinand" might also sneak in, together with other foreign animated films like "The Breadwinner", which has a weighty synopsis, and probably, Hiromasa Yonebayashi's "Mary and the Witch's Flower" under Studio Ponoc, which consists of almost everyone who previously worked at Studio Ghibli.

the coldest in the middle of summer

Photo Credit : Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (flickr; license; no edits)  Yakutsk, Russia

As the latitude gets higher, meaning as we go more northerly, the climate is getting colder until we reach Santa's factory outlet.  So, does this mean that the North Pole is the coldest place on Earth or in the Northern Hemisphere?  The answer, however, is a "no".  Although the daily mean from January to March, hovers around -31° to -32°C, and the average low hovers around -33°C to -35°C, these figures are handily beaten by at least three inhabited places 20+ degrees latitude below the North Pole.

Is it still in Canada or in the US state of Alaska? ...Nope. Although the average low in Eureka, Nunavut (in Canada) during February is competitive at -41°C, with a record low of -55°C; the figures, however, are not even considered close.  Snag, Yukon (in Canada) holds the lowest verified recorded temperature in continental North America at -62.8°C [1], while Prospect Creek, Alaska (in US) holds the title as the coldest place in the US when it registered -62.1°C [8].  These figures are close, but the thing is that these places are no longer inhabited.

Let's imagine how cold are these places in terms of the Canadian wind chill index [2]:
-48 to -54 translates into freezing of exposed skin in 2 to 5 minutes, while -55 and colder translates into freezing of exposed skin in less than 2 minutes and was marked as "DANGER!".

And to think that these are indices that consider the wind factor on top of the base air temperature (note the absence of the degree (°) symbol).  How much more if the base temperature is -60°C and below.  In this case, it would mean that the effect of the wind chill index, hovering around in the -70's, -80's or even -100's, would be unthinkable.  (Just saw these -60+°C figures as outside air temperature while traveling on a plane.)

Now, let's meet three of the coldest inhabited places on Earth with a very cold greeting.  If it's not found in Canada or in the US, then we shouldn't forget the rival during the Cold War (although not related to air temperature): Russia.

As many of us might already know, Russia is famous for its bitter winters, particularly the geographic region of Siberia (note the difference with the political region called "Siberian Federal District").  Getting more specific within the Siberian region will lead us to Sakha Republic and three of its human settlements: Yakutsk, Oymyakon, and Verkhoyansk.  Their temperature records are as follows (mean annual temperature figures are taken from 1930-2014 data at their respective meteorological stations [3]):

Yakutsk:
     -9.6°C (annual mean temperature) [3];
     -42.5°C (coldest month mean temperature) [4];
     -64.4°C (record low) [5]
Verkhoyansk:
     -14.9°C (annual mean temperature) [3];
     -47.7°C (coldest month mean temperature) [4];
     -67.6°C (record low) [1][6][8]
Oymyakon:
     -16.0°C (annual mean temperature) [3];
     -47.6°C (coldest month mean temperature) [4];
     -67.7°C (record low) [1][7][8]

Extraordinary.  Even more extraordinary is that these places are inhabited in contrast to the American record holders.  Oymyakon has around 500 inhabitants in 2011; Verkhoyansk has around 1,300 (2010 census); and the amazing major city, Yakutsk, has around 270,000 inhabitants (2010 census).  This makes Yakutsk the coldest city on Earth, while Oymyakon and Verkhoyansk vie for the coldest settlement/village on Earth.  Officially speaking, however, Oymyakon currently holds this title [9] given its record low temperature, but it only beat Verkhoyansk by a mere 0.1°C difference on the records. The figures for the record low temperature were actually questioned and a paper by N. Stepanova in 1958 [1] was published to identify the more reliable figures.  If the record-low figures, set in the years before 1950, still hold until now, then the figures are very close; and one thing for sure we know that these two towns are the coldest inhabited places on Earth, and literally, danger zones during winter.

Humans are indeed hardy species, and it seems that the Russians take the top spot in terms of enduring the extremely cold climate.  Now, what is the reliably recorded coldest place on Earth, regardless of whether it is a permanent human settlement?  In this case, we shouldn't forget a place in Antarctica called the "Vostok Station", around 1,300km away from the South Pole.  Yeah, there goes the Russians again!  At a record low of -89.2°C, it handily beats the Northern Hemisphere records, and it seems that there is an anomaly between our polar regions.  North Pole registered "only" a record low of -50.6°C [8], whereas the South Pole through the US "Amundsen-Scott Station" registered a record low of -82.8°C [8].  There is a 30+ degree difference between the two poles, and the reason behind this is that the stations involved are located at a land mass and in high elevations.  Vostok Station is around 3,488m above sea level, while Amundsen-Scott Pole station is at 2,835m above sea level.  North Pole, on the other hand, is on the Arctic Ocean, and temperatures are recorded through drifting stations of polar expeditions.

So, who gets to visit Santa more often in terms of ship expeditions?  Is it the Canadians? US Americans?  Just get the pattern, and that would lead us to the Russians!  And guess what, the Russian flag was even placed on the ocean floor, where the North Pole is exactly located.  (The thing is that they might have searched for Santa under the ocean as well.)

We have been talking about the coldest inhabited places in the Northern Hemisphere, and this leads us to a question about the coldest uninhabited place in the northern half of the Earth as well, that has regular meteorological observations.  In that case, it is held by the short-lived British "North Ice" research station in Greenland, where the record low is -66°C [8].  If it has been in operation for a long time, then it might have recorded temperatures lower than that, given the elevation of 2,341m above sea level.  If somebody is interested in putting up research stations at the mountains of Alaska and the Yukon territory in Canada, then they are also good candidates for the coldest uninhabited place in the Northern Hemisphere, officially speaking.

Going back to Siberia, how does a below -50°C temperature feel like?  An account from BBC [10] tells us that at -53°C, with just a few minutes outside, pain can be felt on exposed skin, damp surfaces freeze, and the extremities can turn uncomfortably cold very quickly even if covered with layers of thick garments.  It is highly probable that running is necessary from one place to another in order to get to the nearest store.  A visitor will probably get used to that extremely frigid temperature after several days, and will soon find that -20°C is balmy.  So how about -80°C? Did anybody from the Vostok Station tried roaming around? For sure, any exposed skin would mean losing that portion of your body.  In that case, that would be a really good reason to wear an astronaut suit.

Some references:
[1] N. Stepanova, "On the Lowest Temperatures on Earth", 1958.
[2] http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=5FBF816A-1#table1
[3] R. Desyatkin, A. Fedorov, A. Desyatkin, and P. Konstantinov, "Air Temperature Changes and their Impact on Permafrost Ecosystems in Eastern Siberia", Thermal Science Vol. 19, Suppl. 2, 2015.
[4] J. Kolbek, M. Srutek, and E. Box, "Forest Vegetation of Northeast Asia", 2003.
[5] http://time.com/3798383/yakutsk-the-coldest-city-on-earth/
[6] https://www.britannica.com/place/Verkhoyansk
[7] http://cn.worldheritage.org/articles/Siberia
[8] http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/almanac/arc2012/alm12feb.htm
[9] http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/lowest-temperature-inhabited
[10] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11875131