Facebook is critical to our success and we could use your help. It will only take a few clicks on your device. But it would mean the world to us.
Here’s the link . Once there, hit the Follow button. Hit the Follow button again and choose Favorites. That’s it!
If you’d like to know why this is so important for us, you can read more about it here .
Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music
Sometimes the story behind the movie is more interesting than the story in the movie.
In her autobiography, Home Work, Julie Andrews shared some of her experiences filming The Sound of Music. Andrews spoke with BuzzFeed News about her book, revealing her thoughts on the actual von Trapp family house. The movie musical, which is based on a section of the real-life Maria von Trapp's book, The Story of the Trapp Family Singers, was shot in a Hollywood studio.
The classic scene of Julie Andrews spinning in a meadow was shot in Bavaria, and the exteriors of the von Trapp house were filmed at a different house entirely.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
"It wasn't until much later that I happened to visit the real villa where they actually lived," she told BuzzFeed News. During her visit, Andrews said she could "feel the evil that once permeated those walls." The evil Andrews refers to is, of course, the Nazis. "Because after they fled the country, which they had to do, as in the film, [Heinrich] Himmler took over that villa, and the atrocities there were just terrible," she continued.
The story behind the von Trapp house is much darker than what's touched on in the splashy Hollywood musical. The actual von Trapp family lived in the house from 1923 until they fled Austria in 1938. In 1938, the Nazis annexed Austria, making life hard for the singing family. Georg von Trapp refused to fly the Nazi flag on his house, and declined a request to sing at Hilter's birthday party. There was fear their neighbors would spy on them and their children would become brainwashed by Nazi politics. Even though the family was offered fame, they decided to stay true to their principals and leave Austria.
Christopher Plummer and Julie Andrews on location in Salzburg, 1964upload.wikimedia.org
Himmler was the second most powerful man of the Third Reich. Himmler set up and ran the Nazi concentration camps. The house was surrounded by armed guards and barbed wires. A barracks for the SS was built in the garden. Himmler also built the white wall around the house using slave labor. After the wall was completed, he had those who constructed the wall shot. Very monstrous.
Now, the von Trapp house is a more peaceful place. In 1947, the property was purchased from the von Trapp family by the Missionaries of the Precious Blood. In 2008, it opened to the public as a hotel.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
While the house has a heavy history, the previous residents of the property took satisfaction in knowing the von Trapps resisted the Nazi party. "What Himmler did here is a heavy weight on the house," Precious Blood Fr. Andreas Hasenburger, the rector of the Kolleg St. Josef, told the National Catholic Reporter. "But we are also proud to live in the von Trapp house, the house of the man who said no to the Führer."
It takes a lot of guts to stand up for what you believe in, especially when you're pressured to forfeit your integrity. Knowing that the family gave up their life to stay true to their principals makes The Sound of Music so much better.
This article originally appeared five years ago.
Blanket, pillows, and toys in cribs used to be totally normal back in 1993.
I love learning about common parenting techniques from generations past. We've probably all heard some of the classics, like giving baby a tiny bit of alcohol to get him to sleep, or rubbing whiskey on sore gums to soothe a teething infant. (Upon reflection, it seems that a lot of parenting hacks back in the day boiled down to giving children liquor). These weren't hush-hush under the table tactics. Doctors frequently recommended these things to new parents. Now, of course, we're horrified at the thought and we know the significant risks of alcohol exposure both in the womb and out of it.
Crib set ups are similar. Decades ago, parents were hyper-worried about baby's limbs getting caught in the crib bars, so the solution was to line cribs with thick, soft bumpers. Inside the cribs, pillows and blankets kept baby comfortable and from rolling around too much. It made sense! At the time at least. But, wow, have times changed.
One mom is going viral for posting a fascinating side by side. Her as a baby in 1993, sleeping peacefully in a crib, versus her daughter in 2025.
This was basically parenting in the 1960sGiphy
The comparison is definitely illuminating.
In 1993, there's millennial mom Alanna Clark, sleeping comfortably on her back in her pajamas. She's surrounded by a cocoon of comfort. The key thing to note is the fluffy crib bumpers to keep her from reaching through the bars. Bumpers were meant to add decoration and comfort to a baby's crib while also keeping them from getting injured by the bars. This was especially true back when drop-cribs, or cribs where one wall could drop down, were popular. The American Academy of Pediatrics officially began recommending parents never use crib bumpers in 2011 due to their being a suffocation risk highly associated with SIDS.
The photo of Clark's daughter from 2025 is striking. Her crib is completely empty! She's sleeping on her back with a fitted sheet on the mattress and a snugly-fitted sleepsack containing her legs. That's it. There are no bumpers, toys, pillows, or blankets according to the latest pediatrician guidelines.
As a bonus, Clark shared a picture of herself riding in a (rather flimsy looking) front-facing car seat while her daughter in 2025 rides in a rear-facing "tank," as she calls it, which fits current standards.
Clark's caption captured a beautiful sentiment about the "outdated" standards. Instead of judging her parents for dangerous choices, she understands that they were doing their absolute best with the information they had at the time:
"When I explained modern sleep practices to my dad, he explained to me that the bumpers were to keep me safe from breaking an arm or a leg. I’m glad that when my family talks about the 'new' way of doing things we focus on how much more information we have to keep babies safe. Anyways, enjoy these little snippets of me as a baby with my parents doing what they were told was best. I wonder what practices will be outdated when I’m a grandma one day"
See the fascinating photos here.
TikTok · Alanna | First Time Mom 🇨🇦www.tiktok.com
Clark's post went viral and commenters were so appreciative of how infant safety standards have improved. They were also grateful to previous generations for trying their best:
"yep, and hopefully our kids have even better info and technology when they raise their children."
"Doing their best back then, so we can keep doing better today!!"
"I love your take on this rather than bashing practices of the time which genuinely were what they thought was best"
"It's reassuring knowing that our kids will look at their baby pictures in the future like 'We're you trying to kill me?' and proceed to do differently, as will be best practice then"
"I was trying to explain to someone the other day that our kids are going to say they can’t believe our recommendations were legal it will have changed so much"
Others shared some of their favorite parenting methods from their own parents and grandparents. One commenter wrote that her grandma would put her babies in dresser drawers to keep them safe. Another said her grandpa "didn't believe" in car seats! Somehow, they both lived to tell the tale.
Are there things we're doing with our babies now that will one day be viewed as Hard Nos?
This baby has nothing in his pack 'n play at all. Well done parents!
Photo by Alex Bodini on Unsplash
Again, you have to remember that doctors, pediatricians, and fellow parents were all telling the older generations that this stuff was not just OK, but highly recommended. They really believed those death-trap crib bumpers were safe! You can't help but wonder what kinds of things parents today take for granted as safe, that our kids will look back on one day as reckless and dangerous when it's studied further.
"I'm 100% convinced that 'cry it out' will be the thing that future generations are appalled by," one commenter opined, referring to a controversial method of sleep training infants.
Another user joked that in a few decades, babies will sleep levitating in mid-air via magnets to avoid contact with potential hazards.
Me, I think it's likely that the next generation of parents will be appalled that they were ever allowed to watch cartoons or use a screen, as more research into screentime begins to take shape. I also wouldn't be surprised if pediatricians decide we can't be trusted to make our own baby food at home anymore. But these are just guesses. We won't really know until the science rolls in.
Overall, there's a powerful message here for parents and even those grandparents who might insist on being defensive about the older ways:
"What some grandparents don’t understand is that following modern standards is NOT a condemnation of their parenting," one commenter wrote. "They did what was best according to contemporary standards too." That's all any of us can do.
Mark Rober subjected himself to bed bug bites in the name of science.
"Good night! Sleep tight! Don't let the bed bugs bite!" This sing-songy rhyme that has been around for centuries alludes to the fact that bed bugs were prevalent in the past. After a significant decrease post-WWII, however, the sneaky pests have been making a comeback. Since the 1990s, bed bug infestations have risen dramatically, leading people to look for ways to avoid and get rid of the blood-sucking little buggers.
Unfortunately, a lot of the information about how to do that is flat-out wrong. Popular YouTube science communicator Mark Rober invites viewers to forget what we think we know and go on an educational journey with the leading bed bug researchers at Rutgers University's urban entomology lab. Not only did Rober subject himself to bed bug bites on purpose to see what happens when they feed, but he also conducted a series of experiments in the lab to find out what is actually effective at killing them and what is not.
Bed Bugs Belarus GIFGiphy
Bed bugs have a reputation for being nearly impossible to get rid of, which isn't really the case, according to Rober. When you know what works, it's actually a fairly simple process to kill an infestation. And the good news is that it doesn't entail any toxic chemicals—in fact the pest control chemicals sold for bed bugs don't work at all, according to Rober's tests.
In the process of learning about bed bugs, Rober shared a few "super wild" facts about the infamous creatures.
Eek. No wonder it seems like it's impossible to get rid of them. Starving them doesn't work. They can live in the resting stage for 3 to 6 months, and if the environment is cold enough, they can survive around 300 days, or 10 months, without eating.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Some good news here: Unlike blood-sucking mosquitoes, bed bugs don't carry or transmit disease. The bad news on the front is that because they don't pose a disease threat, only an annoyance, there's not a big incentive to fund research to eradicate them.
In one of Rober's experiments, he placed a dish with a cylindrical vertical post inside it an a dish without a column, and nearly all of the bed bugs in the enclosure ended up in the dish with the column. "If you think about it, humans sleep at the highest elevation any given room. So their logic is just crawl up any vertical surface you see until you eventually find a warm-blooded meal at the top."
Part of how they find humans is by smell, which is why certain strong-smelling items can act as a deterrent for bed bugs. In Rober's experiment, Bounce dryer sheets, moth balls, baking soda, and essential oils all seemed to repel bed bugs (as opposed to ultrasonic pest repellers, which appeared to have no effect). However, none of those things did anything to kill them.
Bed bugs are about the size of an apple seed.Photo credit: Canva
Yikes. Even with the resurgence, we're still nowhere near those numbers, thank goodness.
The term used to describe it is called "traumatic insemination," and really, you should just let Mark Rober explain it with his visual metaphor. Start at minute 11:30.
bug GIFGiphy
In testing chemical sprays, foggers, and other items marketed for killing bed bugs, Rober found a "superstar" in a natural, non-toxic substance. Diatomaceous earth—pulverized fossilized remains of tiny aquatic organisms called diatoms—was the most effective at killing the buggers with a 90% mortality rate after 10 days as opposed to 12% with the Hot Shot bed bug spray. Diatomaceous earth is mostly silica, which absorbs moisture, and when the silica dust sticks to the bed bugs as the walk through it, it dehydrates them. A light dusting of diatomaceous earth around all the cracks and crevices of a room is one way to kill off an infestation, though that process can take days.
The other way to kill bed bugs is heat. Steam kills bed bugs, as does heating up a room to over 122 degrees Fahrenheit does the trick. Temps over 122 degrees kills bed bugs instantly, and as Rober points out, there's no way for them to build immunity to this kind of treatment. So steamers and clothes dryers set to high are the average person's best bet for killing off bed bugs if they have them. The "nuclear option" is to have a pro come in with big heaters and cook your home for a day.
Checking mattresses for signs of bed bugs at a hotel can help you avoid bringing them home.Photo credit: Canva
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that's true for bed bugs especially. Avoiding an infestation if there's already one in your apartment building is trickier, but a lot of people inadvertently bring bed bugs home from hotel stays. Checking the underside of a hotel mattress as soon as you come in the room is a good habit to be in. Bed bugs poop a lot, and there will be spots along the edges of the mattress if bed bugs are present.
The other tip is to use the luggage rack to store your suitcase instead of leaving it on the floor or furniture and to hang clothes on the closet hangers instead of putting them into the hotel room's dresser drawers. Some people may even put their suitcase in the bathtub, at least until they've checked the bed for signs of poop.
Nobody wants to deal with bed bugs, but at least now we have clear evidence of what actually works to get rid of them and what doesn't. Cook them with heat/steam and dehydrate them with diatomaceous earth, and take some simple steps when traveling to lessen your chances of getting them in the first place.
Sleep tight, everyone!
What did you hear?
In 2015, many of us had our minds blown by the "Dress" debate. It started with a post and became an Internet sensation. Was the color of this random dress posted on social media black and blue, or white and gold? Arguments erupted. Scientists got involved. We looked at each other with suspicion. And for some, it was never truly resolved.
Fast forward three years, and the internet exploded again, this time with an auditory feud. A video started making the rounds with a simple recording of a word said over and over. Some heard "Laurel." Some heard "Yanny." None of it seemed to make sense. Two people could be sitting in the same room with the same speakers and hear two entirely different words.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Just as theorists came forward to explain the dress phenomenon, Reddit threads and YouTube channels exploded with explanations. Some thought it was the treble/bass settings that influenced what people heard in the recording. But that didn’t explain how people could listen from the same device and still hear different words.
Brad Story, a professor of Speech, Language, and Hearing at the University of Arizona, did a little digging. In the 2018 CNN article, "Yanny or Laurel: What Science Has to Say," writer Amanda Jackson notes that, "Story ran an acoustic analysis on the viral recording of the computerized voice. He also recorded himself saying 'Yanny' and 'Laurel' for comparison."
She shares that Story reported, "When I analyzed the recording of Laurel, that third resonance is very high for the L. It drops for the R and then rises again for the L. The interesting thing about the word 'Yanny' is that the second frequency that our vocal tract produces follows almost the same path, in terms of what it looks like spectrographically, as 'Laurel.'"
He also noted that if you alter the pitch of the recording, you might hear the other word. "Most likely, the original recording was ‘Laurel,’" Jackson adds. "If you heard 'Laurel,' you are the winner and have earned bragging rights for this round of the Internet debate."
Detroit Tigers GIFGiphy
But there's more to it. On the AsapSCIENCE YouTube channel, they reveal a few reasons for the divide. One is simply the power of suggestion. When the words are written on the screen, the mind might hear whichever word it sees first.
They also illustrate Professor Story's actual sound waves when saying the words "Laurel" and "Yanny," and explain that even though the waves are similar, what you hear might depend on your age. "The sounds of 'Yanny' play at a higher frequency than 'Laurel,' so if you're hearing 'Yanny,' you might have younger ears."
The video goes on to say that a Twitter (now X) user "posted audio of the pitch both brought down and up. When you listen to it brought down 30 percent, you will hear 'Yanny.' But when you listen to it brought up 30 percent, you'll likely hear 'Laurel.'"
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
On a blog post for the hearing aid company Miracle-Ear, they back up the theory. "The real mystery of Yanny vs. Laurel lies with sound frequency. The sound waves that allow us to hear 'Yanny' are at a higher frequency, whereas the sound waves that allow us to hear 'Laurel' are at a lower frequency. As we age, it’s common for us to start losing our ability to hear higher frequency sounds. It wouldn’t be surprising if someone younger hears 'Yanny' while someone older, listening through the same device, hears 'Laurel.'"
It’s all coming around again after the hosts from the Just The Nobodys Podcast revisited it on Instagram. One plays the sounds for the other, who hears "Yanny." He then exclaims, "Okay, since Yanny is a higher frequency, it requires younger and healthier ears to be able to hear it. But for older people, who don't have healthy ears, they're actually hearing Laurel."
The comment section was fired up as many of them argued with the premise.
"I'm 12, and I hear Laurel," said one.
Another claims they don't hear either: "I hear Yammy."
Amazingly, some hear both within two seconds:: "The first time I heard Laurel. The second, I heard Yanny."
And then, of course, there was this comment: "It's blue and black."
I guess we'll never truly know for sure.
Seth Rogen on stage during the opening night of Collision 2019 at Enercare Center in Toronto, Canada.
Childless women in the public eye are often plagued by the question: “So, why don’t you have any children?” It’s a deeply personal question that cuts right to the bone, and there can be many answers. But, if the woman doesn’t want children and says so publicly, she is bound to face some judgment.
"[I don't] like [the pressure] that people put on me, on women—that you've failed yourself as a female because you haven't procreated. I don't think it's fair," Jennifer Aniston told Allure. "You may not have a child come out of your vagina, but that doesn't mean you aren't mothering—dogs, friends, friends' children."
On the Monday, March 6 episode of “The Diary Of A CEO” podcast, host Steven Bartlett asked actor Seth Rogen why he’s childless, and it was a rare moment where a man in the public eye was challenged on the topic. Rogen gave a thoughtful explanation for his and Lauren Miller’s decision to be child-free.
Rogen and Miller were married in 2011.
Seth Rogen speaking at the 2016 San Diego Comic Con International, for "Preacher", at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, California.via Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons
“There's a whole huge thing I'm not doing, which is raising children,” Rogen told Bartlett. The host attempted to play devil’s advocate and asked Rogen if he considered whether having children might have made him and his wife “happier.”
“I don't think it would,” Rogen responded.
Then, as if anticipating the question, the “Pineapple Express” star upended one of the arguments that people who have children often make: that people who don’t have children have no idea what it’s like.
“I've been around obviously a lot of children; I'm not ignorant to what it’s like…Everyone I know has kids. I'm 40, you know? I know,” Rogen said. “Some of my friends have had kids for decades. Some people want kids, some people don't want kids.” He added that many people seem to have kids without considering the issue.
“I mean, a lot of people have kids before they even think about it, from what I've seen, honestly,” he said. “You just are told, you go through life, you get married, you have kids—it’s what happens.” Rogen and his wife have only grown stronger in their decision and they believe that it has helped their relationship.
“Now, more than anything, the conversation is like, ‘Honestly, thank God we don’t have children,’” he continued. “We get to do whatever we want. We are in the prime of our lives. We are smarter than we've ever been, we understand ourselves more than we ever have, we have the capacity to achieve a level of work and a level of communication and care for one another, and a lifestyle we can live with one another that we've never been able to live before. And we can just do that, and we don't have to raise a child—which the world does not need right now,” Rogen concluded.
Seth Rogen and Lauren Miller at the 69th Annual Gold Gen Globes Awards.via JDeeringDavis/Wikimedia Commons
Rogen received a lot of pushback for his comments, and two years later, in an interview with Esquire, he addressed the criticism and doubled down on his decision. “People really had strong takes on it, being like, ‘F**k this f**king guy,'" he said. “Well, if you hate me that much, why do you want more of me?” He also addressed those who asked, "Who's going to care for you when you get older?"
“Is that why you’re having kids? Because I have two things to say: One, that’s very selfish to create a human so someone can take care of you. And two, just because you have a kid, I hate to break it to you, that doesn’t mean they’re going to do that,” he said.
Everyone has the right to choose whether or not to have children, and no one has the right to judge them. Rogen and Miller have thought their decision through and should be applauded for living how they see fit. It’s cool to see Rogen with such a thoughtful opinion on the matter. It’d be even cooler if celebrities never had to discuss the topic in the first place.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
This article originally appeared two years ago.