I was curious to learn more about this, because it sounded interesting, so I googled it. I'm guessing you're talking about the interstitium? There's a lot of criticism of that episode for inaccuracies about the interstitium (known for much longer than the 5 years the episode claims - it's been mainstream since at least the 80s), traditional Chinese medicine (the treatments they mention have been proven to be no more effective than a placebo) and the connection between the two (there's no relation between the interstitium and the lines predicted by chi). Everyone in the discussions I found sounded pretty disappointed in the episode.

Even if it's usually pretty accurate (I don't actually know whether it is), radiolab is not the same thing as the scientific establishment, and this is probably why the OP asked if anyone who does science for a living rather than reading pop science articles could reply.

that phrase is to biology as "donde esta la biblioteca" is to spanish

Probably Wayne Gretzky? I don't even know anything about ice hockey and I know he's supposed to be the most dominant player of any sport. Like he and his brother have the record for highest combined goals of any pair of brothers: 2,857 by Wayne, 4 by Brent. If you take away all his goals, he'd be the highest scoring player of all time on assists alone. There have been 13 times when a player has scored over 100 goals in a season in NHL history: Lemieux (once), Orr (once), and Gretzy (eleven times in a row). He retired last century and still holds 57 records. I'm not gonna keep picking out examples but there's a bunch more facts like this that sound like the old "chuck norris facts" meme but are actually true.

"If you don't know anything about ice hockey why do you have all these facts on hand?" - I remembered seeing this kind of list before so I did a quick Google.

Edit: I'm seeing some different exact figures for some of these, but the general principle stands and I'm not invested enough in hockey facts to nail down which numbers are exactly right.

they probably fell into an empty enclosure one day and the zookeepers just rolled with it and put up a sign

For those wondering, this is a reference to the lyrics of A Day In The Life by the Beatles, which starts "I read the news today, oh boy"

Pro wrestling is fake (or, is all just fiction, like a TV show or a theater performance). Wrestling and boxing are not fake.

There are more ways to be a jerk than using "offensive language". Also, it's never a waste to be civil, and you shouldn't need a reward for doing so.

The second paragraph to the right of the photo talks about how our perception of these things changes with time, and while it seems shocking to us now it would once have been taken for granted. It was a big news story at the time and was not taken for granted.

Edit: I guess my wording was a bit off. I meant to say that it was not within the cultural norms of the time. As worded, it sounds like I'm discussing its frequency rather than its level of acceptance - that's my bad.

Intended meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm

can you download adobe reader

There's a similar story about CS Lewis that's much older. I originally saw it in some print source, but this (unsourced) quick Google copy-paste gives the gist:

One day, Lewis and a friend were walking down the road and came upon a street person who reached out to them for help. While his friend kept walking, Lewis stopped and proceeded to empty his wallet. When they resumed their journey, his friend asked, "What are you doing giving him your money like that? Don't you know he's just going to go squander all that on ale?" Lewis paused and replied, "That's all I was going to do with it."

Obviously it's funnier when a comedian says it, just thought it was interesting that the general idea has been around for a while. Probably as long as there's been booze and beggars tbh.

you had one job

I was curious as to what this implies, so I did some quick/superficial googling. The page in the OP has a Yes next to Intent To Use - this appears to mean they have a good faith intention to make commercial use of the trademark within the next 6 months. If for whatever reason they could not make use of it within that time, they can file extension requests indicating good cause for being unable to do so, for six months at a time, up to 5 times. So, OpenAI ostensibly intends to make available a commercial product named GPT5 within the next 6 months (or up to 36 if there are unforeseen delays). So, probably before mid-january.

I welcome corrections from people with actual knowledge, I just did some quick googling because I was curious and thought I might as well share what I found.