grammatical number - When should we use proximity rule in "either/or", and "neither/nor"?

The “proximity rule” you are referring to is that when you have a compound but disjunctive subject, the verb agrees in number with the closer — or in the case of three or more, the closest — of the subjects.
All these are correct, and :

• Either my brother or my sister is going to get it.


• Either my brothers or my sisters are going to get it.


• Either my brother or my sisters are going to get it.


• Either my brothers or my sister is going to get it.
  


• Either I or my brother is going to get it.


• Either my brother or I am going to get it.
  


• Either my brother or you are going to get it.


• Either you or my brother is going to get it.
  


• Either my brother or thou art doomed.

But it is often better to rephrase:

• Either my brother is going to get it, or my sisters are.


• Either my brother is going to get it, or I am.


• Either you are going to get it, or my brother is.


• Either my brother is going to get it, or you are.


• Either my brother is doomed, or thou art.

---

And then there was nor

This same rule applies (well, or can apply) to neither/nor sets as much as it does for either/or instances. So in all the examples just provided, you can change all instances of either into neither and of or into nor, and the verb remains unchanged. So:

• Neither my brother nor my sister is going to get it.


• Neither my brothers nor my sisters are going to get it.


• Neither my brother nor my sisters are going to get it.


• Neither my brothers nor my sister is going to get it.

All that being said, one can also find examples in writers of renown where neither is used with a plural verb despite both elements being singular themselves.

film techniques - Why is it a common trend to pan the camera past an object then back to it?

This has to do with communicating to the viewer what the intended subject is, when the subject may be ambiguous among other things.

A hunter is searching for his prey. A red bird sitting in an apple tree. He pans past several apples, then the bird and then returns to the bird. It's now clear that the red bird is not a red apple.

While some viewers may identify immediately that the bird is not like the others. There are still some who missed the difference. Panning back allows that item to be reevaluated by the viewer a second time.

It's based upon the idea that people sometimes have difficulty identifying slight differences in subjects. Sesame Street made a popular game for it called One of these things is not like the other.

While the technique has become over used. It is just a simple way for the film to highlight a subject. It's similar to techniques such as lighting an object separately from the rest of the scene, or suddenly changing the music when an object appears.

It's a mark or queue to the viewer that something is important. In this case, it's done with the camera movement.

Why did the Observers choose the year 2015?

The full Invader (i.e. the Observers who hatched the invasion plan) plan was first to send 12 Observers back in time, these 12 then (unknowingly) scout history to find suitable times to invade. These 12 were told they were just studying history, and were the Observers we saw all over the place in the first 4 seasons.

With the scouting complete, the Invaders then analyzed history and found likely targets for when to invade. They have the capability to predict futures, so they applied this ability to determine the best time to invade. They found this perfect time to invade in 2015, and so they launched their attack.

This is revealed in episode S05E11, The Boy Must Live, when Windmark requests authorization to travel back in time in the present to catch the Fringe time at a time and place he knows they were. He's not allowed, as they have rules about time traveling during the time of the invasion, as they fear doing so would disrupt their 99.9999% chance of succeeding in the invasion.

expressions - When expressing temperatures that are colder than freezing, do we say "more than freezing", "less than freezing", or something else?

The usual way to express this is below freezing, which clearly indicates a lower temperature than freezing.

The British National Corpus has 38 results for "below freezing," and none for "more than freezing" or "less than freezing." The Corpus of Contemporary American English has 256 results for "below freezing," and none for "more than freezing" or "less than freezing."

As you say, the temperature is "lower than zero" (if you're using degrees Celsius). We can also speak of temperatures "under zero degrees."

All of the above mainly refers to literal uses of the word "freezing." If you're using it non-literally to mean "very cold," I might prefer to say "colder than freezing," as you do in your title. Note that we would say "colder" than freezing (not "less cold"); this is probably why your brother feels like using "more." However, if your brother just says it is "more than freezing," he may be misunderstood.

How people actually use "more than freezing"

The one example of this phrase I found in the Google Books corpus refers to a temperature above freezing:

Damn, it's hardly more than freezing and I'm sweating like a stuck pig

(Shermans [sic] Creek: A Redneck Murder Mystery, by Ronald A. Hopkins)

And I found another example using Google search where it is used to mean "above 0 °C":

the NWS forecasts that Boone would warm to a little more than freezing
on Monday, while temperatures will drop back below freezing across the
region by midnight tonight.

("Winter Weather Advisory Issued for Tuesday, Warns Commuters of Freezing Rain, Snow, More Rain," by Jesse Wood, HCPress.com)

However, I did also find some people who used it like your brother:

MINUS TEN DEGREES CELSIUS (or -14 F).

That is not “cold.” That is freezing. Actually, that is more than
freezing.

("TOL: I Literally Almost Froze This Morning," Postcards From the Present)

When we got up this morning it was still -4C outside – and this was at
eight am!

("Day 364: More than Freezing," by Kathryn Dawson)

Q: It is -22 degrees Celsius in Winnipeg, more than FREEZING ( a
fact), where is global warming? (question listed on experts123.com)

For this reason, I'd say "more than freezing" is not only unusual wording; it is also ambiguous.

How people actually use "less than freezing"

In most cases, "less than freezing" seems to be used the way you'd think it would be used: to refer to colder temperatures than the freezing point of water. Examples:

However, I found one interesting example on Google Books where it seems to be used to mean the opposite, although I'm not entirely sure:

Snow and powdered ice that have ever been ſubjected to a cold leſs
than freezing are ſpoiled, or rendered much leſs fit for experiments
of this kind.

(A Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry and the Arts, Volume 1, by William Nicholson)

Are there running gags per series in Top Gear?

Yes, some of the series have series-contained running jokes. Wikipedia handily documents some of them on the Top Gear series-specific pages. Series 11 has:

The series included running jokes appearing in each episode: Clarkson showing an image he claims to have found on "the Internet" which is censored for the television broadcast; and, in the news section, May appearing to feign enthusiasm whilst presenting a brief news item about the Dacia Sandero with no further discussion before they move on to the next item.

Series 12 has:

The running joke regarding the Dacia Sandero continues from series 11, with the alteration that Clarkson is now the one making the announcement with feigned enthusiasm, to utter indifference from May (instead of vice versa). Each news segment also features one of the hosts wearing something unusual, like slippers or a garishly patterned shirt. The only reference to this is that one of the other hosts will, at some point in the segment, ask if they're wearing it for a bet.

Some of the episode summaries comment on running jokes as well.

speech - Stylistic / rhetorical device used by Obama over and over

The technical term is merism, the literary device of referring to a thing by enumerating some or all of its constituents.

A particular form of merism, which employs two polar terms to designate a totality, is frequently employed in the Hebrew Bible. Think for instance of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, where knowledge of good and evil is understood by Hebrew scholars to mean not the ability to distinguish good from evil but the knowledge of all things.

It is frequently remarked that Obama's rhetoric owes a great deal to the pulpit style of African-American preachers, and I think it is no great stretch to see his fondness for this device as similarly founded.

marvel cinematic universe - What would have to happen to merge the Spider-man franchise and the Avengers franchise?

Ever since Marvel launched its shared movie universe, many fans have dreamed about seeing characters like the X-Men, The Amazing Spider-Man and Fantastic Four join Iron Man and the rest of The Avengers in various cinematic adventures. It would be great fun to see these characters crossing paths as they regularly do in the comics, but the big screen reality is complicated due to different movie studios owning the movie rights to these cash cow franchises.

The record-setting box office take of The Avengers proved that audiences crave this kind of movie team-up, and the subject of crossovers has been addressed by various parties in the past year or so. Hugh Jackman publicly mused that he’d love to share the screen with Robert Downey, Jr.’s Iron Man (and “kick his ass.”), X-Men franchise producer Lauren Shuler Donner loves the idea of an X-Men/Avengers team-up, and while Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige essentially told everyone not to hold their breath, fans continue to wonder if it could someday happen.
If it was up to Avi Arad, however, Spider-Man and the Avengers would never meet on the silver screen. Arad is a former Marvel Studios executive and remains a producer on the studio’s various films, with a focus on Sony’s rebooted The Amazing Spider-Man franchise. Arad and producer Matthew Tolmach recently spoke to TotalFilm (via CBM) about the possibility.
Here’s what Arad had to say:

“I for one don’t see the value for us in it. I think we’re doing such a good job with the Spider-Man Universe. Spider-Man is arguably the number one character in the world. He shouldn’t make a cameo.”

Arad appears to have retracted his position a bit, though, having later said that the idea would be possible if they found:

“a natural alliance for some reason…I cannot talk for Sony.”

So Arad is clearly not speaking for the studio, which might mean the possibility remains alive. Still, Tolmach – who produced The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and is working on the Venom and Sinister Six spinoffs – chimed in with his point of view:

“The practical side of it is, look, how many movies have we just talked about? It’s all we can do to build that universe. We’re not going beyond that.”

From a practical, pragmatic point of view, it’s true that Sony, Arad, Tolmach and the rest of the creative team involved in developing a shared movie universe based on The Amazing Spider-Man have their hands full and plenty of characters and storylines to work with without negotiating with Marvel Studios or Fox about how and where they’ll be able to merge onscreen. Not to mention navigating the various schedules, salaries – and egos – of the stars of the franchises involved.

As for Arad’s comment on the “value” - he’s speaking about the studio and it’s willingness (or lack thereof) to share the profits and spotlight with any other franchise or studio. There would be tremendous value for fans of the characters and movies, and a potentially rewarding opportunity for the writers and directors to explore the facets of these different franchises. It’s very clear, however, that the Spider-Man, X-Men and Avengers movie universes are heading in very different directions. A crossover on this scale could happen in some form, eventually, but don’t expect it anytime soon.

What do you think? Do you want to see Spider-Man and the Avengers meet up on the big screen?