Let's Know Things

This week we talk about modems, WiFi, and kinda sorta bribes.We also discuss Huawei, government subsidies, and the FCC.Recommended Book: Replaceable You by Mary RoachTranscriptMany homes, those with WiFi connections to the internet, have two different devices they use to make that connectivity happen.The first is a modem, which is what connects directly to your internet service provider, often via an ethernet jack in the wall that connects to a series of cables webbed throughout your city.The second is a router, which plugs into the modem and then spreads that signal, derived from that network of city-wide cables around your home, either by splitting that single ethernet jack into multiple ethernet jacks, allowing multiple devices to plug into that network, or by creating a wireless signal, WiFi, that multiple devices can connect to wirelessly in the same way. Many routers will have both options, though in most homes and for most modern devices, WiFi tends to be the more common access point because of its convenience, these days.That WiFi signal, and the connection provided via those additional ethernet ports on the router, create what’s called a Local Area Network of devices, or LAN. This local area network allow these devices—your phone and your laptop, for instance—to connect to each other directly, but its primary role for most people is using that connection to the modem to grant these devices access the wider internet.In addition to providing that internet access and creating the Local Area Network, connecting devices on that network to each other, routers also usually provide a layer of security to those devices. This can be done via firewalls and with encryption, which is important as unprotected networks can leave the devices plugged into them vulnerable to outside attack. That means if the router is breached or in some other way exploited, a whole company’s worth of computers, or all your local devices at home, could be made part of a botnet, could be held hostage by ransomware, or could be keylogged until you provide login information for your banks or other seemingly secure accounts to whomever broke into that insufficiently protected LAN.What I’d like to talk about today is a recently announced ban on some types of routers in the US, the reasoning behind this ban, and what might happen next.—On March 23, 2026, the US Federal Communications Commission announced a ban on the import of all new consumer-grade routers not made in the United States.This ban does not impact routers that are already on the market and in homes, so if you have one already, you’re fine. And if you’re buying an existing model, that should be fine, too.It will apply to new routers, though, and the rationale provided by the FCC with the announcement is that imported routers are a “severe cybersecurity risk that could be leveraged to immediately and severely disrupt US critical infrastructure.”They also cited recent, major hacks like Salt Typhoon, saying that routers brought into the US provided a means of entry for some components of those attacks.This stated concern is similar to the one that was at the center of the Trump administration’s 2019 ban of products made by Chinese tech company Huawei in the United States. Huawei made, and still makes, all kinds of products, including consumer-grade smartphones, and high-end 5G equipment sold to telecommunications companies around the world for use in their infrastructure.The concern was that a company like Huawei might leverage its far better prices, which were partly possible because of backing from the Chinese government, to put foreign competitors out of business. From there, they could dominate these industries, while also getting their equipment deep in the telecommunications infrastructure of the US and US allies. Then, it would be relatively easy to insert spy equipment and eavesdrop on phone calls and data transmissions from phones, or to incorporate kill-switches into these grids, so if China ever needed to, for instance, distract the US and its allies while they invaded Taiwan, they could just push a button, kill the US telecommunications grid, and that would buy them some time and fog of war to do what they wanted to do without immediate repercussions; and undoing a successful invasion would be a million times more difficult than stepping in while it’s happening to prevent it.As of 2024, Huawei still controlled about a third of the global 5G market. It controlled about 27.5% back in 2019, the year it was banned in the US and in many US allied nations, so while it’s possible they could have grown even bigger than that had the ban not been implemented, they still grew following its implementation.Chinese companies currently control about 60% of the US router market, and it’s likely the local, US market will shift, reorienting toward US makers over the next decade or so. But it’s possible these Chinese companies will grow their global footprint even further, as previous

This week we talk about cheap drones, energy resources, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.We also discuss the Strait of Hormuz, the war in Iran, and economic asymmetry.Recommended Book: The Age of Extraction by Tim WuTranscriptRussia’s invasion of Ukraine has been pretty universally bad for everyone involved, very much including Russia, which going into the fifth year of this conflict, which it started by massing troops on its neighbor’s border and invading, unprovoked, following years of funding asymmetric military incursions in Ukraine’s southeast. Following their full invasion though, Russia has reportedly suffered around 1.25 million casualties, with more than 400,000 of those casualties suffered in 2025, alone. It’s estimated that Russia has also suffered at least 325,000 deaths, and Ukrainian officials reported confirmed kills of more than 30,000 Russian soldiers just in January 2026.As of early 2026, Russian controlled about 20% of Ukraine, down from the height of its occupation, back in March of 2022, when it controlled 26% of the country.And due to a combination of military spending, intense and expansive international sanctions, and damage inflicted by Ukraine, it’s estimated that Russia has incurred about $1 trillion in damages, about a fifth of that being direct operational expenses, and around a fourth the result of reduced growth and lost assets stemming from all those sanctions.There’s a good chance that all of these numbers, aside from the land controlled, are undercounts, too, as some estimates rely on official figures, and those figures are generally assumed to be partially fabricated to allow Russia to keep face in what is already a pretty humiliating situation—a war they started and which they thought would be a walk in the park, lasting maybe a week, but which has instead gone on to reshape their entire country and present one of the biggest threats to Putin’s control over the Kremlin since he took office.That in mind, a report from last week, at the tail-end of March, suggests that the Kremlin knows things aren’t looking great for them, and they asked Russian oligarchs to donate money to the cause, to help stabilize Russian finances. This report, which is unconfirmed, but has been reported by multiple Russian media entities, arrives at a moment in which the Russian government is also planning cuts to all sorts of spending, including military spending, but also a reported 10% across the board, to all “non-sensitive” matters in its 2026 budget.Despite these fairly abysmal figures, though, there’s some optimism in Russia-supporting circles right now, in large part because the conflict in Iran, and Iran’s near shutting down of the Strait of Hormuz, which is an important channel for the flow of international energy assets, that’s goosed the price of oil and gas, which in turn has goosed Russian income substantially.What I’d like to talk about today are the interconnections between the conflict in Ukraine and the conflict in Iran, and how Ukraine being invaded seems to have put them in a position of relative influence and authority in this new conflict in the Middle East.—From the moment Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian military, and its government, industrial base, and pretty much everyone else, scrambled to find an asymmetric means of keeping a far larger, wealthier, and ostensibly more experienced and better backed foe from just steam-rolling over them.They found that by leveraging lower-cost deterrents, like cheap rockets and drones, they could pay something like $10,000 to take out a tank or other weapons platform that cost Russia a million or ten million dollars. That’s a pretty stellar trade-off, and if you can do that over and over again, eventually you make the cost of the conflict just ridiculously unbalanced, each trade of hardware costing you very little and them a whole lot, which with time can making waging war unsustainable for the side paying orders of magnitudes more.Russia is of course making use of inexpensive drones and rockets, as well. That’s become a norm in modern conflicts, especially over the past five years or so, as cheap but capable and easy to produce models have started rolling of manufacturing lines in Iran and Turkey, allowing them to become popular sources of single-use but quite agile and deadly aerial weaponry.Ukraine has gone further than most other entities, though, as they’re immensely incentivized to get this right, and to put their full support behind anything that gives them the upper-hand against what’s still a powerful and otherwise overwhelming invading force. And this patchwork of companies, independent and government supported, large-ish and tiny enough to operate under constant fire and in wartime conditions, has since scaled-up so that they’re expected to manufacture about 7 million drones of many different varieties in 2026.This scaling has attracted a lot of outside investment, and Ukraine is now considered to

This week we talk about the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and decapitation attacks.We also discuss Venezuela, Iran, and the Platt Amendment.Recommended Book: The Will of the Many by James IslingtonTranscriptCuba is a large island nation, about the same size as the US state of Tennessee, which formally gained its independence from Spain in late 1898, following three wars of independence, the last of which brought the US, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines into play against the Spanish when the Spanish military sunk the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, triggering the Spanish-American War.That conflict, which Spain lost, led to the US’s acquisition of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, and it led to a piece of US legislation called the Platt Amendment, which redefined the relationship between the US and Cuba, following the war, making Cuba a protectorate of the United States, the US promising to leave, withdrawing its troops from Cuban soil, only if seven conditions were met, and an additional provision that Cuba sign a treaty indicating they would continue to adhere to these conditions moving forward—making them permanent.Most of these conditions relate to Cuba’s ability to enter into relationships with other nations, but provision three also says the US can intervene if doing so will preserve Cuban independence, and that Cuba will sell or lease to the US the land it needs to base its naval vessels in the area, so that it can intervene, militarily if necessary, to keep Cuba independent.The other provisions are largely related to ensuring Cuba stays financially solvent and clean, the former meant to help maintain that independence, so Cuba doesn’t make deals with other nations, perhaps US enemies, in order to bail itself out when financially in trouble, and the latter meant to help prevent the bubbling up of diseases in a not well-maintained Cuba, that might then spread to the US.These concerns were concerns for the US government because Cuba is very, very close to the US. It’s just over 90 miles away from Key West, Florida, and that means in the mind of those tasked with defending the US against foreign incursion, Cuba has long represented an uncontrolled variable where enemies could conceivably base all sorts of military assets, including but not limited to nuclear weapons.That makes Cuba, again, in the minds of defense strategists looking to help the US secure its borders, long-term, something like an aircraft carrier slash nuclear submarine the size of Tennessee, located so close to the US that it could take out all sorts of major assets in a flash, long before the US could respond, getting the same sorts of strike craft and missiles to the Soviet Union.This framing of the situation, and this collection of concerns, is what led to the Cuban Missile Crisis back in 1962, when the US deployed nuclear weapons in the UK, Italy, and Turkey, all of which were closer to major Soviet hubs than the US, and that led to a tit-for-tat move by the Soviets to deploy nuclear missiles to Cuba, both to get their own weapons closer to the US, just as the US did to them with those new deployments, but also to deter a potential US invasion of Cuba, which was a staunch ally of the Soviet Union.The crisis lasted 13 days, and though then US President Kennedy was advised to launch an air strike against Soviet missile supplies, and to then invade the Cuban mainland to prevent the basing of Soviet nuclear weapons there, he instead opted for a naval blockade of Cuba, hoping to keep more missile supplies from arriving, and to thus avoid a strike on a Soviet ally that could accidentally spark a shooting war.After this nearly two-week standoff, the US and Soviet leaders agreed that the Soviets would dismantle the offensive weapons they were building in Cuba in exchange for a public declaration by the US to not invade Cuba. The US also secretly pledged to dismantle its own offensive weapons that it had recently deployed to Italy and Turkey, and the weapons they deployed to the UK were also disbanded the following year.This sequence of events is generally seen as a minor victory for the US during an especially fraught portion of the Cold War, as that secret agreement between Kennedy and Soviet leader Khrushchev meant that the Soviet people and leadership perceived this agreement as an embarrassing loss, and an example of Soviet weakness on the international stage—they blinked and the US got what they wanted without giving much of anything, though of course, again, the US gave a fair bit too, just in secret.What I’d like to talk about today is a recent escalation in the US’s posture toward Cuba, and what might happen next, as a result of that change.—In early January 2026, the US military, ostensibly as part of a larger effort aimed at disrupting a network of watercraft that carry drugs from mostly South and Central American drugmakers across the border, into US markets, called Operation Southern Spear, the United States implemented a

This week we talk about BYD, Tesla, and the Blade Battery 2.0.We also discuss EVs, internal-combustion engines, and autonomous vehicles.Recommended Book: Blank Space by W. David MarxTranscriptPetroleum-powered vehicles, cars and trucks and SUVs of the kind that have become the standard since the mid-20th century, work by mixing fuel that you put in the tank when you fill up at the gas station with air, in the engine, and then creating a controlled explosion—in modern vehicles using what’s called a four-stroke combustion cycle of intake, compression, combustion, then exhaust—in order to move pistons which, in turn generate mechanical power by transferring that movement to the vehicle’s wheels.An electric vehicle, in contrast, functions by using electricity from a battery pack to power an electric motor. So rather than needing fuel to combust, which then moves pistons which then moves the wheels, EVs are a straighter-shot with less conversion of energy necessary, electricity powering the motor which powers the wheels.That simpler setup comes with many advantages, and that difference in the conversion of energy is a big one. Because most of the energy injected into the EV’s system is converted into mechanical movement for the wheels, this type of vehicle only loses about 11% of the energy you put into it to that conversion of electricity to mechanical energy process—around 31-35% is initially lost while charging, converting electricity to motion, and so on, but about 22% is recaptured by the vehicle’s brakes during operation, leading to that 11% average loss.A gas-powered vehicle, in contrast, because of the inefficiencies inherent in converting fuel to combustion to movement, loses somewhere between 75-84% of the energy you put into it at the gas station, much of that loss in the form of heat that is emitted as a result of that conversion process; this is an inevitable consequence of the thermodynamics of burning fuel to create motion, and one that means operating a gas-powered vehicle is inherently lossier, in the sense that you can’t help but lose the majority of what you put into it as waste, compared to an electric vehicle, which is less lossy to begin with, but even more efficient when you include that in-operation energy recovery.That baseline reality of energy usage means that modern electric vehicles will typically be cheaper to fuel, to power, because it requires less energy input to get the same amount of travel. This cost-benefit comparison shifts even further in favor of EVs when gas prices are high, though, and though currently the cost of EVs tend to be higher than gas-powered vehicles in most countries, EVs also offer substantially lower lifetime maintenance costs—an average of 40% lower than gas-powered vehicles, due largely to the dramatically reduced number of moving parts in EVs, and the lack of regular, recurring engine-related maintenance tasks, like oil changes and replacing spark plugs.Not even considering the externalities-related savings of owning and operating an EV, then, like the environmental costs of fuel emissions, such vehicles can save owners tens of thousands of dollars in costs over the span of their ownership—though gas-powered vehicles are still more popular in most markets in part because they’re just more common on car lots, their infrastructure—gas stations versus charging stations—are also more common, and because there are numerous convenience issues, like it being quite a bit faster to pump a tank full of gas than to charge EVs, which is more efficient, but also a piece-of-mind sort of benefit.What I’d like to talk about today are some recent innovations in the EV and especially EV-scale battery space, and what it might mean for this market in the coming years.—After a relatively boom-y period in which EV sales saw a significant uptick, that uptick the consequence of friendly policies and subsidies from successive federal administrations and the rapid-fire innovations arriving in each new generation of EV model being pumped out by US makers, especially Tesla, the US car industry has in recent years pulled back from electric vehicles substantially—the most recent evidence of this being Honda’s recent announcement that three EV models they were planning to manufacture in the US will no longer see production.This was mostly a money decision, the raw and partially manufactured components necessary for US-based car companies to produce EVs are now burdened with new, Trump-era tariffs, that make producing finished products of this kind in the US all but impossible; simply too expensive to make.This is also an acknowledgment, though, that Chinese EVs have just gotten so good and so inexpensive for what you get, that it’s simply not possible to compete, not within the current economic and regulatory climate, but also not in the immediate future, even lacking those tariffs, because of how much of a lead Chinese car companies have earned for themselves in this space.New imposi

This week we talk about Khamenei, Trump, and Netanyahu.We also discuss Venezuela, Cuba, and cartels.Recommended Book: Plagues upon the Earth by Kyle HarperTranscriptAli Hosseini Khamenei was an opposition politician in the lead-up to the Iranian Revolution that, in 1979, resulted in the overthrow of the Shah—the country’s generally Western government-approved royal leader—and installed the Islamic Republic, an extremely conservative Shia government that took the reins of Iran following the Shah’s toppling.Khamenei was Iran’s third president, post-Shah, and he was president during the Iran-Iraq War from 1981-1989, during which the Supreme Leader of Iran, the head of the country, Ruhollah Khomeini sought the overthrow of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Khomeini died the same year the war ended, 1989, and Khamenei was elected to the role of Supreme Leader by the country’s Assembly of Experts, which is responsible for determining such roles.The new Supreme Leader Khamenei was reportedly initially concerned that he wasn’t suitable for the role, as his predecessor was a Grand Ayatollah of the faith, while he was just a mid-rank cleric, but the constitution of Iran was amended so that higher religious office was no longer required in a Supreme Leader, and in short order Khamenei moved to expound upon Iran’s non-military nuclear program, to expand the use and reach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in-country and throughout the region, and he doubled-down on supporting regional proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza, incorporating them into the so-called Axis of Resistance that stands against Western interests in the region—the specifics of which have varied over the decades, but which currently includes the aforementioned Hezbollah and Houthis, alongside smaller groups in neighboring countries, like Shiite militias in Bahrain, and forces that operate in other regional spheres of influence, like North Korea, Venezuela, and at times, portions of the Syrian government.Khamenei also reinforced the Iranian government’s power over pretty much every aspect of state function, disempowering political opponents, cracking down on anyone who doesn’t toe a very conservative extremist line—women showing their hair in public, for instance, have been black-bagged and sometimes killed while in custody—and thoroughly entangled the functions of state with the Iranian military, consolidating essentially all power under his office, Supreme Leader, while violently cracking down on anyone who opposed his doing whatever he pleased, as was the case with a wave of late-2025, early 2026 protests across the country, during which Iranian government forces massacred civilians, killing somewhere between 3,000 and 35,000 people, depending on whose numbers you believe.What I’d like to talk about today is a new war with Iran, kicked off by attacks on the country from Israel and the United States that led with the killing of Khamenei and a bunch of his higher-up officers, how this conflict is spreading across the region and concerns about that spreading, and what might happen next.—On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a wave of joint air attacks against Iran, hitting mostly military and government sites across the country. One of the targets was Khamenei’s compound, and his presence there, above-ground, which was unusual for him, as he spent most of his time deep underground in difficult-to-hit bunkers, alongside a bunch of government and military higher-ups, may have been the rationale for launching all of these attacks on that day, as the attackers were able to kill him and five other top-level Iranian leaders, who he was meeting with, at the same time.This wave of attacks followed the largest military buildup of US forces in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, and while military and government targets were prioritized, that initial wave also demolished a lot of civilian structures, including schools, hospitals, and the Grand Bazaar in Tehran, leading to a whole lot of civilian casualties and fatalities, as well.In response, Iran launched hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, and at US bases throughout the region—these bases located in otherwise uninvolved countries, including Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Iranian missiles and drones also hit non-military targets, and in some cases maybe accidentally hit civilian infrastructure, in Azerbaijan, and Oman, alongside a British military base on the island of Cyprus.The Iranian president apologized in early March for his country’s lashing out at pretty much everyone, saying that there were miscommunications within the Iranian military, and that Iran wouldn’t hit anyone else, including countries with US bases, so long as US attacks didn’t originate from those bases.Despite that apology, though, Iranian missiles and drones continued to land in many of those neighboring countrie

This week we talk about Anthropic, the Department of Defense, and OpenAI.We also discuss red lines, contracts, and lethal autonomous systems.Recommended Book: Empire of AI by Karen HaoTranscriptLethal autonomous weapons, often called lethal autonomous systems, autonomous weapons systems, or just ‘killer robots,’ are military hardware that can operate independent of human control, searching for and engaging with targets based on their programming and thus not needing a human being to point it at things or pull the trigger.The specific nature and capabilities of these devices vary substantially from context to content, and even between scholars writing on the subject, but in general these are systems—be they aerial drones, heavy gun emplacements, some kind of mobile rocket launcher, or a human- or dog-shaped robot—that are capable of carrying out tasks and achieving goals without needing constant attention from a human operator.That’s a stark contrast with drones that require either a human controlled or what’s called a human-in-the-loop in order to make decisions. Some drones and other robots and weapons require full hands-on control, with a human steering them, pointing their weapons, and pulling the trigger, while others are semi-autonomous in that they can be told to patrol a given area and look for specific things, but then they reach out to a human-in-the-loop to make final decisions about whatever they want to do, including and especially weapon-related things; a human has to be the one to drop the bomb or fire the gun in most cases, today.Fully autonomous weapon systems, without a human in the loop, are far less common at this point, in part because it’s difficult to create a system so capable that it doesn’t require human intervention at times, but also because it’s truly dangerous to create such a device.Modern artificial intelligence systems are incredibly powerful, but they still make mistakes, and just as an LLM-based chatbot might muddle its words or add extra fingers to a made-up person in an image it generates, or a step further, might fabricate research referenced in a paper it produces, an AI-controlled weapon system might see targets where there are no targets, or might flag a friendly, someone on its side, or a peaceful, noncombatant human, as a target. And if there’s no human-in-the-loop to check the AI’s understanding and correct it, that could mean a lot of non-targets being treated like targets, their lives ended by killer robots that gun them down or launch a missile at their home.On a larger scale, AI systems controlling arrays of weapons, or even entire militaries, becoming strategic commanders, could wipe out all human life by sparking a nuclear war.A recent study conducted at King’s College London found that in simulated crises, across 21 scenarios, AI systems which thought they had control of nation-state-scale militaries opted for nuclear signaling, escalation, and tactical nuclear weapon use 95% of the time, never once across all simulations choosing to use one of the eight de-escalatory options that were made available to them.All of which suggests to the researchers behind this study that the norm, approaching the level of taboo, associated with nuclear weapons use globally since WWII, among humans at least, may not have carried over to these AI systems, and full-blown nuclear conflict may thus become more likely under AI-driven military conditions.What I’d like to talk about today is a recent confrontation between one AI company—Anthropic—and its client, the US Department of Defense, and the seeming implications of both this conflict, and what happened as a result.—In late-2024, the US Department of Defense—which by the way is still the official title, despite the President calling it the Department of War, since only Congress can change its name—the US DoD partnered with Anthropic to get a version of its Claude LLM-based AI model that could be used by the Pentagon.Anthropic worked with Palantir, which is a data-aggregation and surveillance company, basically, run by Peter Thiel and very favored by this administration, and Amazon Web Services, to make that Claude-for-the-US-military relationship happen, those interconnections allowing this version of the model to be used for classified missions.Anthropic received a $200 million contract with the Department of Defense in mid-2025, as did a slew of other US-based AI companies, including Google, xAI, and OpenAI. But while the Pentagon has been funding a bunch of US-based AI companies for this utility, only Claude was reportedly used during the early 2026 raid on Venezuela, during which now-former Venezuelan President Maduro was taken by US forces.Word on the street is that Claude is the only model that the Pentagon has found truly useful for these sorts of operations, though publicly they’re saying that investments in all of these models have borne fruit, at least to some degree.So Anthropic’s Claude model is being used for cla

This week we talk about Trump’s tariffs, the Supreme Court, and negotiating leverage.We also discuss trade wars, Greenland, and the IEEPA.Recommended Book: Smoke and Ashes by Amitav GhoshTranscriptI’ve spoken on this show before about tariffs and about US President Trump’s enthusiasm for tariffs as an underpinning of his trade policy. Last October, back in 2025 I did an episode on tariff leverage and why the concept of an ongoing trade war is so appealing to Trump—it basically gives him a large whammy on anyone he enters negotiations with, because the US market is massive and everyone wants access to it, and tariffs allow him to bring the hammer down on anyone he doesn’t like, or who doesn’t kowtow in what he deems to be an appropriate manner.So he can slap a large tariff on steel or pharmaceuticals or cars from whichever country he likes just before he enters negotiations with that country, and then those negotiations open with him in an advantageous spot: they have to give him things just to get those tariffs to go away—they have to negotiate just to get things back to square one.That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway. What we talked about a bit back in October is TACO theory, TACO standing for Trump Always Chickens Out—the idea is that other world leaders had gotten wise to Trump’s strategy, which hasn’t changed since his first administration, and he has mostly been a doubling-down on that one, primary approach, to the point that they can step into these negotiations, come up with something to give him that allows him to claim that he’s won, to make it look like he negotiated well, and then they get things back down to a more reasonable level; maybe not square one, but not anything world-ending, and not anything they weren’t prepared and happy to give up.In some cases, though, instead of kowtowing in this way so that Trump can claim a victory, whether or not a victory was actually tallied, some countries and industries and the businesses that make up those industries have simply packed up their ball and gone home.China has long served as a counterbalance to the US in terms of being a desirable market and a hugely influential player across basically every aspect of geopolitics and the global economy, and this oppositional, antagonistic approach to trade has made the US less appealing as a trade partner, and China more appealing in comparison.So some of these entities have negotiated to a level where they could still ship their stuff to the US and US citizens would still be willing to pay what amounts to an extra tax on all these goods, because that’s how tariffs work, that fee is paid by the consumers, not by the businesses or the origin countries, but others have given up and redirected their goods to other places. And while that’s a big lift sometimes, the persistence of this aggression and antagonism has made it a worthwhile investment for many of these entities, because the US has become so unpredictable and unreliable that it’s just not worth the headache anymore.What I’d like to talk about today is a recent Supreme Court decision related to Trump’s tariffs, and what looks likely to happen next, in the wake of that ruling.—Ever since Trump stepped back into office for his second term, in January of 2025, he has aggressively instilled new and ever-growing tariffs on basically everyone, but on some of the US’s most important trade partners, like Mexico and Canada, in particular.These tariffs have varied and compounded, and they’ve applied to strategic goods that many US presidents have tried to hobble in various ways, favoring US-made versions of steel and microchips, for instance, so that local makers of these things have an advantage over their foreign-made alternatives, or have a more balanced shot against alternatives made in parts of the world where labor is cheaper and standards are different.But this new wave of tariffs were broad based, hitting everyone to some degree, and that pain was often taken away, at least a little, after leaders kowtowed, at times even giving him literal gold-plated gifts in order to curry favor, and/or funneling money into his family’s private companies and other interests, allowing him to use these tariffs as leverage for personal gain, not just national advantage, in other cases giving him what at least looked outwardly to be a negotiating win.Things spiraled pretty quickly by mid-2025, when China pushed back against these tariffs, adding their own reciprocal tariffs on US goods, and at one point extra duties on Chinese imports coming into the US hit 145%.Shortly thereafter, though, and here we see that TACO acronym proving true, once again, Trump agreed to slash these tariffs for 90 days, and around the same time, in May of 2025, a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated some of Trump’s largest-scale tariffs after a lower court ruled that they couldn’t persist.The remainder of 2025 was a story of Trump trying to strike individual deals with a bunch of trade p

This week we talk about mass surveillance, smart doorbells, and the Patriot Stack.We also discuss Amazon, Alexa, and the Super Bowl.Recommended Book: Red Moon by Benjamin PercyTranscriptIn 2002, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the US government created a new agency—the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, operating under the auspices of the US Department of Homeland Security, which was also formed that year for the same general reason, to defend against 9/11-style attacks in the future.As with a whole lot of what was done in the years following the 9/11 attacks, a lot of what this agency, and its larger department did could be construed as a sort of overcompensation by a government and a people who were reeling from the first real, large-scale attack within their borders from a foreign entity in a very long time. It was a horrific event, everyone felt very vulnerable and scared, and consequently the US government could do a lot of things that typically would not have had the public’s support, like rewiring how airports and flying works in the country, creating all sorts of new hurdles and imposing layers of what’s often called security theater, to make people feel safe.While the TSA was meant to handle things on the front-lines of air transportation, though, X-raying and patting-down and creating a significant new friction for everyone wanting to get on a plane, ICE was meant to address another purported issue: that of people coming into the US from elsewhere, illegally, and then sticking around long enough to cause trouble. More specifically, ICE was meant to help improve public safety by strictly enforcing at times lax immigration laws, by tracking down and expelling illegal immigrants from the country; the theory being that some would-be terrorists may have snuck into the US and might be getting ready to kill US citizens from within our own borders.There’s not a lot of evidence to support that assertion—the vast majority of terrorism that happens in the US is conducted by citizens, mostly those adhering to a far-right or other extremist ideologies. But that hasn’t moved the needle on public perception of the issue, which still predominantly leans toward stricter border controls and more assiduous moderation of non-citizens within US borders—for all sorts of reasons, not just security ones.What I’d like to talk about today is an offshoot of the war on terror and this vigilance about immigrants in the US, and how during the second Trump administration, tech companies have been entangling themselves with immigration-enforcement agencies like ICE to create sophisticated surveillance networks.—In mid-July of 2025, the US Department of Defense signed one of its largest contracts in its history with a tech company called Palantir Technologies. Palantir was founded and is run by billionaire Peter Thiel, who among other things is generally considered to be the reason JD Vance was chosen to be Trump’s second-term Vice President. He’s also generally considered to be one of, if not the main figure behind the so-called Patriot Tech movement, which consists of companies like SpaceX, Anduril, and OpenAI, all of which are connected by a web of funding arms and people who have cross-pollinated between major US tech companies and US agencies, in many cases stepping into government positions that put them in charge of the regulatory bodies that set the rules for the industries in which they worked.As a consequence of this setup and this cross-pollination, the US government now has a bunch of contracts with these entities, which has been good for the companies’ bottom lines and led to reduced government regulations, and in exchange the companies are increasingly cozy with the government and its many agencies, toeing the line more than they would have previously, and offering a lot more cooperation and collaboration with the government, as well.This is especially true when it comes to data collection and surveillance, and a great deal of that sort of information and media is funneled into entities like Palantir, which aggregate and crunch it for meaning, and then send predictions and assumptions, and make services like facial-recognition technologies predicated on their vast database, available to police and ICE agents, among others such entities.There has been increasingly stiff pushback against this melding of the tech world with the government—which has always been there to some degree, but which has become even more entwined than usual, of late—and that pushback is international, even long-time allies like Canada and the EU making moves to develop their own replacements for Amazon and Google and OpenAI due to these issues, and the heightened unpredictability and chaos of the US in recent years, but it’s also evident within the US, due in part to Trump’s moves while in office, but also the on-the-ground realities in places like Minneapolis, where ICE

This week we talk about OpenAI, nudify apps, and CSAM.We also discuss Elon Musk, SpaceX, and humanistic technology.Recommended Book: Who’s Afraid of Gender? by Judith ButlerTranscriptxAI is an American corporation that was founded in mid-2023 by Elon Musk, ostensibly in response to several things happening in the world and in the technology industry in particular.According to Musk, a “politically correct” artificial intelligence, especially a truly powerful, even generally intelligent one, which would be human or super-human-scale capable, would be dangerous, leading to systems like HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. He intended, in contrast, to create what he called a “maximally truth-seeking” AI that would be better at everything, including math and reasoning, than existing, competing models from the likes of OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic.The development of xAI was also seemingly a response to the direction of OpenAI in particular, as OpenAI was originally founded in 2015 as a non-profit by many of the people who now run OpenAI and competing models by competing companies, and current OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk were the co-chairs of the non-profit.Back then, Musk and Altman both said that their AI priorities revolved around the many safety issues associated with artificial general intelligence, including potentially existential ones. They wanted the development of AI to take a humanistic trajectory, and were keen to ensure that these systems aren’t hoarded by just a few elites and don’t make the continued development and existence of human civilization impossible.Many of those highfalutin ambitions seemed to either be backburnered or removed from OpenAI’s guiding tenets wholesale when the company experienced surprising success from its first publicly deployed ChatGPT model back in late-2022.That was the moment that most people first experienced large-language model-based AI tools, and it completely upended the tech industry in relatively short order. OpenAI had already started the process of shifting from a vanilla non-profit into a capped for-profit company in 2019, which limited profits to 100-times any investments it received, partly in order to attract more talent that would otherwise be unlikely to leave their comparably cushy jobs at the likes of Google and Facebook for the compensation a non-profit would be able to offer.OpenAI began partnering with Microsoft that same year, 2019, and that seemed to set them up for the staggering growth they experienced post-ChatGPT release.Part of Musk’s stated rationale for investing so heavily in xAI is that he provided tens of millions of dollars in seed funding to the still non-profit OpenAI between 2015 and 2018. He filed a lawsuits against the company after its transition, and when it started to become successful, post-ChatGPT, especially between 2024 and 2026, and has demanded more than $100 billion in compensation for that early investment. He also attempted to take over OpenAI in early 2025, launching a hostile bid with other investors to nab OpenAI for just under $100 billion. xAI, in other words, is meant to counter OpenAI and what it’s become.All of which could be seen as a genuine desire to keep OpenAI functioning as a non-profit arbiter of AGI development, serving as a lab and thinktank that would develop the guardrails necessary to keep these increasingly powerful and ubiquitous tools under control and working for the benefit of humanity, rather than against it.What’s happened since, within Musk’s own companies, would seem to call that assertion into question, though. And that’s what I’d like to talk about today: xAI, its chatbot Grok, and a tidal wave of abusive content it has created that’s led to lawsuits and bans from government entities around the world.—In November of 2023, an LLM-based chatbot called Grok, which is comparable in many ways to OpenAI’s LLM-based chabot, ChatGPT, was launched by Musk’s company xAI.Similar to ChatGPT, Grok is accessible by apps on Apple and Android devices, and can also be accessed on the web. Part of what makes its distinct, though, is that it’s also built into X, the social network formerly called Twitter which Musk purchased in late-2022. On X, Grok operates similar to a normal account, but one that other users can interact with, asking Grok about the legitimacy of things posted on the service, asking it normal chat-botty questions, and asking it to produce AI-generated media.Grok’s specific stances and biases have varied quite a lot since it was released, and in many cases it has defaulted to the data- and fact-based leanings of other chatbots: it will generally tell you what the Mayo clinic and other authorities say about vaccines and diseases, for instance, and will generally reference well-regarded news entities like the Associated Press when asked about international military conflicts.Musk’s increasingly strong political stances, which have trended more and more far right over the past decade,

This week we talk about the European Union, India, and tariffs.We also discuss trade barriers, free trade, and dumping.Recommended Book: The Kill Chain by Christian BroseTranscriptA free trade agreement, sometimes called a free trade treaty, is a law that reduces the cost and regulatory burden of trading between two or more states.There are many theories as to the ideal way to do international trade, with some economists and politicians positing that complete free and open trade is the way to go, because it allows goods and services to cross borders completely unencumbered, which in turn allows businesses in different countries to really lean into whatever they’re good at, selling their cars to countries that are less good at making cars, while that recipient country produces soy beans or computer chips or whatever they’re good at making, and sending those in the other direction, likewise unburdened by stiff tariffs or regulatory hurdles. Each country can thus produce the best product cheapest and sell it to the market where their products are in high-demand, while they, in turn, benefit from the same when it comes to other products and services.This theory leans on the idea that everyone is better off when everyone does what they’re best at, rather than trying to do everything—specialization. But those who oppose this conception of international trade argue that this creates and reinforces asymmetries between different nations and businesses: a country that’s really good at producing soybeans may be at a substantial disadvantage if the country that makes cars ever decides to go to war, because they won’t have the existing infrastructure to build tanks or drones or whatever else, while the country that specializes in computer chips might hold all the cards when it comes to generating economic pressure against its enemies or would-be enemies, because such chips are in everything these days, from military hardware to kitchen appliances.This also creates potential frailties for countries that specialize in, say, buggy whips, only to have a new technology like the automobile come around and put a significant chunk of their total economy out of business.This theory may also leave local businesses that don’t lean into a regional strength kind of in the lurch. If a country with a decent-sized automobile industry decides leaves their borders completely open to international competition, there’s a chance that could light a fire under those local producers, forcing them to become more competitive, but there’s also a chance it could collapse the market for local offerings—their cars might no longer be desirable, because the international stuff flooding across the borders from a nation that has heavily prioritized making cars are just so much better and cheaper, whether naturally or artificially, because of subsidies by that foreign government meant to help them take out international competition.This is why most nations have all sorts of tariffs, regulations, and other trade barriers erected between them and their trading partners, and why those trade barriers are ultra-specific, different for every single possible trade partner. The goal is to make international options less appealing by making them more expensive, or making it trickier for foreign competition to smoothly and quickly get their products on your shelves, while still making those things available in a volume that aligns with local consumer demands. And then ideally making it easier and cheaper for your stuff to get on their shelves.The negotiation of all this is massively complicated because Country A might want to favor their soybean farmers, who are an important voting bloc, and Country B might want to do the same for their car industry, because tax income from that industry is vital, and these two governments will thus do what they can to ensure their favored local industries and businesses have the biggest leg-up possible in as many foreign markets as possible, without giving away so much to their trade partners that they create worse situations for other industries and businesses (and the people who run them) on the home-front, as a consequence.What I’d like to talk about today is a recent, massive and potentially quite vital trade deal that was struck in early 2026, and what it might mean for global trade.—At the tail-end of January 2026, the European Commission announced that they had struck what they called “the mother of all deals” with India, this deal the culmination of two decades worth of negotiation, its tenets impacting about 2 billion people and around a quarter of the world’s total GDP.The agreement, as is the case with most such agreements, is fairly complex. But in essence it reduces or eliminates tariffs on 96.6% of all EU goods exported to India, which means about 4 billion euros of annual duties that would have otherwise been paid on European products in India will disappear—a savings for Indian consumers, and a boon for European p

This week we talk about social networks, propaganda, and Oracle.We also discuss foreign adversaries, ByteDance, and X.Recommended Book: Rewiring Democracy by Bruce Schneier and Nathan E. SandersTranscriptIn 2021, TikTok, a short-form video platform that’s ostensibly also a social network, though which leans heavily toward consuming content over socializing, was ranked the most popular website by internet services company Cloudflare, beating out all the other big tech players, including search engine juggernaut, Google.It was a neck and neck sort of thing, with Google taking the lead some days that year, but 2021 was definitely TikTok’s time to shine, as it was already popular with young people and was starting to become popular with the general public, of all ages and across a huge swathe of the planet. It even beat Facebook as the most popular social media website that year, despite, again, being mostly about consuming content rather than interacting—that was actually a prime motivator for Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to redirect its own apps in a similar direction, shifting its focus from communication and interaction between users toward the creation of binge-able content, and feeding users more of that content in a feed optimized for time-losing levels of consumption.2021 was also the first full year that TikTok was coming under scrutiny from the US government. In the preceding year, 2020, then first-term president Donald Trump said he was considering banning the app because it was becoming so popular, with young people in particular, and because it was owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance it represented a potential national security threat.So the idea was that because Chinese companies are forced, by their very nature, to do what the Chinese government tells them—that’s just how things work over there—and to do so on the down-low if that’s what the governments demands, and to lie about having to do what the government tells them to do, if the government tells them to thus lie, it doesn’t matter that ByteDance’s leadership swore up and down to the world that the company will never use its popularity, and the data it soaks up from all its users as a result of that popularity, to help the Chinese government, the Chinese military, or Chinese intelligence services.It of course will have to do that, and if it doesn’t, its leaders could be black-bagged and disappeared in the night—because again, that’s just how things work over there. So the Trump administration decided to make TikTok a sort of bogeyman, representing Chinese companies in general, and to some degree the presence of China in the US and throughout the Western world, and said, nope, we’re not gonna let this thing continue to operate over here.It’s worth remembering, too, that by 2021 the world was enmeshed in the COVID-19 pandemic, which originated in China, and which Trump and his administration were ardently attempting to tie to the Chinese government—calling Covid the Chinese Flu, and even worse things, as part of that effort.So this move against TikTok and its parent company, while based on genuine concerns about the ownership of the company and how and where the data being collected by said company is handled, it should also be seen as a political maneuver, allowing Trump, during the 2020 election run-up, to look like he was taking a big stand against a big foreign threat, China.What I’d like to talk about today is a deal that was proposed way back then by the Trump administration, as a potential way out for TikTok and ByteDance, allowing it to continue operating in the US despite threats to shut it down, now that said deal, or a version of it, seems to have finally come to fruition—and what we know about the shape of the resulting new, US-based version of TikTok.—On January 18, 2025, TikTok stopped worked in the US. It voluntarily suspended all services in the country in the lead-up to the implementation of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which was passed by the US congress and signed into law by then-president Joe Biden in April of 2024. This law gave social networking services controlled by ‘foreign adversaries’ 270 days, with the possibility of a 90-day extension, to divest themselves so that they’re no longer considered foreign adversary-owned.This law was almost exclusively aimed at TikTok, and the idea was that TikTok, in the US, would no longer be able to legally function following that deadline if it was still owned by China, which for the purposes of this law has been labeled a foreign adversary.ByteDance could keep TikTok in the US going if it sold a majority, controlling stake of its US-based assets to non-adversary owners, but otherwise it would have to shut down.Interestingly, though Trump was the original source of concerns about TikTok and its Chinese ownership during his first administration, when he stepped back into office in January 2025, he signed a new executive

This week we talk about war, inflation, and currency devaluation.We also discuss tyrants, police violence, and social media threats.Recommended Book: Post-Growth Living by Kate SoperTranscriptBack in mid-June of 2025, a shooting war erupted between Iran and Israel, with Israeli military forces launching attacks against multiple Iranian military sites, alongside sites associated with its nuclear program and against individual Iranian military leaders.Iran responded to these strikes, which left a lot of infrastructural damage and several military leaders assassinated, with large waves of missiles and drones against both Israeli and allied military targets, and soon after, later the same month, both sides agreed on a ceasefire and that was that.Following that blip of a war, though, Iran’s economy suffered greatly. It already wasn’t doing well, in part due to the crippling sanctions enforced by the US government for years, but also because of persistent mismanagement by Iran’s ruling regime, and the resultant deterioration of local infrastructure, both physical and bureaucratic.Millions of people fled Iranian urban centers during the war with Israel, and while most of them returned when the ceasefire was brokered, the pace of life and other fundaments of these cities never got back up to where they were, before, as there have been fairly consistent blackouts that have kept people from being able to function as normal, and these outages have also kept businesses from getting back on their feet. That, in turn, has resulted in closures and firings and an overall reduction in economic activity.The general hamhandedness of the government has amplified these issues, and the countless other issues of trying to exist within a country that is being so persistently targeted—both in the sense of those crushing sanctions from the US, but also in the sense of being periodically struck by Israel—has dramatically increased uncertainty throughout Iran these past several years.Even before that brief war, Iran was already on the backfoot, having suffered the loss of their local proxies, including the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip—all of which have been either severely weakened by Israel in recent years, or functionally wiped out—and that in turn has more directly exposed them to meddling and attacks from their key opposition, which includes the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.That new vulnerability has put the Iranian government on high-alert, and the compounding effects of all that infrastructural damage, mismanagement, and the need to reallocate more resources to defense has left the country suffering very high levels of inflation, a severely devalued currency, regular blackouts, mass unemployment, a water shortage, and long-time repression from a government that is in many ways more paranoid and flailing than in any time in recent memory.What I’d like to talk about today is a recent wave of protests across Iran and why the US government is apparently considering taking action to support protestors against the Iranian government.—Iran has long suffered all sorts of issues, including regular efforts by ethnic secessionists to pull it apart into pieces they periodically occupy and want to govern, themselves, and concerns from citizens that the government spends a whole lot of their time and the nation’s resources enriching themselves, oppressing the citizenry, funding what seems to be a pointless nuclear program, and prioritizing their offensive efforts against Israel and their other regional enemies, often by arming and funding those aforementioned, now somewhat defunct proxy militias and militaries.On top of all that, as of October 2025, inflation in Iran had surged to 48.6% and the Iranian currency, the rial, dropped in value to 1.45 million per dollar. The government tried to artificially boost the value of the rial to 1.38 million per dollar in early January of 2026, but it dropped further, to 1.5 million per dollar a few days later, hitting a record low. This combined with that wild inflation rate, made the basic fundamentals of life, food, electricity, and so on, unaffordable, even for those who still had jobs, which was an ever-shrinking portion of the population.For context, the drop of the rial to a value of 1.38 million per dollar, the boosted value, represented a loss of about 40% of the rial’s value since June of 2025, just before that war with Israel, which is a staggering loss, as that means folk’s life savings lost that much in about half a year.When currency values and inflation hit that level of volatility, doing business becomes difficult. It often makes more sense to close up shop than to try to keep the doors open, because you don’t know if the price you charge for your product or service will make you a profit or not: there’s a chance you’ll sell things at a loss, because the value of the money you receive and the cost of goods you require, both

This week we talk about Venezuela, Maduro, and international law.We also discuss sour crude, extrajudicial killings, and Greenland.Recommended Book: The Keep by F. Paul WilsonTranscriptBack in mid-November of 2025, I did an episode on extrajudicial killings, focusing on the targeting of speedboats, mostly from Venezuela headed toward the United States, by the US military. These boats were allegedly carrying drugs meant for the US market, and the US government justified these strikes by saying, basically, we have a right to protect ourselves, protect our citizens from the harm caused by these illegal substances, and if we have to keep taking out these boats and killing these people to do that, we will.There’s been a lot of back-and-forthing about the legitimacy of this approach, both in the sense that not all of these boats have been shown to be carrying drugs, some just seemed to be fishing boats in the wrong place at the wrong time, and in the sense that launching strikes without the go-ahead of Congress in the US is a legally dubious business. There was also the matter of some alleged follow-up strikes, which seemed to be intended to kill people who survived the initial taking-out of the boats, which is a big international human rights no no, to the point of potentially being a war crime.All of this happened within the context of a war of words between US President Trump’s second administration and the increasingly authoritarian regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who followed the previous president Hugo Chávez as his hand-picked successor, and has more or less completed the authoritarian process of dissolving, coopting, or diminishing all aspects of the Venezuelan government that might ever check his power, which allowed him, in 2024, to bar the very popular, now Nobel Peace Prize winning candidate María Corina Machado from running, and her sub-in candidate, like previous Maduro opponent Juan Guaido, seems to have won the election by a fair bit, and in an internationally provable way, but Maduro’s government faked results that made it look like he won, and his single-party rule has since continued unabated.Or rather, it continued unabated until the early morning of January 3, 2026, around 2am, when US Operation Absolute Resolve kicked into action, leading to the—depending on who you ask—justified captured or illegal kidnapping—of Maduro and his wife from a stronghold in his country.And that’s what I’d like to talk about today: the operation itself, but also the consequences and potential meaning of it within the context of other important things happening in the world right now.—Maduro is immensely popular with about a fifth of the Venezuelan population, but essentially everyone else is strongly opposes him and his iron-fisted rule.It’s estimated that between 2017 and 2025, just shy of 8 million people, which is more than 20% of Venezuela’s 2017 population, has fled the country in order to escape a tyrannical government and its failed policies, which have collapsed the economy, made getting working and feeding oneself and one’s family difficult, and made crime, conflict, and the state-sanctioned oppression of anyone who doesn’t kowtow to the ruling party a commonplace thing.Trump speculated about the possibility of invading Venezuela even in his first administration, and part of the overt rationale was that it’s run by a failed government that most of the locals hate, so it would be an easy win. That justification shifted to orient around immigration and drugs by his second administration, and then more recently, Trump has said publicly that the real issue here is that Venezuela stole a bunch of US company-owned oil assets when it nationalized the industry back in the day, and those assets should be recaptured, given back to the US.Operation Absolute Resolve took months to plan and only about two and a half hours to complete. By most objective measures it was a spectacular military and intelligence success, especially considering all the moving parts and thus, all the things that could have gone wrong.The operation apparently involved at least 150 aircraft of various sorts, a spy within Maduro’s government, and months of surveillance, which helped them establish Maduro’s habits and routines, and that allowed them to map out where he would be, when, and what to expect going in to get him. All of these patterns changed in September of 2025 when US warships started massing in Caribbean, as Maduro started to get a little paranoid—justifiably, as it turns out—and he started moving between eight different locations, seldom sleeping in the same place more than one night in a row.He was eventually grabbed from a military base in Caracas, Venezuela’s capitol, and to make that happen the US military assets in the area had to take out local aviation and air defenses so that US Delta Force troops could be carried in by helicopter. Several air bases and communications centers were taken out by missiles, an

This week we talk about prediction markets, incentives, and gambling addiction.We also discuss insider trading, spot-fixing, and Gatorade.Recommended Book: The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory by Tim AlbertaTranscriptPrediction markets are hundreds of years old, and have historically been used to determine the likelihood of something happening.In 1503, for instance, there was a market to determine who would become the next pope, and from the earliest days of commercial markets, there were associated prediction markets that were used to gauge how folks thought a given business would do during an upcoming economic quarter.The theory here is that while you can just ask people how well they think a political candidate will fare in an election or who they think will become the next pope, often their guesses, their assumptions, or their analysis will be swayed by things like political affiliation or maybe even what they think they’re meant to say—the popular papal candidate, for instance, or the non-obvious, asymmetric position on a big commercial enterprise that might help an analyst reinforce their brand as a contrarian.If you introduce money into the equation, though, forcing people to put down real currency on their suspicions and predictions, and give them the chance to earn money if they get things right, that will sometimes nudge these markets away from those other incentives, making the markets commercial enterprises of their own. It can shift the bias away from posturing and toward monetization, and that in turn, in theory at least, should make prediction markets more accurate because people will try to align themselves with the actual, real-deal outcome, rather than the popular—with their social tribe, at least—or compellingly unpopular view.This is the theory that underpins entities like Polymarket, Kalshi, Manifold Markets, and many other online prediction markets that have arisen over the past handful of years as regulations on these types of businesses have been eased, and as they’ve begun to establish themselves as credible players in the predicting-everything space.In politics in particular, these markets have semi-regularly shown themselves to be better gauges of who will actually win elections than conventional polls and surveys, and though their records are far from perfect and still heavily biased in some cases, such community-driven predictions from money-motivated markets are gaining credibility because of their capacity to incentivize people to put their money where their mouths are, and to try to profit from accurate preordination.The flip-side of these markets, and some might even say a built-in flaw with no obvious solution, is that they are rife with insider trading: people who are in the position to know things ahead of time making in some cases millions of dollars by placing big bets that, for them, aren’t bets at all, because they know what will or what is likely to happen.This seems to have occurred at least a few times with big political events in 2025, and it’s anticipated that it could become an even bigger issue in the future, especially for markets that use cryptocurrencies to manage payments, as those are even less likely than their fiat currency peers to keeps solid tabs on who’s actually behind these bets, and thus who might be trading on knowledge that they’re not supposed to be trading on.That said, it could be argued that such insider trading makes these markets even more accurate, eventually at least. And that points us toward another problem: the possibility that someone on the inside might look at a market and realize they can make a killing if they use their position, their power to sway these markets after placing a bet, giving them the ability to assure a payout by abusing their position—major events being influenced by the possibility of a community-funded payday for those in control.What I’d like to talk about today is the same general principle as it’s playing out in the sports world, and why the huge sums of money that are now sloshing around in the sports betting industry in the US are beginning to worry basically everyone, except the sports betting companies themselves.—In October of 2025, the head coach of the NBA basketball team, the Portland Trail Blazers, Chauncey Billups, Miami Heat player Terry Rozier, and former NBA player Damon Jones, and about 30 other people were arrested by the FBI due to their alleged illegal sports gambling activities. Rozier was already under investigation following unusual betting activity that was linked to his performance in a 2023 game—he was later cleared of wrongdoing, but the implication then and in this more recent instance is that he and those other folks who were rounded up by the FBI may have been involved in rigging things so they could get a big payoff on gambling markets.Similar things have been happening across the sports world, including a lifetime ban for Jontay Porter, a former Toronto Raptors player, who appar

This week we talk about energy consumption, pollution, and bipartisan issues.We also discuss local politics, data center costs, and the Magnificent 7 tech companies.Recommended Book: Against the Machine by Paul KingsnorthTranscriptIn 2024, the International Energy Agency estimated that data centers consumed about 1.5% of all electricity generated, globally, that year. It went on to project that energy consumption by data centers could double by 2030, though other estimates are higher, due to the ballooning of investment in AI-focused data centers by some of the world’s largest tech companies.There are all sorts of data centers that serve all kinds of purposes, and they’ve been around since the mid-20th century, since the development of general purposes digital computers, like the 1945 Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, or ENIAC, which was programmable and reprogrammable, and used to study, among other things, the feasibility of thermonuclear weapons.ENIAC was built on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania and cost just shy of $500,000, which in today’s money would be around $7 million. It was able to do calculators about a thousand times faster than other, electro-mechanical calculators that were available at the time, and was thus considered to be a pretty big deal, making some types of calculation that were previously not feasible, not only feasible, but casually accomplishable.This general model of building big-old computers at a center location was the way of things, on a practical level, until the dawn of personal computers in the 1980s. The mainframe-terminal setup that dominated until then necessitated that the huge, cumbersome computing hardware was all located in a big room somewhere, and then the terminal devices were points of access that allowed people to tap into those centralized resources.Microcomputers of the sort of a person might have in their home changed that dynamic, but the dawn of the internet reintroduced something similar, allowing folks to have a computer at home or at their desk, which has its own resources, but to then tap into other microcomputers, and to still other larger, more powerful computers across internet connections. Going on the web and visiting a website is basically just that: connecting to another computer somewhere, that distant device storing the website data on its hard drive and sending the results to your probably less-powerful device, at home or work.In the late-90s and early 2000s, this dynamic evolved still further, those far-off machines doing more and more heavy-lifting to create more and more sophisticated online experiences. This manifested as websites that were malleable and editable by the end-user—part of the so-called Web 2.0 experience, which allowed for comments and chat rooms and the uploading of images to those sites, based at those far off machines—and then as streaming video and music, and proto-versions of social networks became a thing, these channels connecting personal devices to more powerful, far-off devices needed more bandwidth, because more and more work was being done by those powerful, centrally located computers, so that the results could be distributed via the internet to all those personal computers and, increasingly, other devices like phones and tablets.Modern data centers do a lot of the same work as those earlier iterations, though increasingly they do a whole lot more heavy-lifting labor, as well. They’ve got hardware capable of, for instance, playing the most high-end video games at the highest settings, and then sending, frame by frame, the output of said video games to a weaker device, someone’s phone or comparably low-end computer, at home, allowing the user of those weaker devices to play those games, their keyboard or controller inputs sent to the data center fast enough that they can control what’s happening and see the result on their own screen in less than the blink of an eye.This is also what allows folks to store backups on cloud servers, big hard drives located in such facilities, and it’s what allows the current AI boom to function—all the expensive computers and their high-end chips located at enormous data centers with sophisticated cooling systems and high-throughput cables that allow folks around the world to tap into their AI models, interact with them, have them do heavy-lifting for them, and then those computers at these data centers send all that information back out into the world, to their devices, even if those devices are underpowered and could never do that same kind of work on their own.What I’d like to talk about today are data centers, the enormous boom in their construction, and how these things are becoming a surprise hot button political issue pretty much everywhere.—As of early 2024, the US was host to nearly 5,400 data centers sprawled across the country. That’s more than any other nation, and that number is growing quickly as those aforementioned enormous tech companies,

This week we talk about NVIDIA, AI companies, and the US economy.We also discuss the US-China chip-gap, mixed-use technologies, and export bans.Recommended Book: Enshittification by Cory DoctorowTranscriptI’ve spoken about this a few times in recent months, but it’s worth rehashing real quick because this collection of stories and entities are so central to what’s happening across a lot of the global economy, and is also fundamental, in a very load-bearing way, to the US economy right now.As of November of 2025, around the same time that Nvidia, the maker of the world’s best AI-optimized chips at the moment became the world’s first company to achieve a $5 trillion market cap, the top seven highest-valued tech companies, including Nvidia, accounted for about 32% of the total value of the US stock market.That’s an absolutely astonishing figure, as while Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Broadcom, and Meta all have a fairly diverse footprint even beyond their AI efforts, a lot of that value for all of them is predicated on expected future income; which is to say, their market caps, their value according to that measure, is determined not by their current assets and revenue, but by what investors think or hope they’ll pull in and be worth in the future.That’s important to note because historically the sorts of companies that have market caps that are many multiples of their current, more concrete values are startups; companies in their hatchling phase that have a good idea and some kind of big potential, a big moat around what they’re offering or a blue ocean sub-industry with little competition in which they can flourish, and investment is thus expected to help them grow fast.These top seven tech companies, in contrast, are all very mature, have been around for a while and have a lot of infrastructure, employees, expenses, and all the other things we typically associated with mature businesses, not flashy startups with their best days hopefully ahead of them.Some analysts have posited that part of why these companies are pushing the AI thing so hard, and in particular pushing the idea that they’re headed toward some kind of generally useful AI, or AGI, or superhuman AI that can do everyone’s jobs better and cheaper than humans can do them, is that in doing so, they’re imagining a world in which they, and they alone, because of the costs associated with building the data centers required to train and run the best-quality AI right now, are capable of producing basically an economy’s-worth of AI systems and bots and machines operated by those AI systems.In other words, they’re creating, from whole cloth, an imagined scenario in which they’re not just worthy of startup-like valuations, worthy of market caps that are tens or hundreds of times their actual concrete value, because of those possible futures they’re imagining in public, but they’re the only companies worthy of those valuation multiples; the only companies that matter anymore.It’s likely that even if this is the case, that the folks in charge of these companies, and the investors who have money in them who are likely to profit when the companies grow and grow, actually do believe what they’re telling everyone about the possibilities inherent in building these sorts of systems.But there also seems to be a purely economic motive for exaggerating a lot and clearing out as much of the competition as possible as they grow bigger and bigger. Because maybe they’ll actually make what they’re saying they can make as a result of all that investment, that exuberance, but maybe, failing that, they’ll just be the last companies standing after the bubble bursts and an economic wildfire clears out all the smaller companies that couldn’t get the political relationships and sustaining cash they needed to survive the clear-out, if and when reality strikes and everyone realizes that sci-fi outcome isn’t gonna happen, or isn’t gonna happen any time soon.What I’d like to talk about today is a recent decision by the US government to allow Nvidia to sell some of its high-powered chips to China, and why that decision is being near-universally derided by those in the know.—In early December 2025, after a lot of back-and-forthing on the matter, President Trump announced that the US government will allow Nvidia, which is a US-based company, to export its H200 processors to China. He also said that the US government will collect a 25% fee on these sales.The H200 is Nvidia’s second-best chip for AI purposes, and it’s about six-times as powerful as the H20, which is currently the most advanced Nvidia chip that’s been cleared for sale to China. The Blackwell chip that is currently Nvidia’s most powerful AI offering is about 1.5-times faster than the H200 for training purposes, and five-times faster for AI inferencing, which is what they’re used for after a model is trained, and then it’s used for predictions, decisions, and so on.The logic of keeping the highest-end chips f

This week we talk about in-game skins, investment portfolios, and Counter-Strike 2.We also discuss ebooks, Steam, and digital licenses.Recommended Book: Apple in China by Patrick McGeeTranscriptAlmost always, if you buy an ebook or game or movie or music album online, you’re not buying that ebook, or that game, or whatever else—you’re buying a license that allows you access it, often on a specified device or in a specified way, and almost always in a non-transferrable, non-permanent manner.This distinction doesn’t matter much to most of us most of the time. If I buy an ebook, chances are I just want to read that ebook on the device I used to buy it, or the kindle attached to my Amazon or other digital book service account. So I buy the book, read it on my ebook reader or phone, and that’s that; same general experience I would have with a paperback or hardback book.This difference becomes more evident when you think about what happens to the book after you read it, though. If I own a hard-copy, physical book, I can resell it. I can donate it. I can put it in a Little Free Library somewhere in my neighborhood, or give it to a friend who I think will enjoy it. I can pick it up off my shelf later and read the exact same book I read years before. Via whichever mechanism I choose, I’m either holding onto that exact book for later, or I’m transferring ownership of that book, that artifact that contains words and/or images that can now be used, read, whatever by that second owner. And they can go on to do the same: handing it off to a friend, selling it on ebay, or putting it on a shelf for later reference.Often the convenience and immediacy of electronic books makes this distinction a non-issue for those who enjoy them. I can buy an ebook from Amazon or Bookshop.org and that thing is on my device within seconds, giving me access to the story or information that’s the main, valuable component of a book for most of us, without any delay, without having to drive to a bookstore or wait for it to arrive in the mail. That’s a pretty compelling offer.This distinction becomes more pressing, however, if I decide I want to go back and read an ebook I bought years ago, later, only to find that the license has changed and maybe that book is no longer accessible via the marketplace where I purchased it. If that happens, I no longer have access to the book, and there’s no recourse for this absence—I agreed to this possibility when I “bought” the book, based on the user agreement I clicked ‘OK’ or ‘I agree’ on when I signed up for Amazon or whichever service I paid for that book-access.It also becomes more pressing if, as has happened many times over the past few decades, the publisher or some other entity with control over these book assets decides to change them.A few years ago, for instance, British versions of Roald Dalh’s ‘Matilda’ were edited to remove references to Joseph Conrad, who has in recent times been criticized for his antisemitism and racist themes in his writing. Some of RL Stine’s Goosebumps books were edited to remove references to crushes schoolgirls had on their headmaster, and descriptions of an overweight character that were, in retrospect, determined to be offensive. And various racial and ethnic slurs were edited out of some of Agatha Christie’s works around the same time.Almost always, these changes aren’t announced by the publishers who own the rights to these books, and they’re typically only discovered by eagle-eyed readers who note that, for instance, the publishers decided to change the time period in which something occurred, which apparently happened in one of Stine’s works, without obvious purpose. This also frequently happens without the author being notified, as was the case with Stine and the edits made to his books. The publishers themselves, when asked directly about these changes, often remain silent on the matter.What I’d like to talk about today is another angle of this distinction between physically owned media and digital, licensed versions of the same, and the at times large sums of money that can be gained or lost based on the decisions of the companies that control these licensed assets.—Counter-Strike 2 is a first-person shooter game that’s free-to-play, was released in 2023, and was developed by a company called Valve.Valve has developed all sorts of games over the years, including the Counter-Strike, Half-Life, DOTA, and Portal games, but they’re probably best known for their Steam software distribution platform.Steam allows customers to buy all sorts of software, but mostly games through an interface that also provides chat services and community forums. But the primary utility of this platform is that it’s a marketplace for buying and selling games, and it has match-making features for online multiplayer games, serves as a sort of library for gamers, so all their games are launchable from one place, and it serves as a digital rights management hub, which basically means it help

This week we talk about floods, wildfires, and reinsurance companies.We also discuss the COP meetings, government capture, and air pollution.Recommended Book: If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares TranscriptThe urban area that contains India’s capital city, New Delhi, called the National Capital Territory of Delhi, has a population of around 34.7 million people. That makes it the most populous city in the country, and one of the most populous cities in the world.Despite the many leaps India has made over the past few decades, in terms of economic growth and overall quality of life for residents, New Delhi continues to have absolutely abysmal air quality—experts at India’s top research hospital have called New Delhi’s air “severe and life-threatening,” and the level of toxic pollutants in the air, from cars and factories and from the crop-waste burning conducted by nearby farmers, can reach 20-times the recommended level for safe breathing.In mid-November 2025, the problem became so bad that the government told half its workers to work from home, because of the dangers represented by the air, and in the hope that doing so would remove some of the cars on the road and, thus, some of the pollution being generated in the area.Trucks spraying mist, using what are called anti-smog guns, along busy roads and pedestrian centers help—the mist keeping some of the pollution from cars from billowing into the air and becoming part of the regional problem, rather than an ultra-localized one, and pushing the pollutants that would otherwise get into people’s lungs down to the ground—though the use of these mist-sprayers has been controversial, as there are accusations that they’re primarily deployed near air-quality monitoring stations, and that those in charge put them there to make it seem like the overall air-quality is lower than it is, manipulating the stats so that their failure to improve practical air-quality isn’t as evident.And in other regional news, just southeast across the Bay of Bengal, the Indonesian government, as of the day I’m recording this, is searching for the hundreds of people who are still missing following a period of unusually heavy rains. These rains have sparked floods and triggered mudslides that have blocked roads, damaged bridges, and forced the evacuation of entire villages. More than 300,000 people have been evacuated as of last weekend, and more rain is forecast for the coming days.The death toll of this round of heavy rainfall—the heaviest in the region in years—has already surpassed 440 people in Indonesia, with another 160 and 90 in Thailand and Vietnam, respectively, being reported by those countries’ governments, from the same weather system.In Thailand, more than two million people were displaced by flooding, and the government had to deploy military assets, including helicopters launched from an aircraft carrier, to help rescue people from the roofs of buildings across nine provinces.In neighboring Malaysia, tens of thousands of people were forced into shelters as the same storm system barreled through, and Sri Lanka was hit with a cyclone that left at least 193 dead and more than 200 missing, marking one of the country’s worst weather disasters in recent years.What I’d like to talk about today is the climatic moment we’re at, as weather patterns change and in many cases, amplify, and how these sorts of extreme disasters are also causing untold, less reported upon but perhaps even more vital, for future policy shifts, at least, economic impacts.—The UN Conference of the Parties, or COP meetings, are high-level climate change conferences that have typically been attended by representatives from most governments each year, and where these representatives angle for various climate-related rules and policies, while also bragging about individual nations’ climate-related accomplishments.In recent years, such policies have been less ambitious than in previous ones, in part because the initial surge of interest in preventing a 1.5 degrees C increase in average global temperatures is almost certainly no longer an option; climate models were somewhat accurate, but as with many things climate-related, seem to have actually been a little too optimistic—things got worse faster than anticipated, and now the general consensus is that we’ll continue to shoot past 1.5 degrees C over the baseline level semi-regularly, and within a few years or a decade, that’ll become our new normal.The ambition of the 2015 Paris Agreement is thus no longer an option. We don’t yet have a new, generally acceptable—by all those governments and their respective interests—rallying cry, and one of the world’s biggest emitters, the United States, is more or less absent at new climate-related meetings, except to periodically show up and lobby for lower renewables goals and an increase in subsidies for and policies that favor the fossil fuel industry.The increase in both number and potency

This week we talk about radioactive waste, neutrons, and burn while breeding cycles.We also discuss dry casks, radioactive decay, and uranium.Recommended Book: Breakneck by Dan WangTranscriptRadioactive waste, often called nuclear waste, typically falls into one of three categories: low-level waste that contains a small amount of radioactivity that will last a very short time—this is stuff like clothes or tools or rags that have been contaminated—intermediate-level waste, which has been contaminated enough that it requires shielding, and high-level waste, which is very radioactive material that creates a bunch of heat because of all the radioactive decay, so it requires both shield and cooling.Some types of radioactive waste, particularly spent fuel of the kind used in nuclear power plants, can be reprocessed, which means separating it into other types of useful products, including another type of mixed nuclear fuel that can be used in lieu of uranium, though generally not economically unless uranium supplies are low. About a third of all spent nuclear fuel has already been reprocessed in some way.About 4% of even the recyclable stuff, though, doesn’t have that kind of second-life purpose, and that, combined with the medium- and long-lived waste that is quite dangerous to have just sitting around, has to be stored somehow, shielded and maybe cooled, and in some cases for a very long time: some especially long-lived fission products have half-lives that stretch into the hundreds of thousands or millions of years, which means they will be radioactive deep into the future, many times longer than humans have existed as a species.According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, something like 490,000 metric tons of radioactive spent fuel is currently being stored, on a temporary basis, at hundreds of specialized sites around the world. The majority of this radioactive waste is stored in pools of spent fuel water, cooled in that water somewhere near the nuclear reactors where the waste originated. Other waste has been relocated into what’re called dry casks, which are big, barrel-like containers made of several layers of steel, concrete, and other materials, which surround a canister that holds the waste, and the canister is itself surrounded by inert gas. These casks hold and cool waste using natural air convection, so they don’t require any kind of external power or water sources, while other solutions, including storage in water, sometimes does—and often the fuel is initially stored in pools, and is then moved to casks for longer-term storage.Most of the radioactive waste produced today comes in the form of spend fuel from nuclear reactors, which are typically small ceramic pellets made of low-enriched uranium oxide. These pellets are stacked on top of each other and encased in metal, and that creates what’s called a fuel rod.In the US, alone, about 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is created each year, which is just shy of half an olympic sized swimming pool in terms of volume, and in many countries, the non-reuseable stuff is eventually buried, near the surface for the low- to intermediate-level waste, and deeper for high-level waste—deeper, in this context, meaning something like 200-1000 m, which is about 650-3300 feet, beneath the surface.The goal of such burying is to prevent potential leakage that might impact life on the surface, while also taking advantage of the inherent stability and cooler nature of underground spaces which are chosen for their isolation, natural barriers, and water impermeability, and which are also often reinforced with human-made supports and security, blocking everything off and protecting the surrounding area so nothing will access these spaces far into the future, and so that they won’t be broken open by future glaciation or other large-scale impacts, either.What I’d like to talk about today is another potential use and way of dealing with this type of waste, and why a recent, related development in China is being heralded as such a big deal.—An experimental nuclear reactor was built in the Gobi Desert by the Chinese Academy of Sciences Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, and back in 2023 the group achieved its first criticality, got started up, basically, and it has been generating heat through nuclear fission ever since.What that means is that the nuclear reactor did what a nuclear reactor is supposed to do. Most such reactors exist to generate heat, which then creates steam and spins turbines, which generates electricity.What’s special about this reactor, though, is that it is a thorium molten salt reactor, which means it uses thorium instead of uranium as a fuel source, and the thorium is processed into uranium as part of the energy-making process, because thorium only contains trace amounts of fissile material, which isn’t enough to get a power-generating, nuclear chain reaction going.This reactor was able to successfully perform what’s called in-core thori

This week we talk about Venezuela, casus belli, and drug smuggling.We also discuss oil reserves, Maduro, and Machado.Recommended Book: Dungeon Crawler Carl by Matt DinnimanTranscriptVenezuela, which suffered all sorts of political and economic crises under former president Hugo Chávez, has suffered even more of the same, and on a more dramatic scale, under Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro.Both Chávez and Maduro have ruled over autocratic regimes, turning ostensibly democratic Venezuelan governments into governments ruled by a single person, and those they like and empower and reward, over time removing anyone from power who might challenge them, and collapsing all checks and balances within the structure of their government.They still hold elections, then, but like in Russia, the voting is just for show, the outcome predetermined, and anyone who gets too popular and who isn’t favored by the existing regime is jailed or killed or otherwise neutralized; the votes are then adjusted when necessary to make it look like the regime is still popular, and anyone who challenges that seeming popularity is likewise taken care of.As a result of that state of affairs, an unpopular regime with absolute power running things into the ground over the course of two autocrats’ administrations, Venezuela has suffered immense hyperinflation, high levels of crime and widespread disease, ever-increasing mortality rates, and even starvation, as fundamentals like food periodically become scarce. This has led to a swell of emigration out of the country, which has, during the past decade, become the largest ever recorded refugee crisis in the Americas, those who leave mostly flooding into neighboring countries like Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador.As of 2025, it’s estimated that nearly 8 million people, more than 20% of Venezuela’s entire population as of 2017, has fled the country to get away from the government, its policies, its collapsed economy, and the cultural homogeny that has led to so much crime, conflict, and oppression of those not favored by the people in charge.This has also led to some Venezuelans trying to get into the US, which was part of the justification for a proposed invasion of the country, by the US government, under the first Trump administration in 2017.The idea was that this is a corrupt, weak government that also happens to possess the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Its production of oil has collapsed along with everything else, in part because the government is so ineffectual, and in part because of outside forces, like longstanding sanctions by the US, which makes selling and profiting from said oil on the global market difficult.Apparently, though, Trump also just liked the idea of invading Venezuela through US ally Colombia, saying—according to Trump’s National Security advisor at the time, John Bolton—that Venezuela is really part of the US, so it would be “cool” for the US to take it. Trump also later said, in 2023, that when he left office Venezuela was about to collapse, and that he would have taken it over if he had been reelected instead of losing to Joe Biden, and the US would have then kept all the country’s oil.So there’s long been a seeming desire by Trump to invade Venezuela, partly on vibe grounds, the state being weak and why shouldn’t we own it, that kind of thing? But underlying that is the notion of the US being a country that can stomp into weaker countries, take their oil, and then nation-build, similar to what the government seemed to be trying to do when it invaded Iraq in the early 2000s, using 9/11 as a casus belli, an excuse to go to war, with an uninvolved nation that happened to own a bunch of oil resources the US government wanted for itself.What I’d like to talk about today is the seeming resurgence of that narrative, but this time with an, actual tangible reason to believe an invasion of Venezuela might occur sometime soon.—As I mentioned, though previously kind of a success story in South America, bringing people in from all over the continent and the world, Venezuela has substantially weakened under its two recent autocratic leaders, who have rebuilt everything in their image, and made corruption and self-serving the main driver behind their decisions for the direction of the country.A very popular candidate, María Corina Machado, was barred from participating in the country’s 2024 election, the country’s Supreme Court ruling that a 15-year ban on her holding public office because of her involvement with an alleged plot against Maduro with a previous candidate for office, Juan Guaido; Guiado is now in exile, run out of the country for winning an election against Maduro, which Maduro’s government has claimed wasn’t legit, but which dozens of governments recognize as having been legitimate, despite Maduro’s clinging to power after losing.So Machado is accused of being corrupt by Maduro’s corrupt government, and thus isn’t allowed to run for office. Another candidate t

This week we talk about OxyContin, opium, and the British East India Company.We also discuss isotonitazene, fentanyl, and Perdue.Recommended Book: The Thinking Machine by Stephen WittTranscriptOpioids have been used as painkillers by humans since at least the Neolithic period; there’s evidence that people living in the Iberian and Italian Peninsulas kept opium poppy seeds with them, and there’s even more evidence that the Ancient Greeks were big fans of opium, using it to treat pain and as a sleep aid.Opium was the only available opioid for most of human history, and it was almost always considered to be a net-positive, despite its downsides. It was incorporated into a mixture called laudanum, which was a blend of opium and alcohol, in the 17th century, and that helped it spread globally as Europeans spread globally, though it was also in use locally, elsewhere, especially in regions where the opium poppy grew naturally.In India, for instance, opium was grown and often used for its painkilling properties, but when the British East India Company took over, they decided to double-down on the substance as a product they could monopolize and grow into a globe-spanning enterprise.They went to great lengths to expand production and prevent the rise of potential competitors, in India and elsewhere, and they created new markets for opium in China by forcing the product onto Chinese markets, initially via smuggling, and then eventually, after fighting a series of wars focused on whether or not the British should be allowed to sell opium on the Chinese market, the British defeated the Chinese. And among other severely unbalanced new treaties, including the ceding of the Kowloon peninsula to the British as part of Hong Kong, which they controlled as a trading port, and the legalization of Christians coming into the country, proselytizing, and owning property, the Chinese were forced to accept the opium trade. This led to generations of addicts, even more so than before, when opium was available only illicitly, and it became a major bone of contention between the two countries, and informed China’s relationship with the world in general, especially other Europeans and the US, moving forward.A little bit later, in the early 1800s, a German pharmacist was able to isolate a substance called morphine from opium. He published a paper on this process in 1817, and in addition to this being the first alkaloid, the first organic compound of this kind to be isolated from a medicinal plant, which was a milestone in the development of modern drug discovery, it also marked the arrival of a new seeming wonder drug, that could ease pain, but also help control cold-related symptoms like coughing and gut issues, like diarrhea. Like many such substances back in the day, it was also often used to treat women who were demonstrating ‘nervous character,’ which was code for ‘behaving in ways men didn’t like or understand.’Initially, it was thought that, unlike with opium, morphine wasn’t addictive. And this thinking was premised on the novel application method often used for morphine, the hypermedia needle, which arrived a half-century after that early 1800s isolation of morphine from opium, but which became a major driver of the new drug’s success and utility. Such drugs, derived scientifically rather than just processing a plant, could be administered at specific, controllable doses. So surely, it was thought, this would alleviate those pesky addictive symptoms that many people experienced when using opioids in a more natural, less science-y way.That, of course, turned out not to be the case. But it didn’t stop the progression of this drug type, and the further development of more derivations of it, including powerful synthetic opioids, which first hit the scene in the mid-20th century.What I’d like to talk about today is the recent wave of opioid addictions, especially but not exclusively in the US, and the newest concern in this space, which is massively more powerful than anything that’s come before.—As I mentioned, there have been surges in opioid use, latent and externally forced, throughout modern human history.The Chinese saw an intense wave of opioid addiction after the British forced opium onto their markets, to the point that there was a commonly held belief that the British were trying to overthrow and enslave the Chinese by weighing them down with so many addicts who were incapable of doing much of anything; which, while not backed by the documentation we have from the era—it seems like they were just chasing profits—is not impossible, given what the Brits were up to around the world at that point in history.That said, there was a huge influx in opioid use in the late-1980s, when a US-based company called Purdue Pharma began producing and pushing a time-released opioid medication, which really hit the big-time in 1995, when they released a version of the drug called OxyContin.OxyContin flooded the market, in part because it pro

This week we talk about Mach 1, the Bell X-1, and the Concorde.We also discuss the X-59, the Tu-144, and Boom Supersonic.Recommended Book: Red Team Blues by Cory DoctorowTranscriptThe term “supersonic,” when applied to speed, refers to something moving faster than the speed of sound—a speed that is shorthanded as Mach 1.The precise Mach 1 speed of sound will be different depending on the nature of the medium through which an object is traveling. So if you’re moving at sea level versus up high in the air, in the stratosphere, the speed of sound will be different. Likewise if you’re moving through moist air versus dry air, or moving through water versus moving through syrup, different speed of sound, different Mach 1.In general, though, to give a basic sense of how fast we’re talking here, if an object is moving at sea level through dry air at a temperature of 20 degrees celsius, which is 68 degrees fahrenheit, Mach 1 is about 768 miles per hour, which is about 1,126 feet per second, and 343.2 meters per second.It’s fast! It’s very fast. Again, this is the speed at which sound moves. So if you surpass the speed of sound, if you go supersonic, you will arrive faster than the sound you make while moving.Back in 1947, an experimental American plane called the Bell X-1 broke the sound barrier, surpassed Mach 1, reaching a speed of almost 1,000 miles per hour using a 6,000 pound thrust rocket propulsion system. A later version of the same rocket-powered plane, the Bell X-1A, which was basically the same vehicle, it just had more fuel capacity, allowing the rocket to burn longer, achieved 1,600 miles per hour in 1956.Prior to that, in 1943, British began working on a secret experimental aircraft called the Miles M.52, intending to build a plane capable of traveling 1,000 mph. Interestingly, this project was apparently the result of the British wanting to keep up with a supposed already existing German aircraft capable of achieving that speed, though it’s now believed the intelligence that led the British to believe the Germans had a supersonic-capable plane was the result of a mistranslation—the Germans hit 1,000 km per hour, which is about 621 mph, and still subsonic.Though apparently a success in terms of research and innovation, the Miles M.52 project was cancelled in 1946, due partly to budgetary concerns, and partly because the new government didn’t believe supersonic aircraft were practical, or maybe even feasible.After the existence of this project was revealed to the public, however, criticism for the cancellation mounted, and the design was translated into new, unmanned scale-model experimental versions of the plane which achieved controlled Mach 1.38 supersonic speeds, and both the design and research from this program was shared with the American company, Bell, and all that knowledge informed the development of the aforementioned Bell X-1 supersonic plane.Again, that successful Bell mission was flown in 1947, and in 1961, a Douglas jetliner, a commercial jet, broke the sound barrier during a controlled test dive, and that fed the development of an intended supersonic airliner in the US, though similar research being conducted elsewhere would bear more direct and immediate fruit.In the Soviet Union, a supersonic jetliner called the Tupolev Tu-144 entered service in 1968, and a jetliner co-developed by the British and French, the Concorde, began construction in 1965, and tallied its first flight in March of 1969.The Tu-144 was thus the world’s first commercial supersonic airliner, by a few months, and it also became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2, twice the speed of sound, in 1970.The Tu-144 was plagued by reliability issues from the get-go, however, and while performing maneuvers at an air show in Paris in 1973, it disintegrated in midair, which—combined with its high operating costs reduced its long-term market viability, especially internationally. By the mid-1970s, it was primarily operating within the Soviet Union, and after a new variant of the jet crashed in 1978, the Tu-144 program was cancelled in 1983. Existing models continued to be use for niche purposes, like training space program pilots, and for a supersonic research program undertaken by NASA in the late-1990s, but the final Tu-144 flight was in mid-1999, and all surviving aircraft are now on display or in storage.The Concorde has a similar history. Original forecasts for the supersonic airliner market were optimistic, and while the craft seemed to be generally more reliable and less issue-prone than the Tu-144, and it enjoyed a period of fanfare and promotion, as a sort of luxury experience for folks crossing the Atlantic in particular, cutting travel times in half, a major crash in mid-2000, which killed all 109 occupants and four people on the ground, led to the suspension of service until late-2001, and all remaining Concorde aircraft were retired in 2003—about 20 of them are on display throughout North American and Eur

This week we talk about robots, call center workers, and convenience stores.We also discuss investors, chatbots, and job markets.Recommended Book: The Fourth Consort by Edward AshtonTranscriptThough LLM-based generative AI software, like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, are becoming more and more powerful by the month, and offering newfangled functionality seemingly every day, it’s still anything but certain these tools, and the chatbots they power, will take gobs of jobs from human beings.The tale that’s being told by upper-management at a lot of companies makes it seem like this is inevitable, though there would seem to be market incentives for them to both talk and act like this is the case.Companies that make new, splashy investments in AI tech, or which make deals with big AI companies, purporting to further empower their offerings and to “rightsize” their staff as a consequence, tend to see small to moderate bumps in their stock price, and that’s good for the execs and other management in those companies, many of whom own a lot of stock, or have performance incentives related to the price of their stock built into their larger pay package.But often, not always, but quite a lot of the time, the increased effectiveness and efficiencies claimed by these higher-ups after they go on a firing spree and introduce new AI tools, seem to be at least partly, and in some cases mostly attributable to basically just threatening their staff with being fired in a difficult labor market.When Google executives lay off 5 or 10% of their staff on a given team, for instance, and then gently urge those who survived the cull to come to the office more frequently rather than working from home, and tell them that 60 hours a week is the sweet spot for achieving their productivity goals, that will tend to lead to greater outputs—at least for a while. Same as any other industry where blood has been drawn and a threat is made if people don’t live up to a casually stated standard presented by the person drawing that blood.Also worth mentioning here is that many of the people introducing these tools, both into their own companies and into the market as a whole, seem to think most jobs can be done by AI systems, but not theirs. Many executives have outright said that future businesses will have a small number of people managing a bunch of AI bots, and at least a few investors have said that they believe most jobs can be automated, but investing is too specialized and sophisticated, and will likely remain the domain of clever human beings like themselves.All of which gestures at what we’re seeing in labor markets around the globe right now, where demands for new hires are becoming more intense and a whole lot of low-level jobs in particular are disappearing entirely—though in most cases this is not because of AI, or not just, but instead because of automation more broadly; something that AI is contributing to, but something that is also a lot bigger than AI.And that’s what I’d like to talk about today. The rapid-speed deployment, in some industries and countries, at least, of automated systems, of robots, basically, and how this is likely to impact the already ailing labor markets in the places that are seeing the spearpoint of this deployment.—Chatbots are AI tools that are capable of taking input from users and responding with often quite human-sounding text, and increasingly, audio as well.These bots are the bane of some customers who are looking to speak to a human about some unique need or problem, but who are instead forced to run a gauntlet of AI-powered bots. The interaction often happens in the same little chat window through which they’ll eventually, if they say the right magic words, reach a human being capable of actually helping them. And like so many of the AI innovations that have been broadly deployed at this point, this is a solution that’s generally hated by customers, but lauded by the folks who run these companies, because it saves them a lot of money if they can hire fewer human beings to handle support tickets, even if those savings are the result of most people giving up before successfully navigating the AI maze and reaching a human customer support worker.In India right now, the thriving call center industry is seeing early signs of disruption from the same. IT training centers, in particular, are experimenting with using audio-capable AI chatbots instead of human employees, in part because demand is so high, but also, increasingly, because doing so is cheaper than hiring actual human beings to do the same work.One such company, LimeChat, recently said that it plans to cut its employee base by 80% in the near-future, and if that experiment is successful, this could ripple through India’s $283 billion IT sector, which accounts for 7.5% of India’s GDP. Hiring growth in this sector already collapsed in 2024 and 2025, and again, while this shift seems to be pretty good for the balance books of the companies doing les

This week we talk about entanglements, monopolies, and illusory money.We also discuss electrification, LLMs, and data centers.Recommended Book: The Extinction of Experience by Christine RosenTranscriptOne of the big claims about artificial intelligence technologies, including but not limited to LLM-based generative AI tech, like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, is that they will serve as universal amplifiers.Electricity is another universal amplifier, in that electrifying systems allows you to get a lot more from pretty much every single thing you do, while also allowing for the creation of entirely new systems.Cooking things in the kitchen? Much easier with electricity. Producing things on an assembly line? The introduction of electricity allows you to introduce all sorts of robotics, measuring tools, and safety measures that would not have otherwise been available, and all of these things make the entire process safer, cheaper, and a heck of a lot more effective and efficient.The prime argument behind many sky-high AI company valuations, then, is that if these things evolve in the way they could evolve, becoming increasingly capable and versatile and cheap, cooking could become even easier, manufacturing could become still faster, cheaper, and safer, and every other aspect of society and the economy would see similar gains.If you’re the people making AI, if you own these tools, or a share of the income derived from them, that’s a potentially huge pot of money: a big return on your investment. People make fortunes off far more focused, less-impactful companies and technologies all the time, and being able to create the next big thing in not just one space, but every space? Every aspect of everything, potentially? That’s like owning a share of electricity, and making money every time anyone uses electricity for anything.Through that lens, the big boom in both use of and investment in AI technologies maybe shouldn’t be so surprising. This represents a potentially generational sea-change in how everything works, what the economy looks like, maybe even how governments are run, militaries fight, and so on. If you can throw money into the mix, why wouldn’t you? And if that’s the case, the billions upon billions of dollars sloshing around in this corner of the tech world make a lot of sense; it may be curious that there’s not even more money being invested.Belief in that promise is not universal, however.A lot of people see these technologies not as the next electricity, but maybe the next smartphone, or perhaps the next SUV.Smartphones changed a whole lot about society too, but they’re hardly the same groundbreaking, omni-powerful upgrade that electricity represents.SUVs, too, flogged sales for flailing car companies, boosting their revenues at a moment in which they desperately needed to sell more vehicles to survive. But they were just another, more popular model of what already came before. There’s a chance AI will be similar to that: better software than came before, for some people’s use-cases—but not revolutionary, not groundbreaking even on the scale of pocketable phone-computers.What I’d like to talk about today are the peculiar economics that seem to be playing a role in the AI boom, and why many analysts and financial experts are eyeballing these economics warily, worrying about what they maybe represent, and possibly portend.—The term ‘exuberance,’ in the context of markets, refers to an excitement among investors—sometimes professional investors, sometimes casual investors, sometimes both—about a particular company, technology, or financial product type.The surge in interest and investment in cryptoassets during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, including offshoot products like NFTs, was seemingly caused by a period of exuberance, sparked by the novelty of the product, the riches a few lucky insiders made off these products, and the desire by many people—pros and consumer-grade investors—to get in on that action, at a moment in which there wasn’t as much to do in the world as usual.Likewise, the gobs of money plowed into early internet companies, and the money thrown at companies laying fiberoptic cable for the presumed boom in internet customers, were, in retrospect, at least partly the consequence of irrational exuberance.In some cases these investors were just too early, as was the case with those cable-laying companies—the majority of them going out of business after blowing through a spectacular amount of money in a short period of time, and not finding enough paying customers to fund all that expansion—in others it was the result of sky-high valuations that were based on little beyond the exuberance of investors who probably should have known better, but who couldn’t get past their fear of missing out on the next big thing.In that latter case, that flow of money into early dotcom startups did fund a few winners that survived the eventual bursting of that bubble, but the majority of

This week we talk about trade wars, TACO theory, and Chinese imports.We also discuss negotiation, protectionism, and threat spirals.Recommended Book: More Than Words by John WarnerTranscriptIn January of 2018, then first-term US President Trump announced a slew of tariffs and trade barriers against several countries, including Canada, Mexico, and those in the European Union.The most significant of these new barriers and tariffs were enacted against China, though, as Trump had long claimed that China, the US’s most important trade partner by many measures, was taking advantage of the US market; a claim that economists tepidly backed, as while some of the specifics, like those related to intellectual property theft on the part of China, were pretty overt, the Chinese government fairly brazenly gobbling up IP and technology from US companies that do business in the country before hobbling those US interests in China and handing that IP and technology off to their own, China-born copies, claims about a trade deficit were less clear-cut—most of those sorts of claims seemed to be the result of a misunderstanding about how international trade works.That said, Trump had made a protectionist stance part of his platform, so he kicked off his administration by imposing a package of targeted tariffs against specific product categories from China, including things like solar panels and washing machines. Those were followed by more tariffs on steel and aluminum—from a lot of countries, not just China—and this implementation of trade barriers between the US and long-time trade partners, which had mostly enjoyed barrier-free trade up till that point, kicked off a trade war, with the Trump administration announcing, out of nowhere, new tariffs or limitations, and the country on the pointy end of that new declaration announcing their own counter, usually something the US sells to their country, while in the background, both countries tried to negotiate new trade terms on the down-low.There was a lot of tit-for-tatting in those first couple years of the first Trump administration, and they led to a lot of negotiations between the US government and these foreign governments, which in turn led to the lifting of many such barriers, though the weaponization of barriers continued, with the administration, for instance, announcing a tariff on all imports from Mexico until the Mexican government was able to halt all illegal immigration coming into the US; negotiation ended that threat, too, but this early salvo upset a lot of the US’s long-time allies, while also making it clear that Trump intended to open negotiations with these sorts of threats, whenever possible—which had the knock-on effect of everyone taking the threats pretty seriously, as they were often incredibly dangerous to specific industries, while also taking them less seriously because it was obvious they were intended to be a negotiating tactic.When Trump left office, a bunch of international relationships had been scarred by this approach to trade deals, and when Biden replaced him, he dropped most of the new tariffs against long-time allies, but kept most of the China tariffs in place, especially those related to green technologies like electric vehicles and semiconductors, the local-made versions of which were becoming a big focus for the Biden administration. The administration then went on to expand upon those tariffs, against China, in some cases.What I’d like to talk about today is how this approach to trade protectionism and negotiation has ballooned under the second Trump administration, and what a new threat against China by Trump might mean for how the relationship between these two countries evolves, moving forward.—Trump’s second administration opened with an executive order that declared a national emergency, claiming that the Chinese were trafficking drugs, especially synthetic opioids like fentanyl, into the US, and that this allowed criminals to profit from destroying the lives of US citizens.This declaration allowed him to unleash a flurry of tariffs against China, first imposing 10% on all Chinese imports, then increasing that to 20% in March of 2025.China retaliated, imposing tariffs of 15% on mostly US energy products, like coal and natural gas, and on some types of agricultural machines, while also engaging in some legal pressure against US companies, like Google. They followed this up with tariffs against meat and dairy products, and suspended US lumber import rights, and disallowed three US firms from selling soybeans to China.The US reciprocated, and China reciprocated back. There was a period of spiraling broad tariffs and import bans in the mid-2025 between the US and China, which led to an aggregate baseline tariff on Chinese imports of 104%, which was followed with an aggregate Chinese baseline tariff against US goods of 84%. The US then upped theirs to 145%, and China raised theirs to 125%.Again, vital to understanding this spiral is tha

This week we talk about Electronic Arts, 3DO, and the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund.We also discuss Jared Kushner, leveraged buyouts, and loot boxes.Recommended Book: Bandwidth by Dan CarusoTranscriptElectronic Arts, often shorthanded as EA, was founded in 1982 in California by a former Apple employee named Trip Hawkins, who also went on to found the ill-fated 3DO company, which made video game hardware, and the somewhat more prolific, but also ultimately ill-fated casual game developer Digital Chocolate.EA, though, has been an absolutely astounding success. It’s business model was predicated on the premise of selling video games directly to retailers, rather than going through intermediaries. This allowed them to gain more market share than their competitors right off the bat, and it helped them glean higher margins than their competitors from each direct sale, too.EA also established an early reputation for treating its developers really well. They were the first gaming company to feature their developers in advertising and to give them platforms, promoting them as video game artists, basically, and it shared the profits netted from those direct sales with these develops—which in turn meant all the best developers really wanted to work for EA, which led to a beneficial cycle where they created better and better, and more and more financially successful games.In the late-80s, they started deviating from this model somewhat, scooping up a collection of successful independent game development studios and deviating, at times, from the creative lead’s vision when releasing their games. They also refocused a fair bit of their resources on franchises, like the immensely successful, as it turned out, Madden NFL series, and they branched out into producing games for the console market, including the still-new Nintendo Entertainment System, in 1990.That same year, EA went public on the NASDAQ, the company got new leadership when Hawkins decided to refocus on his far less successful 3DO hardware startup, and in an interesting twist, the arrival of the Sony Playstation in North America caused EA to drop support for 3DO hardware in the mid-90s so it could refocus on Playstation games, which were a lot more lucrative.By the mid-90s, EA had an astonishingly large and successful software library, including franchises like the aforementioned Madden games and the FIFA soccer games, but also celebrity-tied games like Shaq Fu, and military shooters like Jungle and Urban Strike.By the early-2000s, EA was making exclusive licensing deals with the NFL and ESPN, in order to stave off newfound sports game competitors, and it was the only video game company to consistently make a profit, most others experiencing feast and famine cycles, with periodic wins, but a whole lot of losses they had to cover with the profits from those wins. EA, in contrast, had a reliable stable of profit-sources, and it thus had a whole lot of leverage in terms of attracting and retaining talent, but also getting big names and brands on board, for collaborative projects.What I’d like to talk about today is what happened to EA during and following the 2008 economic crisis, and how and why it recently became an acquisition target for Saudi Arabia.—In 2008, when the global economy was collapsing, EA suffered a bad holiday sales season and fired 1,100 employees and closed 12 of their facilities early the following year. Later in 2009, the company announced the firing of another 1,500 employees, which was about 17% of their total workforce at the time, and in 2010 they acquired a gaming company that focused on mobile games, which were becoming increasingly popular, now that many people had touch-capable smartphones, which brought hot new franchises like Angry Birds under their brand umbrella.On the strength of that acquisition and all those downsizings, in early 2011, EA announced that it hit $3.8 billion in revenue in the financial year for the first time, and in early 2012, it announced it surpassed $1 billion in digital revenue during the previous year, which was a huge figure that early in the digital media landscape. It used some of those profits to scoop up another mobile-first gaming company, adding properties like Plants vs Zombies and Peggle to their library.EA completed another mass-firing in 2013, dismissing 10% of their employees under what they called a reorganization, around the same time they announced an exclusive license with Disney that would allow them to develop Star Wars games.Their stock value boomed in the following years, as a result of those cost-savings measures, and those new relationships, and emboldened by record-high stock valuations, in the mid-20-teens, the company started releasing big-name games, like Star Wars Battlefront 2, with random-content loot boxes and other sorts of microtransactions.This did not go over well with players, who decried these in-game purchasing options as ‘pay to win’ mechanics, as players could

This week we talk about Article 4, big sticks, and spheres of influence.We also discuss Moldova, super powers, and new fronts.Recommended Book: More Everything Forever by Adam BeckerTranscriptThe North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was originally formed in 1949 in the wake of World War 2 and at the beginning of the Cold War.At that moment, the world was beginning to orient toward what we might think of as the modern global order, which at the time was predicated on having two superpowers—the US and the Soviet Union—and the world being carved up into their respective spheres of influence.NATO was formed as the military component of that protection effort, as the Soviets (and other powers who had occupied that land in the past) had a history of turning their neighbors into client states, because their territory provides little in the way of natural borders. Their inclination, then, was to either invade or overthrow neighboring governments so they could function as buffers between the Soviet Union and its potential enemies.The theory behind NATO is collective security: if anyone attacks one of the member nations, the others will come to their aid. Article 5 of the NATO treaty says that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all members, and while this theoretically would be applied against any would-be attacker, it was 100% created so that the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies knew that if they attacked, for instance, Norway, the other NATO nations—including, importantly, the United States, which again, was one of just two superpowers in the world at that point, all the other powers, like the UK and France having been devastated by WWII—would join in their defense.NATO, today, is quite a bit bigger than it was originally: it started out with just 12 countries in Europe and North America, and as of 2025, there are 32, alongside a handful of nations that are hoping to join, and are at various points along the way to possibly someday becoming member states.What I’d like to talk about today are recent provocations by the Soviet Union’s successor state, Russia, against NATO, and what these provocations might portend for the future of the region.—In early 2014, Russia invaded—in a somewhat deniable way, initially funding local rabble-rousers and using unmarked soldiers and weapons—the eastern portion of Ukraine, and then annexed an important Black Sea region called Crimea. Then in early 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, massing hundreds of thousands of military assets on their shared border before plunging toward Ukraine’s capitol and other vital strategic areas.Against the odds, as Ukraine is small and poor compared to Russia, and has a far smaller military, as well, Ukrainians managed to hold off the Russian assault, and today, about 3.5 years later, Ukraine continues to hold Russia off, though Russian forces have been making incremental gains in the eastern portion of the country over the past year, and Russian President Putin seems convinced he can hold the Donbas region, in particular, even if peace is eventually declared.At the moment, though, peace seems unlikely, as Russian forces continue to grind against increasingly sophisticated and automated Ukrainian defenses, the invading force, in turn, bolstered by North Korean ammunition and troops. Ukraine’s exhausted soldiery is periodically and irregularly bulwarked by resources from regional and far-flung allies, helping them stay in the game, and they’re fleshing out their locally grown defense industry, which has specialized in asymmetric weaponry like drones and rockets, but Russia still has the advantage by pretty much any metric we might use to gauge such things.Over the past three weeks, concerns that this conflict might spill over into the rest of Europe have been heightened by Russian provocations along the eastern edge of the NATO alliance.Russia flew drones into Poland and Romania, fighter jets into Estonia, and aggressively flew fighters over a Germany Navy frigate in the Baltic Sea. Article 4 of the NATO treaty was invoked, which is the lead-up invocation to an eventual invocation of Article 5, which would be a full-fledged defense, by the bloc, against someone who attacked a NATO member.And that’s on top of Russia’s persistent and ongoing efforts to influence politics in Moldova, which held an election over the weekend that could serve as a foot in the door for Russian influence campaigns and Russia-stoked coups within the EU, or could become one more hardened border against such aggressions, depending on how the election pans out. The final results aren’t in as of the day I’m recording this episode, but there are fears that if the pro-Russian parties win, they’ll turn the country—which is located on Ukraine’s borders, opposite Russia—into another Russian puppet state, similar to Belarus, but if the pro-Russian parties don’t do well, they’ll try to launch a coup, because Russian disinformation

This week we talk about corruption, influencers, and pro-monarchy protests.We also discuss Nepalese modern history, Gen Z, and kings.Recommended Book: Superagency by Reid Hoffman and Greg BeatoTranscriptThe Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, usually referred to as just Nepal, is a country located in the Himalayas that’s bordered to the northeast by China, and is otherwise surrounded by India, including in the east, where there’s a narrow sliver of India separating Nepal from Bhutan and Bangladesh.So Nepal is mostly mountainous, it’s landlocked, and it’s right in between two burgeoning regional powers who are also increasingly, in many ways, global powers. Its capital is Kathmandu, and there are a little over 31 million people in the country, as of 2024—more than 80% of them Hindu, and the country’s landmass spans about 57,000 square miles or 147.5 square kilometers, which is little smaller than the US state of Illinois, and almost exactly the same size as Bangladesh.Modern Nepal came about beginning in the mid-20th century, when the then-ruling Rana autocracy was overthrown in the wake of neighboring India’s independence movement, and a parliamentary democracy replaced it. But there was still a king, and he didn’t like sharing power with the rest of the government, so he did away with the democracy component of the government in 1960, making himself the absolute monarch and banning all political activities, which also necessitated jailing politicians.The country was modernized during this period, in the sense of building out infrastructure and such, but it was pulled backwards in many ways, as there wasn’t much in the way of individual liberties for civilians, and everything was heavily censored by the king and his people. In 1990, a multiparty movement called the People’s Movement forced the king, this one ascended to the throne in 1972, to adopt a constitution and allow a multiparty democracy in Nepal.One of the parties that decided to enter the local political fray, the Maoist Party, started violently trying to shift the country in another direction, replacing its parliamentary system with a people’s republic, similar to what was happening in China and the Soviet Union. This sparked a civil war that led to a whole lot of deaths, including those of the King and Crown Prince. The now-dead king’s brother stepped in, gave himself a bunch of new powers, and then tried to stomp the Maoist Party into submission.But there was a peaceful democratic revolution in the country in 2006, at which point the Maoists put down their arms and became a normal, nonviolent political party. Nepal then became a secular state, after being a Hindu kingdom for most of their modern history, and a few years later became a federal republic. It took a little while, and there was quite a bit of tumult in the meantime, but eventually, in 2015, the Nepalese government got a new constitution that divided the country into seven provinces and made Nepal a federal democratic republic.What I’d like to talk about today is what has happened in the past decade in Nepal, and how those happenings led to a recent, seemingly pretty successful, series of protests.—In early 2025, from March through early June, a series of protests were held across Nepal by pro-monarchy citizens and the local pro-monarchy party, initially in response to the former King’s visit, but later to basically just show discontentment with the current government.These protests were at least partly politically motivated, in the sense of being planned and fanned into larger conflagrations by that pro-monarchy party—not truly grassroots sort of thing—but they grew and grew, partly on the strength of opposition to the police response to earlier protests.That same distaste carried through the year, into September of 2025, when the Nepalese government announced a ban on 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Youtube, because the companies behind these platforms ostensibly failed to register under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology’s new rules that required, among other things, they have local liaisons that the government could meet with in person, and complain to if a given network failed to remove something they didn’t like quickly enough.The general sense about that ban is that while this failure to properly register was used as justification for shutting down these networks, which are incredibly popular in the country, the real reason the government wanted to shut them down at that moment was that a trend had emerged online in which the rich and powerful in the country, and especially their children, many of whom have become online influencers, were being criticized for their immense opulence and for bragging about their families’ vast wealth, while everyone else was comparably suffering.This became known as the Nepobaby or Nepo Kid trend, hashtag Nepobaby, which was a tag borrowed from Indonesia, and the general idea is that

This week we talk about stablecoins, crypto assets, and conflicts of interest.We also discuss the crypto industry, political contributions, and regulatory guardrails.Recommended Book: Throne of Glass by Sarah J. MaasTranscriptA cryptocoin is a unit of cryptocurrency. A cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency that uses some kind of non-central means of managing its ledger—keeping track of who has how much of it, basically.There have been other types of digital currency over the years, but cryptocurrencies often rely on the blockchain or a similarly distributed means of keeping tabs on who has what. A blockchain is a database, often public, of users and a list of those users’ assets that’s distributed between users, and it makes use of some kind of consensus mechanism to determine who actually owns what.Some cryptocurrencies ebb and flow in value, and are thus traded more like a stock or other type of non-fixed, finite asset. Bitcoin, for instance, is often treated like gold or high-growth stocks. NFTs, similarly, create a sort of artificial scarcity, producing unique digital goods by putting their ownership on a blockchain or other proof-of-ownership system.Stablecoins are also cryptocurrencies, but instead of floating, their value growing and dropping based on the interest of would-be buyers, they are meant to maintain a steady value—to be stable, like a national currency.In order to achieve this, the folks who maintain stablecoins often use reserve assets to prop up their value. So if you produce a new stablecoin and want to issue a million of them, each worth one US dollar, you might accumulate a million actual US dollars, put those in a bank account, show everybody the number of dollars in that bank account, and then it’s pretty easy to argue that those stablecoins are each worth a dollar—each coin is a stand-in for one of the dollars in the bank.In a lot of cases, the people issuing these coins aim for this approach, but instead of doing a direct one-for-one, dollar for coin system, they’ll issue a million coins that are meant to be worth a dollar apiece, and they’ll put one-hundred-thousand dollars in a bank account, and the other 900,000 will be made up of bitcoin and stocks and other sorts of things that they can argue are worth at least that much.As of mid-2025, about $255 billion worth of stablecoins have been issued, and about 99% of them have been pegged to the US dollar; Tether’s USDT, Binance’s BUSD, and Circle’s USDC are all tethered to the USD, for instance, though other currencies are also used as peg values, including offerings by Tether and Circle that are pegged to the Euro.Stablecoins that are completely or mostly fiat-backed, which means they have a dollar for each coin issued in the bank somewhere, or close to that, tend to be on average more stable than commodity or crypto-backed stablecoins, which rely mostly or entirely on things like bitcoin or gold tucked away somewhere to justify their value. Which makes sense, as while you can argue, hey look, I have a million dollars worth of gold, and I’m issuing a million coins, each worth a dollar, that asset’s value can change day-to-day, and that can make the value of those coins precarious, at least compared to fiat-backed alternatives.Because stablecoins are not meant to change in value, they’re not useful as sub-ins for stocks or other sorts of interest-generating bets, like bitcoin. Instead, they’re primarily used by folks who want to trade cryptoassets for other sorts of cryptoassets, for those who want to avoid paying taxes, or want to otherwise hide their wealth, and for those who want to transfer money in such a way that they can avoid government sanctions and/or tariffs on those sorts of transfers.What I’d like to talk about today is a new US federal law, the GENIUS Act, which was heavily pushed by the crypto industry, and which looks likely to make stablecoins a lot more popular, for better and for worse.—The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act, or GENIUS Act, was introduced in the Senate by a Republican senator from Tennessee in May of 2025, was passed in June with a bipartisan vote of 68-30—the majority of Republicans and about half of Democratic senators voting in favor of it—and after the House passed it a month later, President Trump signed it into law on July 18.Again, this legislation was heavily pushed by the crypto industry, which generously funded a lot of politicians, mostly Republican, but on both sides of the aisle, in recent years, as it serves folks who want a broader reach for existing stablecoins, and who want to see more stablecoins emerge and flourish, as part of a larger and richer overall crypto industries.Folks who are against this Act, and other laws like it that have been proposed in recent years, contend that while it’s a good idea to have some kind of regulation in place for the crypto industry, this approach isn’t the right one, as it basically gives the tech world f

This week we talk about cyberespionage, China, and asymmetrical leverage.We also discuss political firings, hardware infiltration, and Five Eyes.Recommended Book: The Fourth Turning Is Here by Neil HoweTranscriptIn the year 2000, then-General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Jiang Zemin (jong ZEM-in), approved a plan to develop so-called “cyber coercive capabilities”—the infrastructure for offensive hacking—partly as a consequence of aggressive actions by the US, which among other things had recently bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade as part of the NATO campaign in Yugoslavia.The US was a nuclear power with immense military capabilities that far outshone those of China, and the idea was that the Chinese government needed some kind of asymmetrical means of achieving leverage against the US and its allies to counter that. Personal tech and the internet were still relatively young in 2000—the first iPhone wouldn’t be released for another seven years, for context—but there was enough going on in the cyber-intelligence world that it seemed like a good point of leverage to aim for.The early 2000s Chairman of the CCP, Hu Jintao, backed this ambition, citing the burgeoning threat of instability-inducing online variables, like those that sparked the color revolutions across Europe and Asia, and attack strategies similar to Israel’s Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran as justification, though China’s growing economic dependence on its technological know-how was also part of the equation; it could evolve its capacity in this space relatively quickly, and it had valuable stuff that was targetable by foreign cyberattacks, so it was probably a good idea to increase their defenses, while also increasing their ability to hit foreign targets in this way—that was the logic here.The next CCP Chairman, Xi Jinping, doubled-down on this effort, saying that in the cyber world, everyone else was using air strikes and China was still using swords and spears, so they needed to up their game substantially and rapidly.That ambition seems to have been realized: though China is still reportedly regularly infiltrated by foreign entities like the US’s CIA, China’s cybersecurity firms and state-affiliated hacker groups have become serious players on the international stage, pulling off incredibly complex hacks of foreign governments and infrastructure, including a campaign called Volt Typhoon, which seems to have started sometime in or before 2021, but which wasn’t discovered by US entities until 2024. This campaign saw Chinese hackers infiltrating all sorts of US agencies and infrastructure, initially using malware, and then entwining themselves with the operating systems used by their targets, quietly syphoning off data, credentials, and other useful bits of information, slowly but surely becoming even more interwoven with the fabric of these systems, and doing so stealthily in order to remain undetected for years.This effort allowed hackers to glean information about the US’s defenses in the continental US and in Guam, while also helping them breach public infrastructure, like Singapore’s telecommunications company, Singtel. It’s been suggested that, as with many Chinese cyberattacks, this incursion was a long-game play, meant to give the Chinese government the option of both using private data about private US citizens, soldiers, and people in government for manipulation or blackmail purposes, or to shut down important infrastructure, like communications channels or electrical grids, in the event of a future military conflict.What I’d like to talk about today is another, even bigger and reportedly more successful long-term hack by the Chinese government, and one that might be even more disruptive, should there ever be a military conflict between China and one of the impacted governments, or their allies.—Salt Typhoon is the name that’s been given to a so-called '“advanced persistent threat actor,” which is a formal way of saying hacker or hacker group, by Microsoft, which plays a big role in the cybersecurity world, especially at this scale, a scale involving not just independent hackers, but government-level cyberespionage groups.This group is generally understood to be run out of the Chinese Ministry of State Security, or MSS, and though it’s not usually possible to say something like that for certain, hence the “generally understood” component of that statement, often everyone kind of knows who’s doing what, but it’s imprudent to say so with 100% certainty, as cyberespionage, like many other sorts of spy stuff, is meant to be a gray area where governments can knock each other around without leading to a shooting war. If anyone were to say with absolute certainty, yes, China is hacking us, and it’s definitely the government, and they’re doing a really good job of it, stealing all our stuff and putting us at risk, that would either require the targeted government to launch some sort of counterstrike against China, or would leave

This week we talk about the RSF, coups, and the liberal world order.We also discuss humanitarian aid, foreign conflicts, and genocide.Recommended Book: Inventing the Renaissance by Ada PalmerTranscriptIn 2019, a military government took over Sudan, following a successful coup d'état against then-President Omar al-Bashir, who had been in power for thirty years. al-Bashir’s latter years were plagued by popular demonstrations against rising costs of living and pretty abysmal living standards, and the government lashed out against protestors violently, before then dissolving local government leaders and their offices, replacing them with hand-picked military and intelligence officers. After he responded violently to yet another, even bigger protest, the military launched their coup, and the protestors pivoted to targeting them, demanding a civilian-run democracy.Just two months later, after unsuccessful negotiations between the new military government and the folks demanding they step aside to allow a civilian government to take charge, the military leaders massacred a bunch civilians who hosted a sit-in protest. Protestors shifted to a period of sustained civil disobedience and a general strike, and the government agreed to hold elections in 2022, three years later, and said that they would investigate the massacre their soldiers committed against those protestors. They also established a joint civilian-military unity government that would run things until the new, civilian government was eventually formed.In late-2021, though, the Sudanese military launched another coup against the unity government, and that council was dissolved, a state of emergency was declared, and all the important people who were helping the country segue back into a democracy were arrested. A new military-only junta was formed, incorporating the two main military groups that were running things, at that point.In 2023, those two military bodies that were working together to run Sudan via this military junta, the Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary group that were made into a sort of official part of the country’s military, while remaining separate from it, and the official Sudanese army, both started aggressively recruiting soldiers and taunting each other with military maneuvers. On April 15 that year, they started firing on each other.This conflict stemmed from the Sudanese military demanding that the RSF dissolve itself, all their people integrating into the country’s main military apparatus, but some kind of stand-off seemed to be a long time coming, as the RSF started its recruiting efforts earlier that year, and built up its military resources in the capital as early as February. But as I mentioned, this tinderbox erupted into a shooting war in April, beginning in the capital city, Khartoum, before spreading fast to other major cities.So what eventually became a Sudanese civil, which at this point has been ongoing for nearly 2.5 years, began in April of 2023, was long-simmering before that, is between two heavily armed military groups that ran the country together for a few years, and which both claim to be the rightful leaders or owners of the country, and they’re fighting each other in heavily populated areas.This war was also kicked off and is now sustained in part by ethnic conflicts between the main belligerents, which includes the aforementioned Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces, but also the Sudan Liberation Movement, which governs a fairly remote and self-sufficient mountainous area in the southern part of the country, and the al-Hilu movement, which supports the RSF’s efforts in the region.What I’d like to talk about today is what’s happening on the ground in Sudan, in the third year of this conflict, and at a moment when the world’s attention seems to have refocused elsewhere, major governments that would have previously attempted to stop the civil war have more or less given up on doing so, and the Sudanese civilians who have been pulled into the conflict, or who have been forced to flee their homes as a consequence of this war, have been left without food, shelter, or any good guys to cheer for.—Sudan has been plagued by coups since it gained independence from the UK and Egypt in 1956; it’s seen 20 coup attempts, 7 of them successful, including that most recent one in 2019, since independence.This region also has a recent history of genocide, perhaps most notably in the western Darfur region, where an estimated quarter of a million people from a trio of ethnic groups were killed between 2003 and 2005, alone, and something like 2.7 million people were displaced, forced to flee the systematic killings, strategically applied sexual violence, and other abuses by the Sudanese military and the local, rebel Janjaweed militias, which were often armed by the government and tasked with weeding out alleged rebel sympathizers in the region.This new civil war is on a completely different scale, though. As of April of

This week we talk about General Motors, the Great Recession, and semiconductors.We also discuss Goldman Sachs, US Steel, and nationalization.Recommended Book: Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek ThompsonTranscriptNationalization refers to the process through which a government takes control of a business or business asset.Sometimes this is the result of a new administration or regime taking control of a government, which decides to change how things work, so it gobbles up things like oil companies or railroads or manufacturing hubs, because that stuff is considered to be fundamental enough that it cannot be left to the whims, and the ebbs and eddies and unpredictable variables of a free market; the nation needs reliable oil, it needs to be churning out nails and screws and bullets, so the government grabs the means of producing these things to ensure nothing stops that kind of output or operation.That more holistic reworking of a nation’s economy so that it reflects some kind of socialist setup is typically referred to as socialization, though commentary on the matter will still often refer to the individual instances of the government taking ownership over something that was previously private as nationalization.In other cases these sorts of assets are nationalized in order to right some kind of perceived wrong, as was the case when the French government, in the wake of WWII, nationalized the automobile company Renault for its alleged collaboration with the Nazis when they occupied France.The circumstances of that nationalization were questioned, as there was a lot of political scuffling between capitalist and communist interests in the country at that time, and some saw this as a means of getting back against the company’s owner, Louis Renault, for his recent, violent actions against workers who had gone on strike before France’s occupation—but whatever the details, France scooped up Renault and turned it into a state-owned company, and in 1994, the government decided that its ownership of the company was keeping its products from competing on the market, and in 1996 it was privatized and they started selling public shares, though the French government still owns about 15% of the company.Nationalization is more common in some non-socialist nations than others, as there are generally considered to be significant pros and cons associated with such ownership.The major benefit of such ownership is that a government owned, or partially government owned entity will tend to have the government on its side to a greater or lesser degree, which can make it more competitive internationally, in the sense that laws will be passed to help it flourish and grow, and it may even benefit from direct infusions of money, when needed, especially with international competition heats up, and because it generally allows that company to operate as a piece of government infrastructure, rather than just a normal business.Instead of being completely prone to the winds of economic fortune, then, the US government can ensure that Amtrak, a primarily state-owned train company that’s structured as a for-profit business, but which has a government-appointed board and benefits from federal funding, is able to keep functioning, even when demand for train services is low, and barbarians at the gate, like plane-based cargo shipping and passenger hauling, becomes a lot more competitive, maybe even to the point that a non-government-owned entity may have long-since gone under, or dramatically reduced its service area, by economic necessity.A major downside often cited by free-market people, though, is that these sorts of companies tend to do poorly, in terms of providing the best possible service, and in terms of making enough money to pay for themselves—services like Amtrak are structured so that they pay as much of their own expenses as much as possible, for instance, but are seldom able to do so, requiring injections of resources from the government to stay afloat, and as a result, they have trouble updating and even maintaining their infrastructure.Private companies tend to be a lot more agile and competitive because they have to be, and because they often have leadership that is less political in nature, and more oriented around doing better than their also private competition, rather than merely surviving.What I’d like to talk about today is another vital industry that seems to have become so vital, like trains, that the US government is keen to ensure it doesn’t go under, and a stake that the US government took in one of its most historically significant, but recently struggling companies.—The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was a law passed by the US government after the initial whammy of the Great Recession, which created a bunch of bailouts for mostly financial institutions that, if they went under, it was suspected, would have caused even more damage to the US economy.These banks had been playing fast and loose with toxic

This week we talk about flesh-eating screwworms, weeds, and the US cattle industry.We also discuss genetic modification, procreation, and tsetse flies.Recommended Book: 1177 BC by Eric H ClineTranscriptThe term ‘autocidal control‘ refers to a collection of techniques that are meant to control populations of some type of living thing, animal or plant, by disrupting their procreationary capacity.So rather than attempting to control pest by spraying poisons all over the place, or controlling plants you consider to be invasive weeds by launching huge weed-pulling efforts in the afflicted areas, you might instead figure out how to keep this current generation of pests and weeds from having as many offspring as they might otherwise have, and then repeat the process with the next generation, and the next, and so on, until the unwanted species is either eradicated in the relevant region, or reduced to such a small number that its presence is no longer such a big deal.There are all kinds of approaches one might take in trying to achieve this sort of outcome.Experimental genetic modification measures, for instance, have been tried in, so far at least, limited ways, the idea being to either make the disliked species less competitive in some way (by making them slower, and thus more likely to be eaten by predators, maybe), or by making them less likely to have offspring, or less likely to have fit offspring—the next generation becomes super slow and clumsy, or they’re carriers of a gene that keeps them from procreating as much, or at all.That approach seems like it could be effective, and there are quite a few efforts, globally, that’re working to refine and perfect it with mosquito species in particular, specifically the ones that are carriers of malaria-causing parasites and similar maladies that cause immense harm to local human (and other mammal) populations.There have also been attempts to spray mating grounds with pheromones that disrupt mating behavior, or to use what’s called the Autodissemination Augmented by Males, or ADAM approach, which has been used to decent effect in some trials, and which involves basically just sprinkling a bunch of male mosquitos with pesticide, releasing them into mosquito mating grounds, and then having them deliver those pesticides to the females they mate with.All of these efforts are meant to reduce populations via some procreationary mechanism, while also attempting to ameliorate some of the other issues associated with other, widely used pest- and weed-control approaches. Most of which rely on some kind of chemical being introduced into the right environment, that chemical helping to kill or disrupt these populations, but in many cases also leading to unwanted, and often initially unforeseen side effects, like those chemicals messing with other species, getting into the groundwater and possibly being associated with maladies in humans, and so on.What I’d like to talk about today is another approach, the sterile insect technique, why it’s become so popular in recent decades, and how it’s being used, today, to address a burgeoning population of a pest that was previously eliminated in North America using this technique, but which has recently become a problem, once more.—The New World screwworm fly is thus named because its larvae, its baby offspring, are planted in warm-blooded animals. These offspring eat not just dead tissues, like the maggots of other flies, but healthy tissues as well.These maggots are often deposited near wounds, like cuts or scrapes, but also injuries caused by the castration or dehorning of cattle, or orifices and other sensitive areas with soft tissue, like the corner of a host’s eye.They don’t typically infest humans, but it does happen, and they’re most likely to be found on wild and domesticated mammals, the females of the species depositing somewhere between 250 and 500 eggs in the flesh of their hosts, the maggots screwing their way deeper into their host’s flesh as they grow, burrowing and eating for the next three to seven days, at which point they fall off and enter the next stage of their lifecycle. By that point the host may already be dead, depending on the extent of the damage these things manage to cause in the interim.These flies were originally found across the Americas and on some Caribbean islands, and they have long been a headache for cattle ranchers in particular, as they will sometimes infect one cow or goat, and then work their way through the entire herd in relatively short order, causing enough damage to seriously injure or kill a whole lot of the rancher’s stock.As a result, humans have been trying to get rid of these things for ages, but nothing seemed to make much of a dent in their populations until the emergence of what’s called the sterile insect technique, which is exactly what it sounds like: a method of autocidal control that involves sterilizing members of the species, usually the males, and then releasing them back into

This week we talk about tech bubbles, building moats, and infrastructure investment.We also discuss capital expenditure, data centers, and employee compensation.Recommended Book: The Art of Gathering by Priya ParkerTranscriptMany technology booms have early periods in which innovators have a first-mover advantage, and a lot of what happens in their industry is informed by the decisions those innovators make.After that—depending on the technology, but this is common enough to be considered a trend—after that there tends to be a period of build-out and consolidation amongst the people and business entities that survived that initial, innovation-focused throw-down.In the context of personal computers, this moment saw computer-makers like Microsoft and Apple scramble to pivot from figuring out what an operating system should look like and whether or not to use mice to navigate user interfaces, to a period in which they were rushing to scale-up the manufacture of now-essential, but previously comparably rare components: suitable screens for their monitors, chips that could power their increasingly graphical machines, and the magnetic materials necessary to produce floppy disks and spindle-based hard drives.There’s an initial period in which new ideas and approaches provide these entities with a moat that protects them against competition, in other words, but then the game they’re playing changes, the rules are more fully understood and to some degree locked into place and agreed upon, and instead of competing for the biggest, most brazen new ideas, they lock onto one set of ideas that seemed to be the best of what’s available at that moment and build on those, iterating them at a regular cadence, but focusing especially on scaling them.So at this second stage, they’re investing in the ability to out-produce their competition in some way, so they can eventually bypass that competition and (they hope) safely increase their prices and make a profit, as opposed to just larger and larger revenues with equal or greater expenses, continuing to be reliant on investor injections of capital, rather than generating their own surplus returns.By many analysts’ and insiders’ estimates, we’ve just entered that second stage in the generative AI industry. That’s the sort of AI that generates text and images and code and such, and it’s increasingly becoming a sort of commodity, rather than a new, hot things that few companies can offer the market.What I’d like to talk about today are the increasingly massive financial figures associated with this industry’s shift to that second stage of development, and why some of those insiders and analysts are voicing fresh concerns that this could all lead to a bubble, and possibly an historically large one.—There are many ways we could measure the growth of the AI industry over the years.The US market size, for instance, which is a measure of the value of AI-oriented companies based on how much shares of their company cost or would cost on the open market, has ballooned from just over $100 billion in 2022 to an estimated $174 billion in 2025. That figure is expected to grow at a not quite 20% compound annual growth rate through 2034, which, if accurate, would put this market, in the US alone, at more than $850 billion.Another metric we might use is that of capital expenditure, or capex, in this corner of the tech industry, which refers to the amount of money AI companies are using to buy, upgrade, or maintain their long-term assets, like new computer chips or the data centers they fill with those chips.The seven most valuable US tech companies—Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, NVIDIA, and Broadcom (that last spot formerly held by Tesla, which was dropped from this designation in late-2024)—just those seven companies have spent $102.5 billion on capex this last financial quarter (and most of that was from just four of them, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon, the remainder only spending something like $6.7 billion).That’s a staggering amount of money, and due to a recent drop in consumer demand—the money individual US citizens spend on things like food and clothes and smartphones and cars and all the other things people buy—AI-related capex, spending by these massive US tech companies, has added more to GDP growth than consumer spending for the past two quarters.All the things all the people in the US bought over the past two quarters did not cost as much, in aggregate, as what these companies spent during the same period, on new and existing assets. That’s pretty wild.And it’s the consequence, partly, of the shift in these companies’ focus from providing goods and services that relied heavily on people—salary and stock compensation, basically, which is not a capex expense, because its spent on employees, not stuff—to spending heavily on all that infrastructure that they believe will be required to help them compete with those other companies that are also frantically investing in

This week we talk about surge pricing, Walmart, and the Robinson-Patman Act.We also discuss personal data, AC settings, and Delta’s earnings call.Recommended Book: How the World Became Rich by Mark Koyama and Jared RubinTranscriptThe US Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 is also called the Anti-Price Discrimination Act, and it was passed to make it illegal for a product supplier to charge different prices to different customers.So a company that makes candy bars wouldn’t be allowed to charge one price to most of their customers, all the smaller and mid-sized convenience stores and mom-and-pop grocery stores, for instance, and then a lower price to the big stores, the Walmarts and Amazons of the world.The concern was that these larger players, which at the time this law was passed were burgeoning grocery stores like A&P, would be able to achieve a monopolistic position in the market for these goods, these slightly lower prices giving them one more advantage over their smaller competitors.During the four decades or so of this Act’s enforcement, small grocery stores has prices that were, on average, about 1% higher than those offered by their large competitors, and the eight largest grocery store chains only captured about 25% of all grocery sales in the US—essentially every city and town of any size had at least one small grocery store, and most had several of them, during this period. It was a very competitive market.During the Reagan administration in the 80s, though, enforcement was abandoned, as the folks in charge of that enforcement were convinced this Act was holding back growth; they saw it as a handout to small businesses at the expense of big business, so while it technically remained on the books, they just stopped enforcing it, and the big businesses in these spaces got the message pretty quickly.Walmart was the first big business to really lean into the new powers afforded them by this fresh governmental stance, and that led to it becoming the country’s largest grocery store chain by 2001, and other big grocery brands, like Kroger and Safeway, began to do the same, consolidating all their buying so they could put in huge orders like Walmart was able to put in, and that allowed them to demand lower prices, which in turn allowed them to dramatically increase profits and gobble up their smaller competition.All of which led to the emergence of food deserts across the country, a term that was coined in 1995 to refer to areas where there are simply no grocery stores within a reasonable distance of relatively large populations of people, because smaller grocery stores can no longer compete, even when they’re the only player in town; folks have to travel to the larger chain stores, and have no real options closer to home, which can result in food precariousness, and situations in which the only nearby food options are unhealthy ones—the snacks at gas stations, for instance.This same general pattern played out across all retail spaces, including pharmacies and bookstores and athletic supply stores, and between 1982 and 2017, the total market share of independent retailers in the US dropped from 53% to 22%.Which in some ways is great at the federal level, as—and this is what the Reagan administration seemed to want, back in the 80s—big businesses can grow a lot faster and bigger than small businesses, and that can lead to outsized GDP numbers, and other such macro-scale figures.Unfortunately, while independent retailers tend to keep nearly half of the revenue they pull in within their local community, major chains only keep something like 14% in the local community—so the shift from independent to chain retailers has had a deleterious impact on communities across the US, in the sense of having less competition, having food and other sorts of product deserts, and in terms of tax revenues and overall economic wealth being sapped from these areas and moved to other places, creating some relatively few winners and a whole lot of losers, in the process.What I’d like to talk about today is another type of variable pricing, this one more directly aimed at consumers, and enabled, at least in its modern incarnation, by big data and the devices we use every day.—Dynamic pricing refers to changing the price of goods or services based on all sorts of variables.Demand or surge pricing, for instance, might see the price of a bus ticket or rideshare ride with Uber cost more during rush-hour, the idea being that there are only so many bus seats and only so many available rideshare rides to go around, and when everyone’s either trying to get to work or get home from work, there will be a lot more people wanting these finite number of seats and rides than there are seats and rides available.Upping the prices, then, is a means of determining who wants these things the most, because they’re willing to pay at times massively inflated prices for something that would cost far less in an hour or two, once the rush has subsided.Similar p

This week we talk about lobbying, Steam, and adult-themed games.We also discuss cultural influence, extreme ideologies, and itch.io.Recommended Book: Limitarianism by Ingrid RobeynsTranscriptIn mid-July of 2025, Valve, the company behind the gaming platform Steam, announced that it was tightening its adult-only content guidelines, its not-safe-for-work content, basically, following pressure by the payment processing companies it works with.Its new policy even says that “content that may violate the rules and standards set forth by Steam’s payment processors and related card networks and banks, or internet network providers” is not allowed on Steam’s network, which in practice means these games will be more difficult to find and purchase, because of Steam’s prominence in the non-console gaming space.About a week later, the founder of Itch.io, another gaming marketplace that’s similar in some ways to Steam, as it allows creators to sell their games to folks who use the platform, but which is a bit smaller and more focused on indie games, said that itch.io would likewise be removing NSFW, adult-themed games from its catalog, due to concerns that the payment processors they work with have communicated to their company.In no uncertain terms, he said itch.io wouldn’t be able to operate without these payment processors, so they had to “prioritize our relationships with our payment partners and take immediate steps toward compliance.”The folks whose games were removed from itch.io as part of this purge were given no warning, and many critics of the decision have pointed to similarities between this gaming-world censorship, as they see it at least, and what happened back in 2018, when social platform Tumblr banned pornographic content, the company’s owner citing pressure from credit card companies as the rationale for that decision—a decision that led to a huge exodus of users from the platform and a whole lot of criticism from creators, users, and folks who keep tabs on censorship-related issues.There’s been a lot of the same in response to these moves by itch.io, Steam, and similar platforms which have recently decoupled themselves from certain types of adult content, and statements from these companies seems to be illustrative of what’s happening here: they’re completely reliant on these payment processing companies to exist, because without them they can’t easily accept money for what they’re selling. Thus, they’d better comply with what these companies tell them to do, or else.There have been claims from some folks who have watched this sort of purge occur in other corners of the web over the years that credit card companies are anti-porn and anti-anything-NSFW because the chargeback rate is huge in these spaces—something like 10-times the number of chargebacks, which is what happens when customers say they didn’t buy something, and in some cases then get their money back, after the fact, compared to the next-highest facet of the payment processing industry. And that’s both a pain and potentially expensive.Others have pointed out that these sorts of purges tend to be political in nature: the groups that push payment processors to adopt these stances are typically vehemently anti-porn, either ultra-conservative or radical-feminist in nature—two ideologies that are oppositional in many ways, but they loop back around when it comes to some topics and have similar, burn it all down ideas about adult content; we don’t approve, so let’s get rid of all this stuff that we don’t approve of by whatever means necessary.In most cases this means lobbying to get influence in various political spheres, including with politicians who control various governments’ relationships with these payment processors. If they can get the ear of those who make the rules to which these payment processors must adhere, they can then threaten the payment processors—who in many countries, though especially the United States, have pretty sweet deals that allow them to more or less collect a tax on every payment made for everything across every sector—saying, well, we can push our friends in the government to take those sweetheart deals away. So unless you want to suffer that consequence, push these customers of yours to take down this stuff we don’t like.What I’d like to talk about today are some similar and overlapping movements that are beginning to see censorship-related success across these and other aspects of the web, and the seeming purpose behind these pushes to censor and purge and create the apparatuses by which censorship and purges can be more thoroughly performed.—One of the big concerns about banning certain types of games is that games are just content, and if you’re able to find a reliable means of banning one type of content, you can then, in theory at least, using that same lever to ban other types of content, like books, articles, films, and so on. Some of the stuff banned on itch.io were essentially just books, in fact.If you

This week we talk about the PKK, Turkey, and the DEM Party.We also discuss terrorism, discrimination, and stateless nations.Recommended Book: A Century of Tomorrows by Glenn AdamsonTranscriptKurdistan is a cultural region, not a country, but part of multiple countries, in the Middle East, spanning roughly the southeastern portion of Turkey, northern Iraq, the northwestern portion of Iran, and northern Syrian. Some definitions also include part of the Southern Caucasus mountains, which contains chunks of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.So this is a sprawling region that straddles multiple nations, and it’s defined by the presence of the Kurdish people, the Kurds, who live all over the world, but whose culture is concentrated in this area, where it originally developed, and where, over the generations, there have periodically been very short-lived Kurdish nations of various shapes, sizes, and compositions.The original dynasties from which the Kurds claim their origin were Egyptian, and they governed parts of northeastern African and what is today Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. That was back in the 8th to 12th century, during which Saladin, who was the sultan of both Egypt and Syria, played a major historical role leading Muslim military forces against the Christian Crusader states during the Third Crusade, and leading those forces to victory in 1187, which resulted in Muslim ownership of the Levant, even though the Crusaders continued to technically hold the Kingdom of Jerusalem for another hundred years or so, until 1291.Saladin was Kurdish and kicked off a sultanate that lasted until the mid-13th century, when a diverse group of former slave-soldiers called the mamluks overthrew Saladin’s family’s Ayyubid sultanate and replaced it with their own.So Kurdish is a language spoken in that Kurdistan region, and the Kurds are considered to be an Iranian ethnic group, because Kurdish is part of a larger collection of languages and ethnicities, though many Kurds consider themselves to be members of a stateless nation, similar in some ways to pre-Israel Jewish people, Tibetan people under China’s rule, or the Yoruba people, who primarily live in Nigeria, Benin, and Togo, but who were previously oriented around a powerful city-state in that region, which served as the central loci of the Ife Empire, before the Europeans showed up and decided to forcibly move people around and draw new borders across the African continent.The Kurds are likewise often politically and culturally powerful, and that’s led to a lot of pushback from leaders in the nations where they live and at times operate as cultural blocs, and it’s led to some very short-lived Kurdish nations these people have managed to establish in the 20th century, including the Kingdom of Kurdistan from 1921-1924, the Republic of Ararat from 1927-1930, and the Republic of Mahabad, which was formed as a puppet state of the Soviet Union in 1946 in northwestern Iran, following a Soviet push for Kurdish nationalism in the region, which was meant to prevent the Allies from controlling the region following WWII, but which then dissolved just a few months after its official formation due to waning support from the Kurdish tribes that initially helped make it a reality.What I’d like to talk about today is the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, and why their recently declared ceasefire with Turkey is being seen as a pretty big deal.—The Kurdistan Worker’s Party, depending on who you ask, is a political organization or a terrorist organization. It was formed in Turkey in late-1978, and its original, founding goal was to create an independent Kurdish state, a modern Kurdistan, in what is today a small part of Turkey, but in the 1990s it shifted its stated goals to instead just get more rights for Kurds living in Turkey, including more autonomy but also just equal rights, as Kurdish people in many nations, including Turkey, have a long history of being discriminated against, in part because of their cultural distinctiveness, including their language, manner of dress, and cultural practices, and in part because, like many tight-knit ethnic groups, they often operate as a bloc, which in the age of democracy also means they often vote as a bloc, which can feel like a threat to other folks in areas with large Kurdish populations.When I say Kurdish people in Turkey have long been discriminated against, that includes things like telling them they can no longer speak Kurdish and denying that their ethnic group exists, but it also includes massacres conducted by the government against Kurdish people; at times tens of thousands of Kurds were slaughtered by the Turkish army. There was also an official ban on the words Kurds, Kurdistan, and Kurdish by the Turkish government in the 1980s, and Kurdish villages were destroyed, food headed to these villages was embargoed, and there was a long-time ban on the use of the Kurdish language in public life, and people who used it

This week we talk about AI therapy chatbots, delusions of grandeur, and sycophancy.We also discuss tech-triggered psychosis, AI partners, and confident nonsense.Recommended Book: Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore by Robin SloanTranscriptIn the context of artificial intelligence systems, a hallucination or delusion, sometimes more brusquely referred to as AI BS, is an output usually from an AI chatbot, but it can also be from another type of AI system, that’s basically just made up.Sometimes this kind of output is just garbled nonsense, as the AI systems, those based on large language models, anyway, are essentially just predicting what words will come next in the sentences they’re writing based on statistical patterns. That means they can string words together, and then sentences together, and then paragraphs together in what seems like a logical and reasonable way, and in some cases can even cobble together convincing stories or code or whatever else, because systems with enough raw materials to work from have a good sense of what tends to go where, and thus what’s good grammar and what’s not, what code will work and what code will break your website, and so on.In other cases, though, AI systems will seem to just make stuff up, but make it up convincingly enough that it can be tricky to detect the made up component of its answers.Some writers have reported asking AI to provide feedback on their stories, for instance, only to later discover that the AI didn’t have access to the stories, and they were providing feedback based on the title, or based on the writer’s prompt—the text the writer used to ask the AI for feedback. And their answers were perhaps initially convincing enough that the writer didn’t realize the AI hadn’t read the pieces they asked them to criticize, and the AI systems, because most of them are biased to sycophancy, toward brown-nosing the user and not saying anything that might upset them, or saying what it believes they want to hear, they’ll provide general critique that sounds good, that lines up with what their systems tell them should be said in such contexts, but which is completely disconnected from those writings, and thus, not useful to the writer as a critique.That combination of confabulation and sycophancy can be brutal, especially as these AI systems become more powerful and more convincing. They seldom make the basic grammatical and reality-based errors they made even a few years ago, and thus it’s easy to believe you’re speaking to something that’s thinking or at the bare-minimum, that understands what you’re trying to get it to help you with, or what you’re talking about. It’s easy to forget when interacting with such systems that you’re engaged not with another human or thinking entity, but with software that mimics the output of such an entity, but which doesn’t experience the same cognition experienced by the real-deal thinking creatures it’s attempting to emulate.What I’d like to talk about today is another sort of AI-related delusion—one experienced by humans interacting with such systems, not the other way around—and the seeming, and theoretical, pros and cons of these sorts of delusional responses.—Research that’s looked into the effects of psychotherapy, including specific approaches like cognitive behavioral therapy and group therapy, show that such treatments are almost aways positive, with rare exceptions, grant benefits that tend to last well past the therapy itself—so people who go to therapy tend to benefit from it even after the session, and even after they stop going to therapy, if they eventually stop going for whatever reason, and that the success rate, the variability of positive impacts, vary based on the clinical location, the therapist, and so on, but only by about 5% or less for each of those variables; so even a not perfectly aligned therapist or a less than ideal therapy location will, on average, benefit the patient.That general positive impact is part of the theory underpinning the use of AI systems for therapy purposes.Instead of going into a therapist’s office and speaking with a human being for an hour or so at a time, the patient instead speaks or types to an AI chatbot that’s been optimized for this purpose. So it’s been primed to speak like a therapist, to have a bunch of therapy-related resources in its training data, and to provide therapy-related resources to the patient with whom it engages.There are a lot of downsides to this approach, including the fact that AI bots are flawed in so many ways, are not actual humans, and thus can’t really connect with patients the way a human therapist might be able to connect with them, they have difficulty shifting from a trained script, as again, these systems are pulling from a corpus of training data and additional documents to which they have access, and that means they’ll tend to handle common issues and patient types pretty well, but anything deviating from that is a toss-up, and, as I mentioned

This week we talk about crawling, scraping, and DDoS attacks.We also discuss Cloudflare, the AI gold rush, and automated robots.Recommended Book: Annie Bot by Sierra GreerTranscriptAlongside the many, and at times quite significant political happenings, the many, and at times quite significant military conflicts, and the many, at times quite significant technological breakthroughs—medical and otherwise—flooding the news these days, there’s also a whole lot happening in the world of AI, in part because this facet of the tech sector is booming, and in part because while still unproven in many spaces, and still outright flubbing in others, this category of technology is already having a massive impact on pretty much everything, in some cases for the better, in some for the worse, and in some for better and worse, depending on your perspective.Dis- and misinformation, for instance, is a bajillion times easier to create, distribute, and amplify, and the fake images and videos and audio being shared, alongside all the text that seems to be from legit people, but which may in fact be the product of AI run by malicious actors somewhere, is increasingly convincing and difficult to distinguish from real-deal versions of the same.There’s also a lot more of it, and the ability to very rapidly create pretty convincing stuff, and to very rapidly flood all available communication channels with that stuff, is fundamental to AI’s impact in many spaces, not just the world of propaganda and misinformation. At times quantity has a quality all of its own, and that very much seems to be the case for AI-generated content as a whole.Other AI- and AI-adjacent tools are being used by corporations to improve efficiency, in some cases helping automated systems like warehouse robots assist humans in sorting and packaging and otherwise getting stuff ready to be shipped, as is the case with Amazon, which is almost to the point that they’ll have more robots in their various facilities than human beings. Amazon robots are currently assisting with about 75% of all the company’s global deliveries, and a lot of the menial, repetitive tasks human workers would have previously done are now being accomplished by robotics systems they’ve introduced to their shipping chain.Of course, not everyone is thrilled about this turn of events: while it’s arguably wonderful that robots are being subbed-in for human workers who would previously have had to engage in the sorts of repetitive, physical tasks that can lead to chronic physical issues, in many cases this seems to be a positive side-benefit of a larger effort to phase-out workers whenever possible, saving the company money over time by employing fewer people.If you can employ 100 people using robots instead of 1000 people sans-robots, depending on the cost of operation for those robots, that might save you money because each person, augmented by the efforts of the robots, will be able to do a lot more work and thus provide more value for the company. Sometimes this means those remaining employees will be paid more, because they’ll be doing more highly skilled labor, working with those bots, but not always.This is a component of this shift that for a long while CEOs were dancing around, not wanting to spook their existing workforce or lose their employees before their new robot foundation was in place, but it’s increasingly something they’re saying out loud, on investor calls and in the press, because making these sorts of moves are considered to be good for a company’s outlook: they’re being brave and looking toward a future where fewer human employees will be necessary, which implies their stock might be currently undervalued, because the potential savings are substantial, at least in theory.And it is a lot of theory at this point: there’s good reason to believe that theory is true, at least to some degree, but we’re at the very beginning phases of this seeming transition, and many companies that jumped too quickly and fired too many people found themselves having to hire them back, in some cases at great expense, because their production faltered under the weight of inferior automated, often AI-driven alternatives.Many of these tools simply aren’t as reliable as human employees yet. And while they will almost certainly continue to become more powerful and capable—a recent estimate suggested that the current wave of large-language-model-based AI systems, for instance, are doubling in power every 7 months or so, which is wild—speculations about what that will mean, and whether that trend can continue, vary substantially, depending on who you talk to.Something we can say with relative certainty right now, though, is that most of these models, the LLM ones, at least, not the robot-driving ones, were built using content that was gathered and used in a manner that currently exists in a legal gray area: it was scraped and amalgamated by these systems so that they could be trained on a corpus of just a s

This week we talk about the NOAA, FEMA, and the SSMIS.We also discuss Arctic ice, satellite resolution, and automated weather observation stations.Recommended Book: Superbloom by Nicholas CarrTranscriptThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is a US scientific and regulatory agency that tackles an array of environmental, climatic, and weather-related issues, alongside its responsibilities managing oceanic ecosystems.So it’s in charge of managing fishing protections and making sure endangered species within US waters are taken care of, but it also does scientific exploration—mapping the ocean, for instance—it monitors atmospheric conditions and keeps tabs on the various cycles that influence global and US water, air, and temperature happenings, and it tracks macro- and micro-scale weather events.That latter responsibility means NOAA (which is the modern iteration of several other agencies, including the US Environmental Science Services Administration and the US Weather Bureau) also manages the US National Weather Service, which is the sub-agency that sends out hazardous weather statements when there are severe storms or tornadoes or other weather-related events of note in a given area, and which also provides weather forecast information that local experts on the ground use to make their own predictions.Most of what the National Weather Service puts out is in the public domain, which means anyone can access and use it, free of charge. That’s a pretty big deal, because the data they collect and informational products they distribute, including all those hazardous weather statements, are at times life and death, but they’re also a big part of what makes standard local weather services possible in the US—they help the FAA and other agencies do their jobs, and they help everyday people understand how hot or cold it’s going to be, whether to pack and umbrella for the day, and so on.To accomplish all this, the NOAA and its sub-agencies make use of a bunch of facilities and other tracking resources to collect, aggregate, and interpret all those data points, crunching them and spitting them back out as something intelligible and useful to their many end-users.They’ve got weather observation stations across the US, many of them automated surface observing stations, which are exactly what they sound like: automated stations that collect data about sky conditions, wind direction and speed, visibility, present weather conditions, temperature, dew point, and so on—most of these are close to airports, as this information is also vital for figuring out if it’s safe to fly, and if so, what accommodations pilots should be making for the weather and visibility and such—but they also collect data from smaller weather stations scattered across the country, around 11,000 of them, many operated by volunteers under the auspices of an effort called the Cooperative Observer Program that was established in 1890, and that’s paired with another volunteer data-collection effort called the Citizen Weather Observer Program.There are also weather buoys and weather ships lingering across the surface of the ocean and other bodies of water, tracking additional data like sea surface temperature and wave height at various points. And there are weather balloons which collect additional information about happenings further up in the atmosphere, alongside the many satellites in orbit that capture various sorts of data and beam that data down to those who can make use of it.Again, all of this data is collected and crunched and then turned into intelligible outputs for your local weather forecasters, but also the people who run airlines and fly planes, the folks out on boats and ships, people who are managing government agencies, scientists who are doing long-term research on all sorts of things, and everyday people who just want to know if it’ll be sunny, how hot it will be, and so on.There’s one more major client of the NOAA that’s worth noting here, too: the Department of Defense. And that relationship is a big part of what I want to talk about today, because it seems to be at the root of a major curtailing of weather-related data-sharing that was recently announced by the US government, much to the chagrin of the scientific community.—US President Trump has long voiced his skepticism about the NOAA.There have been claims that this disdain is the result of the agency having called him out on some bald-faced lies he told about hurricane projections during his first administration, when he reportedly altered an NOAA hurricane impact projection map with a Sharpie to support a misstatement he had previously made about a hurricane impacting Alabama; the hurricane in question was not anticipated to hit Alabama, Trump said it would, and he later altered a map in order to make it look like he was right, when all the data, and all the experts, say otherwise.Whether that’s true or not, the NOAA later released an unsigned statement se

This week we talk about OPEC, the Seven Sisters, and the price of oil.We also discuss fracking, Israel and Iran’s ongoing conflict, and energy exports.Recommended Book: Thirteen Ways to Kill Lulabelle Rock by Maud WoolfTranscriptThe global oil market changed substantially in the early 2000s as a pair of innovations—horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—helped the plateauing US oil and gas market boom, unlocking a bunch of shale oil and gas deposits that were previously either entirely un-utilizable, or too expensive to exploit.This same revolution changed markets elsewhere, too, including places like Western Canada, which also has large shale oil and gas deposits, but the US, and especially the southern US, and even more especially the Permian Basin in Texas, has seen simply staggering boosts to output since those twin-innovations were initially deployed on scale.This has changed all sorts of dynamics, both locally, where these technologies and approaches have been used to tap ever-more fossil fuel sources, and globally, as previous power dynamics related to such resources have been rewired.Case in point, in the second half of the 20th century, OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is a predominantly Middle Eastern oil cartel that was founded by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela in 1960, was a dominant force in geopolitics, as they collaboratively set global oil prices, and thus, were able to pull the strings connected to elections, war, and economic outcomes in nations around the world.If oil prices suddenly spiked, that could cause an incumbent leader in a country a hemisphere away to lose their next election, and if anyone threatened one of their number, they could conceivably hold back resources from that country until they cooled down.Before OPEC formed and established their position of primacy in global energy exports, the so-called Seven Sisters corporations, which consisted of a bunch of US and European companies that had basically stepped in and took control of global oil rights in the early 20th century, including oil rights across the Middle East, were the loci of power in this space, controlling about 85% of the world’s petroleum reserves as of the early 1970s.That same decade, though, a slew of governments that hosted Seven Sisters facilities and reserves nationalized these assets, which in practice made all these reserves and the means of exploiting them the government’s property, and in most cases they were then reestablished under new, government-controlled companies, like Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia and the National Iranian Oil Company in Iran.In 1973 and 1979, two events in the Middle East—the Yom Kippur War, during which pretty much all of Israel’s neighbors launched a surprise attack against Israel, and the Iranian Revolution, when the then-leader of Iran, the Shah, who was liberalizing the country while also being incredibly corrupt, was overthrown by the current government, the militantly Islamist Islamic Republic of Iran—those two events led to significant oil export interruptions that triggered oil shortages globally, because of how dominant this cartel had become.This shortage triggered untold havoc in many nations, especially those that were growing rapidly in the post-WWII, mid-Cold War world, because growth typically requires a whole lot of energy for all the manufacturing, building, traveling around, and for basic, business and individual consumption: keeping the lights on, cooking, and so on.This led to a period of stagflation, and in fact the coining of the term, stagflation, but it also led to a period of heightened efficiency, because nations had to learn how to achieve growth and stability without using so much energy, and it led to a period of all these coming-out-of-stagflation and economic depression nations trying to figure out how to avoid having this happen again.So while OPEC and other oil-rich nations were enjoying a period of relative prosperity, due in part to those elevated energy prices—after the initial downsides of those conflicts and revolutions had calmed, anyway—other parts of the world were making new and more diversified deals, and were looking in their own backyards to try to find more reliable suppliers of energy products.Parts of the US were already major oil producers, if not at the same scale as these Middle Eastern giants in the latter portion of the 20th century, and many non-OPEC producers in the US, alongside those in Norway and Mexico, enjoyed a brief influx of revenue because of those higher oil prices, but they, like those OPEC nations, suffered a downswing when prices stabilized; and during that price collapse, OPEC’s influence waned.So in the 1980s, onward, the previous paradigm of higher oil prices led to a surge in production globally, everyone trying to take advantage of those high prices to invest in more development and production assets, and that led to a glut of supply that lowered pr

This week we talk about tit-for-tat warfare, conflict off-ramps, and Israel’s renewed attacks on Iran’s nuclear program.We also discuss the Iron Dome, the Iran-Iraq War, and regime change.Recommended Book: How Much is Enough? by Robert and Edward SkidelskyTranscriptIn late-October of 2024, Israel launched a wave of airstrikes against targets in Iran and Syria. These strikes were code-named Operation Days of Repentance, and it marked the largest such attack on Iran by Israel since the 1980s, during the height of the Iran-Iraq War.Operation Days of Repentance was ostensibly a response to Iran’s attack on Israel earlier than same month, that attack code-named Operation True Promise II, which involved the launch of around 200 ballistic missiles against Israeli targets. Operation True Promise II was itself a response to Israel’s assassination of the leader of Hamas, the leader of Hezbollah, and the Deputy of Operations for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.If you feel like there might be a tit-for-tat pattern here, you’re right. Iran and Israel have been at each other’s throats since 1979, following the Islamic Revolution when Iran cut off all diplomatic relations with Israel; some backchannel relations continued between the two countries, even through part of the Iran-Iraq War, when Israel often supported Iran in that conflict, but things got tense in the early 1980s when Iran, partnering with the Syrian government, started backing Hezbollah and their effort to boot Israel out of Southern Lebanon, while also partnering with Islamist militants in Iraq and Yemen, including the Houthis, and at times Hamas in Gaza, as well.Most of these attacks have, until recently, been fairly restrained, all things considered. There’s long been bravado by politicians on both sides of the mostly cold war-ish conflict, but they’ve generally told the other side what they would be hitting, and signaled just how far they would be going, telling them the extent of the damage they would cause, and why, which provides the other side ample opportunity to step off the escalatory ladder; everyone has the chance to posture for their constituents and then step back, finding an off-ramp and claiming victory in that specific scuffle.That back-and-forth in late-2024 largely stuck to that larger pattern, and both sides stuck with what typically works for them, in terms of doing damage: Israel flew more than 100 aircraft to just beyond or just inside Iran’s borders and struck a bunch of military targets, like air defense batteries and missile production facilities, while Iran launched a few hundred far less-accurate missiles at broad portions of Israel—a type of attack that could conceivably result in a lot of civilian casualties, not just damage to military targets, which would typically be a no-no if you’re trying to keep the tit-for-tat strikes regulated and avoid escalation, but because Israel has a fairly effective anti-missile system called the Iron Dome, Iran could be fairly confident that just hurling a large number of missiles in their general direction would be okay, as most of those missiles would be shot down by the Iron Dome, the rest by Israel’s allies in the region, and the few that made it through or struck unoccupied land in the general vicinity would make their point.While this conflict has been fairly stable for decades, though, the tenor and tone seems to have changed substantially in 2025, and a recent wave of attacks by Israel is generally being seen as the culmination of several other efforts, and possibly an attempt by the Israeli government to change the nature of this conflict, perhaps permanently.And that’s what I’d like to talk about today; Operation Rising Lion, and the implications of Israel’s seeming expansion and evolution of their approach to dealing with Iran.—In mid-June of 2025, Israel’s military launched early morning strikes against more than a dozen targets across Iran, most of the targets either fundamental to Iran’s nuclear program or its military.The strikes were very targeted, and some were assassinations of top Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists, like the Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, along with their families, including twenty children, who were presumably collateral damage. Some came from beyond Iran’s borders, some were conducted by assets smuggled into Iran earlier: car bombs and drones, things like that.More attacks followed that initial wave, which resulted in the collapse of nuclear sites and airport structures, along with several residential buildings in the country’s capitol, Tehran.This attack was ostensibly meant to hobble Iran’s nuclear program, which the Iranian government has long claimed is for purely peaceful, energy-generation purposes, but which independent watchdog organizations, and pretty much every other non-Iranian-allied government says is probably dual-purpose, allowing Iran to produce nuclear energy, but also nuclear weapons.There was a deal on the books for a whil

This week we talk about drone warfare, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and total war.We also discuss casualty numbers, population superiority, and lingering munitions.Recommended Book: The Burning Earth by Sunil AmrithTranscriptEight years after Russia launched a halfheartedly concealed invasion of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, under the guise of helping supposedly oppressed Russian-speakers and Russia loyalists in the area, in February of 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.This invasion followed months of military buildup along the two countries’ shared borders, and was called a special military operation by Russian President Putin. It was later reported that this was intended to be a quick, one or a few day decapitation attack against Ukraine, Russia’s forces rapidly closing the distance between the border and Ukraine’s capitol, Kyiv, killing or imprisoning all the country’s leadership, replacing it with a puppet government loyal to Putin, and that would be that.Ukraine had been reorienting toward the European Union and away from Russia’s sphere of influence, and Russia wanted to put a stop to that realignment and bring the country fully back under its control, as was the case before 2014, when a series of protests turned into an uprising that caused their then-leader, a puppet of Russia, to flee the country; he, of course, fled to Russia.On paper, Ukraine was at a massive disadvantage in this renewed conflict, as Russia is a global-scale player, while Ukraine is relatively small, and back in 2014 had one of its major ports and a huge chunk of its territory stolen by Russia.Russia also has nukes, has a massive conventional military, and has a far larger economy and population. Analysts near-universally assumed Ukraine would collapse under the weight of Russia’s military, perhaps holding out for weeks or months if they were really skillful and lucky, but probably days.That didn’t end up being the case. Despite Russia’s substantial and multifarious advantages, Ukraine managed to hold out against the initial invasion, against subsequent pushes, and then managed to launch its own counterattacks. For more than three years, it has held its ground against Russia’s onslaught, against continuous land incursions, and against seemingly endless aerial attacks by jets, by bombers, and by all sorts of rockets, missiles, and drones.It’s difficult, if not impossible, to determine actual casualty and fatality numbers in this conflict, as both sides are incentivized to adjust these figures, either to show how horrible the other side is, or to make it seem like they’re suffering less than they are for moral purposes.But it’s expected that Russia will hit a milestone of one million casualties sometime in the summer of 2025, if it hasn’t actually hit that number already, and it’s estimated that as many as 250,000 Russian soldiers have already been killed in Ukraine.For context, that’s about five-times as many deaths as Russia suffered in all the wars it fought, post-WWII (as both the Soviet Union and Russia), combined. That’s also fifteen-times as many fatalities as they suffered in their ten-year-long war in Afghanistan, and ten-times as many deaths as in their 13-year-long war in Chechnya.It’s also estimated that Russia has lost something like 3,000-4,000 tanks, 9,000 armored vehicles, 13,000 artillery systems, and more than 400 air defense systems in the past year, alone; those numbers vary a bit depending on who you listen to, but those are likely the proper order of magnitude.The country is rapidly shifting to a full-scale war footing, originally having intended to make do with a few modern systems and a whole lot of antique, Soviet military hardware they had in storage to conduct this blitzkrieg attack on Ukraine, but now they’re having to reorient basically every facet of society and their economy toward this conflict, turning a huge chunk of their total manufacturing base toward producing ammunition, tanks, missiles, and so on.Which, to be clear, is something they’re capable of doing. Russia is currently on pace to replace this hardware, and then some, which is part of why other European governments are increasing their own military spending right now: the idea being that once Russia has finished their reorientation toward the production of modern military hardware, they’ll eventually find themselves with more tanks, missiles, and drones than they can use in Ukraine, and they’ll need to aim them somewhere, or else will find themselves have to pay upkeep on all this stuff as it gathers dust and slowly becomes unusable.The theory, then, is that they’ll have to open up another conflict just to avoid being bogged down in too much surplus weaponry; so maybe they’ll try their luck in the Baltics, or perhaps start shipping more hardware to fellow travelers, terrorists and separatists, in places like Moldova.In the meantime, though, Russian forces are continuing to accrue gains in Ukraine, but very, very slow

This week we talk about gene-editing, CRISPR/Cas9, and ammonia.We also discuss the germ line, mad scientists, and science research funding.Recommended Book: The Siren’s Call by Chris HayesTranscriptBack in November of 2018, a Chinese scientist named He Jiankui achieved global notoriety by announcing that he had used a relatively new gene-editing technique on human embryos, which led to the birth of the world’s first gene-edited babies.His ambition was to help people with HIV-related fertility problems, one of which is that if a parent is HIV positive, there’s a chance they could transmit HIV to their child.This genetic modification was meant to confer immunity to HIV to the children so that wouldn’t be an issue. And in order to accomplish that immunity, He used a technology called CRISPR/Cas9 to modify the embryos’ DNA to remove their CCR5 gene, which is related to immune system function, but relevant to this undertaking, also serves as a common pathway for the HIV-1 virus, allowing it to infect a new host.CRISPR is an acronym that stands for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, and that refers to a type of DNA sequence found in all sorts of genomes, including about half of all sequenced bacterial genomes and just shy of 90% of all sequenced archaea genomes.Cas9 stands for CRISPR-associated protein 9, which is an enzyme that uses CRISPR sequences, those repeating, common sequences in DNA strands, to open up targeted DNA strands—and when paired with specific CRISPR sequences, this duo can search for selected patterns in DNA and then edit those patterns.This tool, then, allows researchers who know the DNA pattern representing a particular genetic trait—a trait that moderates an immune system protein that also happens to serve as a convenient pathway for HIV, for instance—to alter or eliminate that trait. A shorthand and incomplete way of thinking about this tool is as a sort of find and replace tool like you have in a text document on your computer, and in this instance, the gene sequence being replaced is a DNA strand that causes a trait that in turn leads to HIV susceptibility.So that’s what He targeted in those embryos, and the children those embryos eventually became, who are usually referred to as Lulu and Nana, which are pseudonyms, for their privacy, they were the first gene-edited babies; though because of the gene-editing state of the art at the time, while He intended to render these babies’ CCR5 gene entirely nonfunctional, which would replicate a natural mutation that’s been noted in some non-gene-edited people, including the so-called Berlin Patient, who was a patient in Germany in the late-90s who was functionally cured of HIV—the first known person to be thus cured—while that’s what He intended to do, instead these two babies actually carry both a functional and a mutant copy of CCR5, not just the mutant one, which in theory means they’re not immune to HIV, as intended.Regardless of that outcome, which may be less impactful than He and other proponents of this technology may have hoped, He achieved superstardom, briefly, even being named one of the most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2019. But he was also crushed by controversy, stripped of his license to conduct medical research by the Chinese government, sent to prison for three years and fined 3 million yuan, which is more than $400,000, and generally outcast from the global scientific community for ethical violations, mostly because the type of gene-editing he did wasn’t a one-off sort of thing, it was what’s called germ-line editing, which means those changes won’t just impact Lulu and Nana, they’ll be passed on to their children, as well, and their children’s children, and so on.And the ethical implications of germ-line editing are so much more substantial because while a one-off error would be devastating to the person who suffers it, such an error that is passed on to potentially endless future generations could, conceivably, end humanity.The error doesn’t even have to be a botched job, it could be an edit that makes the edited child taller or more intelligent by some measure, or more resistant to a disease, like HIV—but because this is fringy science and we don’t fully understand how changing one thing might change other things, the implications for such edits are massive.Giving someone an immunity to HIV would theoretically be a good thing, then, but if that edit then went on the market and became common, we might see a generation of humans that are immune to HIV, but potentially more susceptible to something else, or maybe who live shorter lives, or maybe who create a subsequent generation who themselves are prone to all sorts of issues we couldn’t possibly have foreseen, because we made these edits without first mapping all possible implications of making that genetic tweak, and we did so in such a way that those edits would persist throughout the generations.What I’d like to talk about tod

This week we talk about greenhouse gases, renewable energy capacity, and China’s economy.We also discuss coal power plants, natural gas, and gigatons.Recommended Book: What If We Get It Right? by Ayana Elizabeth JohnsonTranscriptIn 2024, global CO2 emissions hit a new all-time high of 37.8 gigatons, that figure including emissions from industrial processes, oil well flaring, and the combustion of fuel, like petroleum in a vehicle.And for context, a gigaton is one billion metric tons, which is about 2.2 trillion pounds. A single gigaton is about the weight of 10,000 fully equipped aircraft carriers, it’s about twice the mass of all human beings on the planet, and it’s approximately the same mass of all non-human land-mammals on earth.That’s one gigaton, and global CO2 emissions last year hit 37.8 gigatons; so quite a lot of carbon dioxide headed into the atmosphere, every year, these days.That’s up about .8% from 2023 levels, and it resulted in an atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 422.5 parts per million, which is around 3 ppm higher than 2023, and 50% higher than pre-industrial levels. And again, for context, if we don’t want to experience global average temperature increases, more extreme weather, and disrupted water cycles, the general consensus is that we want to keep atmospheric CO2 levels at or below 350 ppm, and we’re currently at 422.5 ppm.That said, while emissions grew last year, mostly because fuel combustion increased by around 1%, which overshadowed the decrease in industrial process emissions, which was down 2.3% for the year, emissions growth in 2024 was less than GDP growth; and that’s important because for a long time it was assumed that in order to grow global wealth, according to that metric for wealth, at least, more fossil fuels would need to be burned, because that was the pattern for a long time, industrial revolution, onward.Beginning in the early 2000s, though, GDP growth and emissions growth diverged, and that decoupling has become more prominent as many wealthy nations, including the US, have upped the efficiency of many previously energy-hogging aspects of their economies—things like appliances and the aforementioned industrial processes—while also shifting a lot of energy generation away from massively polluting fuels like coal and oil, over to less-polluting fuels like gas, and non-polluting sources like solar and wind, and in some cases nuclear, as well.This relationship varies significantly from country to country, and the benefits are mostly being seen in so-called advanced economies right now, as many poorer nations are still seeing increased emissions from more polluting power sources, generating electricity, and the growth in wealth leading to more people buying cars and scooters, many of which run on dirty fuels.In the US, though, GDP has doubled since 1990, but CO2 emissions have dropped back down to around 1990 levels.Which to be clear is still a whole lot, as Americans consume a lot of stuff and use a lot of energy, and there are a lot of people living in the US using all that energy and buying all that stuff. But it serves as a good example of this divergence, which we’re also seeing across the EU, where European economies, on average, are 66% larger than in 1990, and CO2 emissions are about a third lower than levels from that same year.What I’d like to talk about today, though, is how this dynamic is playing out in China, a place with a staggeringly high population, a rapidly enlarging middle class, and a whole lot of energy needs.—China is a renewable energy powerhouse.It’s an energy of all kinds powerhouse, truthfully, but its development of renewable energy technologies, and its deployment of those technologies, has been truly remarkable, especially over the past decade or so.China has more renewable energy capacity—mostly solar and wind—than the next 13 countries combined. The US comes in second place, but China has four-times as much renewable energy capacity than the US.Despite that, though, because of China’s huge population and its remarkable wealth-spreading success story, having brought something like 800 million people out of poverty over the past 40 years, a lot of people in the country need a lot more energy, every year. Because as people make more money, they tend to use more electricity and heat, and they tend to buy more things, need bigger homes, and so on. All of which requires more energy.So even though they’ve been building solar panels and wind turbines at a blistering rate, spreading these things all over the place, massively increasing their capacity for clean electricity, they’ve also been building more fossil fuel-burning power plants, especially coal power plants, and that’s made it the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases; a little less than half of the country’s total installed generation capacity burns fossil fuels, which is a huge drop from even a handful of years ago, but because so much of the remaining fossil fuel stock is