Even with the recent weakness in house prices, it is important to note that there will NOT be a surge in foreclosures that could lead to cascading house price declines (as happened following the housing bubble) for two key reasons: 1) mortgage lending has been solid, and 2) most homeowners have substantial equity in their homes.
With substantial equity, and low mortgage rates (mostly at a fixed rates), few homeowners will have financial difficulties.
But it is still important to track delinquencies and foreclosures.
... This graph shows the nominal dollar value of Residential REO for FDIC insured institutions based on the Q3 FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile released in late November. Note: The FDIC reports the dollar value and not the total number of REOs.
The dollar value of 1-4 family residential Real Estate Owned (REOs, foreclosure houses) was up 24% YOY from $765 million in Q3 2024 to $951 million in Q3 2025. This is still historically very low, but increasing.
In case you missed it, Tuesday night, the Democratic congressional candidate, Aftyn Benn, for TN-7 lost, but, importantly, she overperformed in a heavily Republican district, in what appears to be a thirteen point swing from the 2024 Trump margin of victory in the district. As you might imagine, the Trump White House and Republican leaders are soberly reviewing their current policies to understand how to better reach the American electorate.
Mr. Trump announced the pardon for Cuellar and his wife, Imelda, on Truth Social, claiming their prosecution was the result of weaponization by the Justice Department under former President Joe Biden.
“Henry, I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!” the president wrote, alleging that Cuellar’s opposition to Biden’s immigration policies was the reason he was indicted.
The president wrote that the Texas Democrat “bravely spoke out against Open Borders and the Biden Border ‘Catastrophe'” and accused Biden of deliberately targeting the congressman and his wife “simply for speaking the TRUTH.”
Keep in mind, the bribery investigation began during the Biden administration.
This is a preemptive pardon, as Cuellar has been indicted, but not convicted. Clearly, Trump is terrified of Democrats retaking the House and is so desperate, he is de facto bribing Cuellar (who is a bad Democrat; there was a good challenger–guess which one the party leadership backed!). Every vote might count, so having a Democrat who might take a dive on things like corruption is a boon for Trump.
It’s worth noting that, in the Federalist Papers, the authors who opposed a presidential pardon power anticipated that a corrupt president would use the pardon power to gain political favor. Seems even enslavers got things right once in a while…
NRCC Chair Richard Hudson told NOTUS that the pardon “surprised” him. He learned about it like the rest of us: online. “He’s definitely a more formidable opponent without the legal cloud hanging over him,” Hudson said of Cuellar.
Whoops! A Republican strategist close to the White House told Jasmine that some inside the Office of Legislative Affairs believed Cuellar was open to switching parties. When the strategist learned that Cuellar had filed to run for reelection as a Democrat, they responded, “Wow.”
It remains to be seen if Cuellar believes he owes Trump anything (a downside of bailing out shitty people is they often don’t return the favor…).
A recent article in The Lancet talks about the checkered career of the late James Watson (1928-2025), who participated in great science (the DNA double helix), wrote about it in popular terms that had some vulgar elements (The Double Helix), and later in life had troubling, unscientific thoughts on race and gender. This made me think of yesterday's post, which touched on the Statement from the American Economic Association concerning Larry Summers.
"There was always going to be a complex reckoning in the obituaries of James D Watson (1928–2025), the American geneticist who co-discovered the structure of DNA. For many years, Watson was one of the most influential figures in modern biology—Director, then President and Chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) in New York, USA, from 1968 to 2007, and the key motive force behind the Human Genome Project. He was also notorious for his attitudes towards women, especially Rosalind Franklin (1920–58), and for his comments on race, which led to a precipitous fall from grace in the past two decades. Watson enjoyed playing the role of provocateur, proudly claiming that his Chicago heritage made him inclined to speak his mind frankly no matter who it upset. The popular image of Watson now is of a great scientist who held controversial views. That, however, lets everyone too easily off the hook."
And here are the two concluding paragraphs:
"But this is also a cautionary tale about how science comports itself. Watson's 2007 interview was hardly a revelation to those who knew him; he had been making bigoted comments for years. In the Esquire interview in that same year he said “some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified”. And yet there had been a continual turning of a blind eye: he was seen as “outspoken”, “colourful”, and “controversial”. In Watson's heyday, the scientific community tended to indulge such behaviour so long as the perpetrator was sufficiently eminent. Even after the disastrous interview in The Sunday Times, some considered Watson's reputation should shield him from repercussions. When a talk at the Science Museum in London was cancelled in 2007, Richard Dawkins complained about “the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant ‘thought police’, of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time”. It can sometimes look as though the biggest crime in science is to create an unseemly fuss, especially on a topic deemed “political”. That Elon Musk, who is a fellow of the Royal Society (FRS), gave a Nazi salute, or that Stephen Hawking FRS attended soirées on Jeffrey Epstein's private island, are seen primarily as sources of embarrassment best passed over quickly.
"Perhaps times are changing. When Watson turned up at the event marking the 75th anniversary of Schrödinger's What Is Life? in Dublin, Ireland, and was given an impromptu toast by the organisers, there were dumbfounded glances all around the tables at the thought that we were expected to raise our glasses. Scientists are starting to confront difficult behaviour—but we still have some way to go before acknowledging that it can taint not only the practice of science but also its substance too. "
##########
We have had to think about fine figures with feet of clay at least since Daniel (33-34) interpreted for King Nebuchadnezzar his dream about a statue with "a head of fine gold, its breast and its arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of copper. Its legs were of iron, and its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay."
Technicians with NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems team use a crane to lift and secure NASA’s Orion spacecraft on top of the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket in High Bay 3 of the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Saturday, Oct. 18, 2025, for the agency’s Artemis 2 mission. Image: NASA/Kim Shiflett
The four astronauts who are to fly a loop around the Moon next year on the Artemis 2 mission were supposed to board their Orion capsule on Nov. 19 for a launch day rehearsal, but a problem with the spacecraft’s hatch delayed the practice run, NASA told Spaceflight Now.
“We were supposed to be at Kennedy Space Center for the Countdown Demonstration Test, but we have delayed that test into December,” Artemis 2 Commander Reid Wiseman said in a video, shared Nov. 24 on social media. “We spent the bulk of this week sitting down with our flight control experts and our teams here at Johnson [Space Center] just working through all the questions that we have leading up to today.”
Similar countdown practice runs for astronauts and launch controllers took place during the Apollo and Shuttle programs and continue to this day for SpaceX Crew Dragon crews. For those rehearsals, the astronauts boarded their spaceships at the launch pad, but the Artemis 2 plan is different.
For the Countdown Demonstration Test, or CDT, the Artemis 2 astronauts will walkout out of crew quarters at the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkouts Building in bright-orange pressure suits before traveling to the Vehicle Assembly Building, where their Orion capsule and Space Launch System rocket are being readied for flight in High Bay 3. Once inside the cavernous building they will ride the launch pad elevator to the 274-foot level, cross the crew access arm and strap in aboard the Orion spacecraft. Meanwhile in the adjacent Launch Control Center, Launch Director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson will run her team through the final hours of the countdown, before stopping the clock in its final moments. The astronauts will then practice an emergency evacuation from the capsule.
The crew of NASA’s Artemis 2 mission participates in a suited crew test on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. From left, NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Artemis 2 commander; Victor Glover, Artemis 2 pilot; and Christina Koch, mission specialist; along with CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen, mission specialist, donned their Orion crew survival system spacesuits for training at NASA’s Kennedy’s Multi-Payload Processing Facility, where they entered their fully powered Orion spacecraft as part of the test. Image: NASA/Rad Sinyak.
Spaceflight Now earlier reported that the countdown rehearsal was delayed by an issue with the Orion capsule. A NASA spokesperson confirmed that in a statement to Spaceflight Now on Wednesday, Dec. 3.
“Prior to the countdown demonstration test, the agency had planned to conduct a day of launch closeout demonstration. This demonstration was paused when a blemish was found on the crew module thermal barrier, preventing hatch closure until it could be addressed,” the statement read. “A repair was completed on Nov. 18 allowing the closeout demo to successfully complete on Nov. 19. To allow lessons learned from the closeout demo to be incorporated into the planning for the countdown demonstration test, the decision was made to proceed into water servicing next and place the countdown demonstration test after this servicing completes.”
It was not clear from the NASA statement how a ‘blemish’ prevented the closure of the hatch and NASA would not say exactly when the countdown rehearsal will take place.
Declining to provide further details, the space agency spokesperson said: “NASA remains on track to launch Artemis 2 no later than April 2026 with opportunities to potentially launch as soon as February.”
“It won’t affect our launch schedule, which is fantastic,” said Wiseman in the Nov. 24 video. “Charlie Blackwell-Thompson and her team at Kennedy are working hard, getting this vehicle ready for us to go.”
A high-level checklist of activities that NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems team needs to complete within the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center prior to rolling the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft out to Launch Complex 39B for final Artemis 2 launch preparations. This graphic was shared by the agency on Nov. 20, 2025. Graphic: NASA
The CDT is one of the big milestones outlined by NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems before the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft are rolled out from the VAB to the pad at Launch Complex 39B.
Once there, final-prelaunch checkouts will take place over a roughly 18-day work period. That work includes the Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR), during which teams will load more than 700,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen onto the rocket in the same manner that will be done on launch day.
The four crew members, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, Jeremy Hansen and Wiseman, won’t be onboard the Orion capsule for the WDR, but will have some final emergency evacuation training at the pad.
In the week ending November 29, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 191,000, a decrease of
27,000 from the previous week's revised level. This is the lowest level for initial claims since September 24, 2022 when
it was 189,000. The previous week's level was revised up by 2,000 from 216,000 to 218,000. The 4-week moving
average was 214,750, a decrease of 9,500 from the previous week's revised average. The previous week's average was
revised up by 500 from 223,750 to 224,250. emphasis added
The following graph shows the 4-week moving average of weekly claims since 1971.
Click on graph for larger image.
The dashed line on the graph is the current 4-week average. The four-week average of weekly unemployment claims decreased to 214,750.
My son Maxwell Tabarrok’s paper is Peptide-DB: A Million-Peptide Database to Accelerate Science. Max’s paper combines economics and science policy. Open databases are a public good and so are underprovided. A case in point is that there is no big database for anti-microbial peptides despite the evident utility of such a database for using ML techniques to create new antibiotics. The NIH and other organizations have successfully filled this gap with databases in the past such as PubChem, the HGP, and ProteinDB. A million-peptide database is well within their reach:
The existing data infrastructure for antimicrobial peptides is tiny and scattered: a few thousand sequences with a couple of useful biological assays are scattered across dozens of data providers. No one in science today has the incentives to create this data. Pharma companies can’t make money from it and researchers can’t produce any splashy publications. This means that researchers are duplicating the expensive legwork of collating and cleaning all of this
data and are not getting optimal results, as this is simply not enough information to take full advantage of the ML approach. Scientific funding organizations, including the NIH and the NSF, can fix this problem. The scientific knowledge required to massively scale the data we have on antimicrobial peptides is well established and ready to go. It wouldn’t be too expensive or take too long to get a clean dataset of a million peptides or more, and to have detailed information on their activity against the most important resistant pathogens as well as its toxicity to human cells. This is well within the scale of the successful projects these organizations have funded in the past, including PubChem, the HGP, and ProteinDB.
The CDC did many things. It published learned papers on health crises, after the fact. It managed, very carefully, public perception of itself. But when the shooting started, it leapt into the nearest hole, while others took fire.
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant weaknesses in the CDC’s response system. Its traditional strengths in testing, pathogen dentification, and disease investigation and tracking faltered. The legacy of Alexander Langmuir, a pioneering epidemiologist who infused the CDC with epidemiological principles in the 1950s, now seems a distant memory. Tasks as basic as collecting and providing timely COVID-19 data, along with data analysis and epidemiological modeling—both of which should have been the core capability of the CDC—became alarmingly difficult and had to be handled by nongovernmental organizations, such as the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center.
A closer examination of the CDC’s workforce composition reveals the root cause: a mere fraction of its employees are epidemiologists and data scientists. The agency has seen an increasing emphasis on academic exploration at the expense of on the-ground action and support for frontline health departments. (Armstrong & Griffin, 2022).
The authors propose to reinvigorate the CDC by integrating it with the more practical and active U.S. Public Health Service. This is a very good suggestion.
For one more check out Bai, Hyman and Silver as a primer on Improving Health Care. The entire issue is excellent.
Vinyl flooring is a popular choice in schools due to its durability, affordability, and ease of cleaning. However, maintaining these floors can create unexpected safety hazards, especially right after cleaning. Wet or freshly polished vinyl can become extremely slippery, posing a risk to students, teachers, and staff. In cases of serious injury, the personal injury lawyers at The Stoddard Firm can help determine who is responsible and identify the necessary legal steps.
Why Vinyl Flooring Is Common in Schools
Many schools opt for vinyl flooring because it can withstand heavy foot traffic and daily wear and tear. It is resistant to stains and scuffs, making it ideal for busy hallways where hundreds of students pass through every day. Custodial teams also find it easy to maintain, which keeps long-term costs low for school districts.
The Hidden Hazard After Cleaning
One of the biggest dangers occurs immediately after vinyl floors have been cleaned. Even a thin layer of water or cleaning solution can reduce traction. Students walking quickly between classes or carrying heavy backpacks may not notice the warning signs before it is too late.
Freshly waxed or polished vinyl floors are hazardous. The shine that attracts visitors can also hide moisture or residue. Slips and falls can happen within seconds if proper drying time is not observed.
Common Causes of Slip Hazards
Several factors can increase the risk of slipping on vinyl flooring. One common cause is the improper use of cleaning techniques. Using too much water or the wrong type of cleaning solution can leave behind a slick film.
Another factor is poor ventilation. Without adequate airflow, moisture takes longer to evaporate. This can make hallways unsafe for more extended periods after cleaning. Lastly, failing to use clear warning signs may cause students and staff to step onto wet floors without realizing it.
The Impact of Slip-and-Fall Accidents
Slip-and-fall accidents in schools can result in more than just embarrassment. They can cause serious injuries such as sprains, fractures, and concussions. Young children and older staff members are particularly vulnerable to these injuries.
Medical costs, missed school days, and emotional distress can follow a single fall. When such incidents occur due to negligence, schools and maintenance staff may face legal consequences. Understanding the risks and taking preventive measures can help avoid these outcomes.
Preventing Slips on Vinyl Floors
Prevention starts with proper cleaning practices. Custodial staff should always follow the manufacturer’s instructions for cleaning products and equipment. Using too much detergent or failing to rinse floors properly can leave slippery residues.
Carefully scheduling cleaning times can also reduce risks. For example, floors can be cleaned after school hours to allow enough drying time overnight. Adequate ventilation, such as open windows or fans, helps speed up the drying process.
Warning signs are another essential tool. Brightly colored “Wet Floor” signs should be placed in visible locations around any recently cleaned area. Staff should also ensure signs remain in place until the floors are completely dry.
The Role of Maintenance and Training
Proper training for custodial staff is crucial in minimizing accidents. Workers should understand which cleaning agents are safe for use on vinyl and how much water to use. They should also learn to spot early warning signs of slippery surfaces.
Regular maintenance also helps reduce risks. Over time, old wax or polish layers can build up, creating uneven textures that affect traction. Stripping and resealing floors correctly ensures a safe and consistent surface.
Schools should also have clear communication between maintenance teams and administrators. Informing teachers about cleaning schedules can help them direct students away from wet areas.
Legal Responsibilities of Schools
Schools have a legal duty to provide a safe environment for students and employees. This includes maintaining hallways and floors in a condition that does not present unreasonable risks. If someone is injured after slipping on a freshly cleaned vinyl floor, the school may be held responsible.
Liability depends on whether the school took reasonable steps to prevent the hazard. For example, if warning signs were missing or cleaning was performed during peak hours, it could indicate negligence. Documentation of cleaning schedules and maintenance protocols can be key evidence in such cases.
How Legal Professionals Can Help
When a slip-and-fall accident occurs, it is crucial to investigate quickly. Witness statements, photographs, and cleaning logs can help determine the cause of the incident. Legal professionals can assess whether the school or its contractors adhered to safety standards.
Victims of these incidents may be entitled to compensation for medical expenses, pain, and suffering. Guidance from experienced attorneys can ensure their rights are protected. The personal injury lawyers at The Stoddard Firm have experience handling such cases and can assist in evaluating liability and pursuing justice.
Final Thoughts
Slips on vinyl flooring after cleaning are a preventable hazard in school hallways. With proper maintenance, training, and safety awareness, schools can significantly reduce the risk of accidents. Paying attention to drying times and warning signs can make all the difference. In severe cases, the personal injury lawyers at The Stoddard Firm can provide the support and expertise needed to navigate the legal process and seek fair compensation.
Divorce is rarely straightforward, and things can get even more complicated when a family business is involved. With thoughtful planning, open communication, and trusted legal guidance from The Law Office of Stephen Vertucci, couples can work toward a fair resolution that protects both the business and their financial futures.
Understanding the Business as a Marital Asset
The first step in dividing a family business is determining whether it qualifies as a marital asset. Generally, if the company was started or significantly expanded during the marriage, its value will be part of what needs to be divided. To move forward fairly, the business should be professionally appraised — usually by an independent valuation expert — to determine its true market worth.
Several factors influence this valuation, including:
Tangible assets: Equipment, property, inventory, and financial accounts.
Intangible assets: Brand reputation, client relationships, intellectual property, and goodwill.
Income streams: Past and projected profits.
Exploring Division Options
Once the business’s value has been determined, the next step is to determine how to divide it without disrupting operations. There are a few common ways to approach this:
1. Buyout by One Spouse
One of the simplest solutions is for one spouse to purchase the other’s share of the business. This approach allows the company to continue under a single owner while ensuring fair compensation for the departing spouse. The buyout can be structured in different ways—through a lump-sum payment, an installment plan, or by trading other marital assets such as real estate or retirement accounts to balance the value.
2. Co-Ownership
Some divorced couples choose to remain business partners. This arrangement can work if both parties maintain a professional demeanor, keep communication open, and clearly define their roles. For example, one spouse might manage daily operations while the other handles finances or marketing.
To avoid future misunderstandings, it’s essential to have a written agreement in place. The document should outline each person’s responsibilities, specify who has decision-making authority, describe how profits will be shared, and outline the process for resolving disagreements or addressing a party’s desire to sell their share.
3. Selling the Business
If neither spouse wants to continue managing the company, selling the business and dividing the proceeds may be the most straightforward solution. While this option brings closure to the joint venture, it also helps avoid future disagreements and ensures both parties walk away with a fair outcome.
That said, selling isn’t always easy, primarily if the business supports family members or employs a loyal team. In such cases, planning the sale carefully or hiring a temporary manager can help maintain stability during the transition.
Legal Tools That Offer Protection
Certain legal arrangements can make dividing a business during a divorce more straightforward while helping to keep operations running smoothly. Common options include:
Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements: These agreements can clearly define ownership percentages, buyout terms, and other key conditions in advance. By setting expectations early, they help reduce conflict and uncertainty in the event of a divorce.
Shareholder or Partnership Agreements: Such documents outline how ownership shares can be transferred or sold, preventing a divorce from automatically affecting the company’s structure or stability. They ensure business continuity even as personal circumstances change.
Trusts and Holding Structures: In some situations, placing the business within a trust or holding company can help separate personal and business assets. This setup adds a layer of protection, allowing the company to continue operating with minimal disruption.
Even if no formal agreements were created beforehand, it’s still possible to negotiate similar terms during divorce proceedings. Doing so can help maintain stability and safeguard the business’s future.
The Emotional Side of Business Division
Beyond the financial and legal hurdles, dividing a family business can have a profound emotional toll. For many couples, the company isn’t just a source of income; it’s a reflection of their shared effort, family identity, and years of hard work. It’s only natural for feelings to run high, but keeping a level head is key to making sound decisions.
Working with a counselor, mediator, or neutral business advisor can make it easier to handle difficult discussions and reach practical solutions. By focusing on shared priorities, such as protecting employees, maintaining profitability, and preserving the company’s reputation, both parties can move forward with a sense of fairness and respect.
Final Thoughts
Dividing a family-owned business during a divorce doesn’t have to mean walking away from what you’ve built together. With an accurate valuation, open and fair negotiation, and trusted legal guidance from The Law Office of Stephen Vertucci, couples can reach a resolution that respects both partners’ contributions while maintaining the business’s strength. Whether the final decision leads to a buyout, shared ownership, or the eventual sale of the company, the priority should always be preserving the business’s stability and long-term success.
How did the screen you’re looking at right now get invented? There was a whole pipeline of innovation that started in the early 20th century. First, about a hundred years ago, a few weird European geniuses invented quantum mechanics, which lets us understand semiconductors. Then in the mid 20th century some Americans at Bell Labs invented the semiconductor. Some Japanese and American scientists at various corporate labs learned how to turn those into LEDs, LCDs, and thin-film transistors, which we use to make screens. Meanwhile, American chemists at Corning invented Gorilla Glass, a strong and flexible form of glass. Software engineers, mostly in America, created software that allowed screens to respond to touch in a predictable way. A host of other engineers and scientists — mostly in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and the U.S. — did a bunch of incremental hardware improvements to make those screens brighter, higher-resolution, stronger, more responsive to touch, and so on. And voila — we get the screen you’re reading this post on.
This story is very simplified and condensed, but it illustrates how innovation is a pipeline. We have names for pieces of this pipeline — “basic research”, “applied research”, “invention”, “innovation”, “commercialization”, and so on — but these are approximate, and it’s often hard to tell where one of these ends and another begins. What we do know about this pipeline is:
It tends to go from general ideas (quantum mechanics) to specific products (a modern phone or laptop screen).
The initial ideas rarely if ever can be sold for money, but at some point in the chain you start being able to sell things.
That switch from non-monetizable to monetizable typically means that the early parts of the chain are handled by inventors, universities, government labs, and occasionally a very big corporate lab, while the later parts of the chain are handled mostly by corporate labs and other corporate engineers.
Very rarely does a whole chain of innovation happen within a single country; usually there are multiple handoffs from country to country as the innovation goes from initial ideas to final products.
Here’s what I think is a pretty good diagram from Barry Naughton, which separates the pipeline into three parts:
Over the years, the pipeline has changed a lot. In the old days, a lot of the middle stages — the part where theory gets turned into some basic prototype invention — were done by lone inventors like Thomas Edison or Nikola Tesla. Later, corporate labs took over this function, bringing together a bunch of different scientists and lots of research funding. Recently, corporate labs do less basic research (though they’re still very important in some areas like AI and pharma), and venture-funded startups have moved in to fill some of that gap.
The early parts of the pipeline changed too — university labs scaled up and became better funded, government labs got added, and a few very big corporate labs like Bell Labs even did some basic science of their own. The key innovation here was Big Science — in World War 2, America began using government to fund the early stages of the innovation pipeline with truly massive amounts of money. Everyone knows about the NIH and the NSF, but the really huge player here is the Department of Defense:
Japan, meanwhile, worked on improving the later parts of the chain. I recommend the book We Were Burning for a good intro to the ways that Japanese corporate labs utilized their companies’ engineering-intensive manufacturing divisions to make a continuous stream of small improvements to the final products, as well as finding ways to scale up and reduce costs (kaizen).
And finally, the links between the pieces of the pipeline — the way that technology gets handed off from one institution to another at different stages of the chain — changed as well. America passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, making it a lot easier for university labs to commercialize their work — which thus made it easy and often lucrative for corporations to fund research at universities. (This had its roots in earlier practices by U.S. and German universities.)
Meanwhile, in parallel, the U.S. pioneered a couple of other models. There was the DARPA model, where an independent program manager funded by the government coordinates researchers from across government, companies, and universities in order to produce a specific technology that then gets handed off to both companies and the military. And there are occasional “Manhattan projects”, where the government coordinates a bunch of actors to create a specific technological breakthrough, like building nuclear weapons, landing on the moon, or sequencing the human genome.
So we’ve seen a number of big changes in the innovation pipeline over the years. And different countries have done innovation differently, adding crucial pieces and making key changes as their innovation ecosystems developed The UK pioneered the patent-protected “lone inventor” model (with some forerunners of modern venture capital). Germany created corporate labs and the research university. America invented Big Science, modern VC, and DARPA, while also scaling up modern university-private collaboration and undertaking a few Manhattan-type projects. And Japan added continuous improvement and continuous innovation at the end of the chain.
That story more or less brings us up from the 1700s to the late 2010s. That’s when China enters the innovation story in a big way.
China’s innovation boom
Up through the mid-2010s, China had a pretty typical innovation system — the government would fund basic research, companies would have labs that would create products, and so on. China wasn’t really at the technological frontier yet, though, so this system didn’t really matter that much for Chinese technology — most of the advances came from overseas, via licensing, joint ventures, reverse engineering, or espionage. If you’ve ever heard people talk about how China “steals” all its tech, they’re talking about this era — and “steal” means a whole bunch of different things.
In the 2010s, China’s growth slowed down. There were a lot of reasons for that, but one reason was that they were approaching the limits of how much technology they could transfer from overseas. They had to start inventing things on their own. So they did.
You’ve probably read a lot about Chinese innovation in the last few years. Most things you read will fall into one or more of three basic categories:
“Look how much money China is spending on research”
“Look how many academic papers China is publishing”
“Look which high-tech industries China is dominating”
And since salaries and materials and equipment are all cheaper in China, in PPP terms they’re actually spending a bit more on research than America now. And the gap is set to widen, with or without planned U.S. budget cuts:
As for scientific output, despite inflating their citation counts a lot with citation rings and other tricks, China now leads the world in high-quality STEM papers, especially in materials science, chemistry, engineering, and computer science:
And as for high-tech manufacturing, China is dominating there as well, except in a few narrow sectors where U.S. export controls have managed to keep key pieces of technology out of Chinese hands.
One other piece of evidence that China’s innovation is producing real results comes from the royalties that the world pays to Chinese companies to license their technologies. This amount has skyrocketed since China rolled out its new innovation system in the late 2010s, showing that China is producing lots of technology that the world is willing to pay for:
But although you’ll read a lot in the news about how much China is innovating, you almost never read a good explanation of how they’re doing it. Most people don’t seem to think about how research actually functions; people talk as if it’s just a black box where money goes in and cutting-edge high-tech products come out the other side. But it’s not a black box; the way that a country translates money into products is very important. It affects how productively the money will get used, who spends the money, how much can be deployed, what kinds of products and technologies that the system will create, and who will benefit from those products.
In fact, we know a lot about China’s innovation system — enough to know that in the last decade, they’ve created something new and powerful and interesting. If you want some readings, I strongly recommend:
Anyway, reading all this, it’s clear that like all the industrial nations before it, China has made big changes to the way innovation gets done. I’ll talk about what these changes are, and what they imply for the future of technology (and the economy), but first I think it’s useful to think a bit about the purpose of China’s innovation system.
I’ve been pretty critical of Zohran Mamdani’s ideas for New York City. His plan to make buses free would degrade the quality of public transit and make it both less useful and less popular. His idea to open government-run grocery stores would just fail outright. His rent control plan would at least partially undermine his housing plans, while his proposed tax increases would probably accelerate the exodus of New York’s crucial finance industry.
But at least one of Zohran’s ideas is excellent: His support for small business. In a recent video, he promised to make it “faster, easier, and cheaper” for small retail businesses to open in NYC, to cut fines and fees for these businesses by 50%, to accelerate permits and applications, to slash regulations, to have government workers who help small businesses navigate government requirements, and to increase funding for small business support programs by 500%. Many of these ideas are listed on Mamdani’s website.
Mamdani’s push to support small business is part of a larger overall theme within America’s revitalized socialist movement, and within modern progressivism in general — a deep suspicion of big corporations and an instinctive support for mom & pops. It’s not just movement progressives, either. Daniel Lurie, San Francisco’s mayor, is widely regarded as a centrist, and yet he has made support for small retail businesses a keystone of his approach to urban revitalization:
Mayor Daniel Lurie today signed five ordinances from his PermitSFlegislative package, driving the city’s economic recovery by making major structural changes that will help small business owners and property owners secure the permits they need more easily and efficiently. Reforms include common-sense measures to support small businesses through the permitting process, boost the city’s nightlife businesses, help families maintain their homes, and increase flexibility to support businesses downtown.
No more permits for sidewalk tables and chairs—putting $2,500 back in the pockets of small businesses and saving them valuable time…No more permits and fees to put your business name in your store window or paint it on your storefront…No more trips to the Permit Center to have candles on your restaurant’s table…No more rigid rules about what your security gate must look like so businesses have more options to secure their storefronts…No more long waits or costly reviews for straightforward improvements to your home, like replacing a back deck…And we’re getting rid of outdated rules to give downtown businesses more flexibility with how to use their ground-floor spaces—because if adding childcare centers and gyms will help bring companies and employees back downtown, we should support it…In addition, every city department involved in permitting will track timelines and publish them online…Learn more about the initiative at https://sf.gov/permitsf
I’m extremely happy about this trend. To be frank, there’s not much to like in the model of progressive local governance that has emerged over the last two decades. Cumbersome regulations that slow construction and raise costs, public money funneled to useless or corrupt nonprofits, permissive policies toward crime and disorder, and weakening public education in the name of “equity” have all sadly become part of the standard progressive package, with predictably terrible results. (Lurie is known as a “centrist” because he has tried to rectify at least some of these problems.)
But the emerging support for small business is a very important bright spot! First of all, it’s an example of progressives supporting productive enterprise, rather than treating every type of human activity as an opportunity for ad-hoc redistribution. Progressives talk endlessly about “resources”, but the pool of resources in a city is not fixed. If you make buses scary to use by allowing disorderly people onto them, or if you limit new housing construction with regulation, or if you outsource city services to less competent nonprofits, the total amount of your city’s resources goes down, and there is simply less to go around.
But small businesses increase a city’s total resources, because they are productive enterprises. Every restaurant means a greater variety of food to eat, every boutique means a greater selection of clothes to wear. They’re an incredibly important component of capitalism, providing productive employment for almost half of all private-sector workers.
At this point, some hard-headed conservative is going to pop up to inform me that small business is inherently less efficient at production than big business. And this is generally true. Economies of scale are a real thing — when you can leverage the distribution networks and high volumes of Wal-Mart, you can afford to charge consumers lower prices than a corner bodega that doesn’t have those advantages.
That’s why big chain stores tend to drive mom-and-pop shops out of business when they come to town. When chains drive out small businesses, productivity goes up significantly — in fact, Foster, Haltiwanger, and Krizan (2006) estimated that this was the main source of productivity growth for the U.S. retail industry in the late 20th century.1
And yet when small business dies, something important is lost. For one thing, an important path to the middle class is closed off. Small business provides a lot of employment, but the class whose lives are transformed the most are the business owners themselves. This is from a 2014 report by the Urban Institute:
Family-business ownership is associated with faster upward mobility than observed in paid work once selection is addressed….[We find] a positive and significant [causal effect] on family-business ownership, where the outcome is upward income mobility from 1980 to 1999…[Our results] suggest that family-business ownership led to a higher level of economic advancement relative to working for someone else in the 1980s and 1990s. Owning or having a management stake in a small business had an unambiguously positive effect on upward income mobility during the 1980s and 1990s after controlling for resources in the 1970s.
This is the reason for Japan’s legendarily staunch support of small retail businesses. The country offers small businesspeople a dizzying array of cheap loans, tax incentives, subsidies for technological upgrading, free training and education, expedited permitting and regulatory approval, startup subsidies, various place-based policies, protection from competition by large chains, and so on.
Small business is considered a key pillar of the Japanese middle class, and also an escape hatch for independent-minded Japanese people to escape the often stifling corporate system. Altogether, small businesses of all types are responsible for 70% of Japanese employment, which is significantly higher than in the U.S. This preponderance of small business has probably held back Japan’s productivity to some degree, but it’s a sacrifice the country has been willing to make.
In the United States, small business is especially important as a ladder of upward mobility for immigrants, as anyone whose immigrant ancestors owned a convenience store, a furniture store, or a gas station can attest. Immigrants own a disproportionately high percent of the country’s mom-and-pop shops, especially in the restaurant industry.
At this point, the aforementioned hard-headed conservatives may accuse me of caring about distribution more than production. Why settle for somewhat-productive mom-and-pop shops when you could get ultra-productive chains like CVS and Walmart? If we’re going for productivity, why not go all the way?
The answer, I think, is political-economic in nature. Socialists may be leading the charge for small business, but small business owners are perhaps the key constituency for capitalism itself. Being a business owner means that you are, by definition, a capitalist; you depend for your livelihood not just on the right to own capital and hire workers, but also on the entire network of trade and markets that supports modern business. Any major shock to that underlying free-market system — or even government policies that increase your costs by a moderate amount — is a threat to your way of life.
And on top of that, your day-to-day experience of life — hiring, firing, buying, selling, and so on — will familiarize you with the basic principles of markets. As a small businessperson, you “eat what you kill” — your survival depends on your own ability and hard work, and there’s no one looking out for you.
Compare that to the experience of being an employee of a large company, where your destiny is controlled by a distant gigantic organization, and your individual initiative may or may not be recognized and rewarded by your boss. In that sort of environment, socialism may start to seem appealing — it’s just replacing one big domineering organization with another, except at least you can vote for the people in the government.
No wonder small businesspeople tend to support pro-business parties. In the U.S., they’re traditionally a key Republican constituency, reflecting the fact that the GOP used to be known as the party of business. In fact, it’s a consistent finding across countries. Malhotra, Margalit, and Shi (2025) crunch a large number of data sources, and emerge with one consistent finding:
We show that this sizable constituency of [small business owners], which is responsible for a substantial share of economic growth and overall employment, systematically leans to the right. This is most notable among business owners that employ other workers. Our findings indicate that this political affiliation is not merely a result of background characteristics that lead people to open or run a business.
Rather, the evidence suggests that experiences associated with running a business— particularly the heightened need to deal with the regulatory state—underlie the greater appeal of parties on the right.
Allowing hyper-efficient chain businesses like Wal-Mart to annihilate independent retail might bring a bit of economic efficiency and some higher profits in the short run, but in the long run, dispossessing the masses of significant capital ownership and disconnecting them from the reality of running a business is probably how you get trends like this one:
Ironically, this means socialists might be hurting their cause in the long term by supporting small business. But in the short term, they might manage to narrow the support gap with the GOP, while devolving capital ownership to a broader base of owners. That might be a compromise worth making, especially in cities like NYC and San Francisco where Republicans are probably not going to be a competitive threat anytime soon.
In the realm of urbanism, too, my bet is that small business owners have a positive effect. Data is more sparse here, but lots of the things that make cities livable — low crime, cheap dense housing, high-quality public transit — also happen to be the very things that bring lots of customers to small businesses’ doors. Small businesses do much better when they have lots of people living nearby, who can easily reach their doors on foot, and who can go outside without being worried about crime. The more that small businesses get strengthened in American cities, I predict, the faster sanity can be restored to urban policy after the missteps of the last few years.
On top of all the political-economic and distributional benefits, having a lot of small independent retail outlets just makes a city really, really nice. I wrote about this back in May:
I’ll just quote myself a little bit:
Although American urbanists usually think in terms of housing density — which is understandable, given the country’s failure to build enough housing — I’ve come to realize the importance of commercial density. Basically, great cities have a lot of shops everywhere…The beauty of Brooklyn’s brownstones, or Paris’ Haussmann apartments, comes in large part from the fact that they’re located near to shops…
When we lament the isolation of the suburbs, we’re not really lamenting low residential density; we’re lamenting the isolation of houses from third spaces where people might meet and mingle. Those third spaces are shops…If you expect citizens to give up the comfort of huge suburban houses and leafy green lawns and move to the city center, they have to be compensated in some way. Having a huge variety of stores and restaurants and bars and cafes within easy walking distance is that compensation.
I’ve also written about how Japan’s strong support for small business is one of the biggest reasons why its cities are such amazing places to live and to visit. You just can’t beat the experience of walking around all those cool little independent restaurants and stores.
So anyway, I’m not worried about the economic inefficiency of small shops. They bring balance to the political system, they improve the quality of our cities, and they support the great American middle class. No wonder they’re more popular than any other institution in the country:
Mamdani, Lurie, and the other mayors supporting small retail business are doing exactly the right thing. It’s very refreshing to see a sensible urban policy after so many years of destructive nonsense.
Whether small business are good for economic growth overall is a slightly different question. In fact, different studies tend to contradict each other on this point.
Here is the second (and final) installment of my survey of the 100 best recordings of the year. For part one, click here.
As always, I cover all genres, all styles, and all regions.
Most of these artists will be unfamiliar names. (There’s only one certified gold album on my list this year.) But their music is fresh and exciting and will reward your attention.
So I encourage you to click on the links (in the album titles) to sample the work of these deserving musicians.
Happy listening!
Please support my work—by taking out a premium subscription (just $6 per month).
Private astronaut Jared Isaacman returned to Congress on Wednesday for a second confirmation hearing to become NASA administrator before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in Washington, DC.
There appeared to be no showstoppers during the hearing, in which Isaacman reiterated his commitment to the space agency’s Artemis Program and defended his draft plan for NASA, “Project Athena,” which calls for an assessment of how NASA should adapt to meet the modern space age.
During his testimony, Isaacman expressed urgency as NASA faces a growing threat from China to its supremacy in spaceflight.
Tyler and Dan debate whether American infrastructure is actually broken or just differently optimized, why health care spending should reach 35% of GDP, how lawyerly influences shaped East Asian development differently than China, China’s lack of a liberal tradition and why it won’t democratize like South Korea or Taiwan did, its economic dysfunction despite its manufacturing superstars, Chinese pragmatism and bureaucratic incentives, a 10-day itinerary for Yunnan, James C. Scott’s work on Zomia, whether Beijing or Shanghai is the better city, Liu Cixin and why volume one of The Three-Body Problem is the best, why contemporary Chinese music and film have declined under Xi, Chinese marriage markets and what it’s like to be elderly in China, the Dan Wang production function, why Stendhal is his favorite novelist and Rossini’s Comte Ory moves him, what Dan wants to learn next, whether LLMs will make Tyler’s hyper-specific podcast questions obsolete, what flavor of drama their conversation turned out to be, and more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: When will Chinese suburbs be really attractive?
WANG: What are Chinese suburbs? You use this term, Tyler, and I’m not sure what exactly they mean.
COWEN: You have a yard and a dog and a car, right?
WANG: Yes.
COWEN: You control your school district with the other parents. That’s a suburb.
WANG: How about never? I’m not expecting that China will have American-style suburbs anytime soon, in part because of the social engineering projects that are pretty extensive in China. I think there is a sense in which Chinese cities are not especially dense. Indian cities are much, much more dense. I think that Chinese cities, the streets are not necessarily terribly full of people all the time. They just sprawl quite extensively.
They sprawl in ways that I think the edges of the city still look somewhat like the center of the city, which there’s too many high-rises. There’s probably fewer parks. There’s probably fewer restaurants. Almost nobody has a yard and a dog in their home. That’s in part because the Communist Party has organized most people to live in apartment compounds in which it is much easier to control them.
We saw this really extensively in the pandemic, in which people were unable to leave their Shanghai apartment compounds for anything other than getting their noses and mouths swabbed. I write a little bit about how, if you take the rail outside of major cities like Beijing and Shanghai, you hit farmland really, really quickly. That is in part because the Communist Party assesses governors as well as mayors on their degree of food self-sufficiency.
Cities like Shanghai and Beijing have to produce a lot of their own crops, both grains as well as vegetables, as well as fruits, as well as livestock, within a certain radius so that in case there’s ever a major devastating war, they don’t have to rely on strawberries from Mexico or strawberries from Cambodia,or Thailand. There’s a lot of farmland allocated outside of major cities. I think that will prevent suburban sprawl. You can’t control people if they all have a yard as well as a dog. I think the Communist Party will not allow it.
COWEN: Whether the variable of engineers matters, I went and I looked at the history of other East Asian economies, which have done very well in manufacturing, built out generally excellent infrastructure. None of these problems with the Second Avenue line in New York. Taiwan, like the presidents, at least if we believe GPT-5, three of them were lawyers and none of them were engineers. South Korea, you have actually some economists, a lot of bureaucrats.
WANG: Wow. Imagine that. Economists in charge, Tyler.
COWEN: I wouldn’t think it could work. A few lawyers, one engineer. Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, he’s a lawyer. He thinks in a very lawyerly manner. Singapore has arguably done the best of all those countries. Much richer than China, inspired China. Why should I think engineers rather than just East Asia, and a bunch of other accompanying facts about these places are what matter?
WANG: Japan, a lot of lawyers in the top leadership. What exactly was the leadership of Hong Kong? A bunch of British civil servants.
COWEN: Some of whom are probably lawyers or legal-type minds, right? Not in general engineers.
WANG: PPE grads. I think that we can understand the engineering variable mostly because of how much more China has done relative to Japan and South Korea and Taiwan.
COWEN: It’s much, much poorer. Per capita manufacturing output is gone much better in these other countries.
And:
WANG: Tyler, what does it say about us that you and I have generally a lot of similar interests in terms of, let’s call it books, music, all sorts of things, but when it comes to particular categories of things, we oppose each other diametrically. I much prefer Anna Karenina to War and Peace. I prefer Buddenbrooks to Magic Mountain. Here again, you oppose me. What’s the deal?
COWEN: I don’t think the differences are that big. For instance, if we ask ourselves, what’s the relative ranking of Chengdu plus Chongqing compared to the rest of the world? We’re 98.5% in agreement compared to almost anyone else. When you get to the micro level, the so-called narcissism of petty differences, obviously, you’re born in China. I grew up in New Jersey. It’s going to shape our perspectives.
Anything in China, you have been there in a much more full-time way, and you speak and read Chinese, and none of that applies to me. I’m popping in and out as a tourist. Then, I think the differences make much more sense. It’s possible I would prefer to live in Shanghai for essentially the reasons you mentioned. If I’m somewhere for a week, I’m definitely going to pick Beijing. I’ll go around to the galleries. The things that are terrible about the city just don’t bother me that much, because I know I’ll be gone.
WANG: 98.5% agreement. I’ll take that, Tyler. It’s you and me against the rest of the world, but then we’ll save our best disagreements for each other.
COWEN: Let’s see if you can pass an intellectual Turing test. Why is it that I think Yunnan is the single best place in the world to visit? Just flat out the best if you had to pick one region. Not why you think it is, but why I think it is.
Strongly recommended, Dan and I had so much fun we kept going for about an hour and forty minutes. And of course you should buy and read Dan’s bestselling book Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future.
America has a new steel company, which is sort of a weird thing to write in 2025.
It’s called Hertha Metals, and it’s based in Houston. It’s also run by a woman named Laureen Meroueh, who is this week’s guest. As far as we can tell, Meroueh stands out as the first female to start and run a steel producer.
Meroueh grew up as something of a child prodigy in Florida and went on to earn a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT. She then invented some of the processes that make Hertha different from traditional steel producers.
Hertha relies on natural gas and hydrogen instead of coal to make high-grade steel. Its process is potentially cleaner, simpler and cheaper than the approaches used by the traditional steelmakers that have been around for more than 150 years. The start-up is already producing one ton of steel per day and is now looking to prove that it can make much, much more and compete head-to-head against the major steel players.
In this episode, we get into how Hertha’s process works, the steel industry overall, why the U.S. needs this type of technology and how Meroueh ended up as a steel magnate.
Our show is sponsored by Brex, the intelligent finance platform. Like thousands of ambitious, innovative companies, we run on Brex so we can spend smarter and move faster. And you can too. Learn more at www.brex.com/corememory
The podcast is also made possible by E1 Ventures, which backs the most ambitious founders and start-ups.
China’s Landspace carried out the first launch of its reusable Zhuque-3 rocket late Tuesday, successfully achieving orbit, but failing with a first stage landing attempt.
Speaking at the 2025 SpaceNews Icon Awards, Purdy said the pace of progress outside government is setting the agenda for how the service develops technology.
The agreement brings “AI pilot” software to space as the Pentagon seeks capabilities for close proximity operations, swarm coordination and defensive satellite maneuvers
Readers of this magazine have known for years what we, as investors, have also known for years: that the space sector is not some marginal realm of human activity, to be left to a handful of specialists operating on the sidelines of normal life. Rather, space is the backbone of the world economy, a domain […]
When a Falcon 9 lifted off from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California late Nov. 16, it did something that was unprecedented a decade ago but unremarkable today: it landed the first stage, in this case on a pad next to where it lifted off. SpaceX noted that the launch, carrying the Sentinel-6B Earth science […]
Nuclear power startup Antares announced a $96 million Series B round Dec. 2 to fund work on developing small nuclear reactors, including for space applications.
Senate Commerce Committee leaders said they hope to swiftly confirm Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator as he delivered a “message of urgency” about returning astronauts to the moon before China.
For decades, building a space mission meant a hard choice between two imperfect models. The first was the traditional prime: capable, proven, and thorough, but slow and expensive. Customers paid […]
Asset-financing specialist SLI plans to buy two small GEO satellites from U.S. startup AscendArc in a deal valued at more than $200 million, betting that operators will increasingly choose to lease spacecraft rather than buy them outright.
Meta Platforms Inc. has poached Apple Inc.’s most prominent design
executive in a major coup that underscores a push by the social
networking giant into AI-equipped consumer devices.
The company is hiring Alan Dye, who has served as the head of
Apple’s user interface design team since 2015, according to people
with knowledge of the matter. Apple is replacing Dye with longtime
designer Stephen Lemay, according to the people, who asked not to
be identified because the personnel changes haven’t been
announced.
Apple confirmed the move in a statement provided to
Bloomberg News.
“Steve Lemay has played a key role in the design of every major
Apple interface since 1999,” Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook said
in the statement. “He has always set an extraordinarily high bar
for excellence and embodies Apple’s culture of collaboration and
creativity.”
It sounds like Dye chose to jump ship, and wasn’t squeezed out (as it seems with former AI chief John Giannandrea earlier this week). Gurman/Bloomberg are spinning this like a coup for Meta (headline: “Apple Design Executive Alan Dye Poached by Meta in Major Coup”), but I think this is the best personnel news at Apple in decades. Dye’s decade-long stint running Apple’s software design team has been, on the whole, terrible — and rather than getting better, the problems have been getting worse.
We seem to be in another Epstein hiatus before the story and obsession again explodes into the center of the political news ecosystem. Presumably the next episode will come when the White House releases the heavily redacted and/or cooked version of the “Epstein files” that Congress ordered the administration to release. But I wanted to note this very weird oddity right smack in the center of the story that continues to be almost entirely ignored. I was reminded of it last night by this story in The Bulwark by Mona Charen. I first heard about in those interviews Sid Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz did with Michael Wolff about Jeff Epstein, which I wrote about back in September. Wolff discussed something that I had never heard before: that Steve Bannon, basically right up to the time Epstein died, was working with him on a combo rebrand/crisis comms effort to rehabilitate Epstein’s reputation. Yes! Bannon was working as Epstein’s image rehab specialist. The man at the center of all the anti-“elite”, anti-“globalist” pedophiles was tight with Epstein and trying to help him come in from the sex offender cold. He’d actually done hours of video interviews with Epstein as prep for either a 60 Minutes or 60 Minutes-style interview to revive his reputation.
Needless to say, when Epstein was indicted and subsequently committed suicide in jail it greatly complicated these plans. When Bannon was later asked about this, he claimed the interview training tapes were actually footage he was compiling for a takedown exposé on all of Epstein’s evil and debauched behavior.
I wrote about this and discussed it with various people back in September. And, unsurprisingly, the responses were all variations of WTF? and, How haven’t I heard about this? Listening to the Wolff interviews, it didn’t even seem to be much of a secret. I think they actually played some clips of those prep interviews. Indeed, in 2021 The New York Post got access to a few clips as part of what Bannon then was claiming was a documentary he would soon release called “The Monsters,” an expose about Epstein’s pedophilia network and the elite. Yes, you got that right — he was planning on repurposing his prep sessions to help Epstein as a takedown documentary about Epstein.
Charen basically makes this same point. How is this not a bigger deal in the political world of DC where Bannon remains a major, major player in the MAGA Cinematic Universe? The big tranche of Epstein emails, which have already singed many public figures and — rightly — scorched what remains of Lawrence Summers’s public reputation to a crisp, are full of correspondence between Bannon and Epstein. The messages confirm and round out Bannon’s close relationship with Epstein and his work to reintroduce Epstein to the public as a perhaps roguish but generally solid guy. Charen marshals some wonderful research. She quotes Bannon on his podcast excoriating the sinister cabal and “ops” behind Epstein and his elite enablers, not long before telling Epstein himself that all the stories popping up in the press about him being a pedophile were also “ops” and part of a conspiracy against him.
Stuff like this is a reminder that what I’m describing here is mostly a media story. It’s no huge surprise that Bannon is an utter sleazebag or someone with a high tolerance for sexual predators. I confess to being perversely wowed by the brazen shamelessness of the switcheroo. But that’s another story. What’s kind of mystifying is how little Bannon or his Epstein image rehab doc project has gotten in the furor over the Epstein emails. It’s not that it’s gone unnoticed. The presence of Bannon-Epstein emails got at least a mention in many reports. But not the sheer volume or really the substance. Indeed, the press reports I was able to find about the image rehab doc tend to be in the entertainment press, like this one in The Hollywood Reporter. There’s much less in the political press.
This is noteworthy first because Bannon is a major figure in national politics. But second because by 2019 Bannon was very much back in Trump’s good graces. There’s a very decent chance that Trump knew Bannon was working to rehabilitate Epstein at the time. Regardless it remains a wild example of the double standards of the national media and how enveloped Epstein’s top critics were with his own corruption.
It sounds like Dye chose to jump ship, and wasn’t squeezed out (as
it seems with former AI chief John Giannandrea earlier this
week). Gurman/Bloomberg are spinning this like a coup for Meta
(headline: “Apple Design Executive Alan Dye Poached by Meta in
Major Coup”), but I think this is the best personnel news at Apple
in decades. Dye’s decade-long stint running Apple’s software
design team has been, on the whole, terrible — and rather than
getting better, the problems have been getting worse.
Dye’s replacement at Apple is longtime Apple designer Stephen Lemay. I’ve never met Lemay (or at least can’t recall meeting him), and prior to today never heard much about him. But that’s typical for Apple employees. Part of the job working for Apple is remaining under the radar and out of the public eye. What I’ve learned today is that Lemay, very much unlike Dye, is a career interface/interaction designer. Sources I’ve spoken to who’ve worked with Lemay at Apple speak highly of him, particularly his attention to detail and craftsmanship. Those things have been sorely lacking in the Dye era. Not everyone loves everything Lemay has worked on, but nobody bats 1.000 and designers love to critique each other’s work. I’ve chatted with people with criticisms of specific things Lemay has worked on or led at Apple (e.g. aspects of iPadOS multitasking that struck many of us as deliberately limiting, rather than empowering), but everyone I’ve spoken to is happy — if not downright giddy — at the news that Lemay is replacing Dye. Lemay is well-liked personally and deeply respected talent-wise. Said one source, in a position to know the choices, “I don’t think there was a better choice than Lemay.”
The sentiment within the ranks at Apple is that today’s news is almost too good to be true. People had given up hope that Dye would ever get squeezed out, and no one expected that he’d just up and leave on his own. (If you care about design, there’s nowhere to go but down after leaving Apple. What people overlooked is the obvious: Alan Dye doesn’t actually care about design.)
What I struggled with in the wake of today’s news is how to square the following contradiction:
Dye apparently left for Meta on his own; he wasn’t squeezed out.
Apple replacing Dye with Lemay seemingly signals a significant shift in direction, replacing a guy whose approach was almost entirely superficial/visual with a guy who’s spent his entire career sweating actual interaction details.
If Apple’s senior leadership would have been happy to have Dye remain as leader of Apple’s software design teams, why didn’t they replace him with a Dye acolyte? Conversely, if the decision makers at Apple saw the need for a directional change, why wasn’t Dye pushed out?2
The answer, I think, is that the decision to elevate Lemay wasn’t about direction, but loyalty. Why risk putting in a Dye-aligned replacement when that person might immediately get poached too? We know, from this year’s AI recruitment battles, that Zuckerberg is willing to throw almost unfathomable sums of money to poach talent he wants to hire from competitors. Gurman reported that Billy Sorrentino, a Dye deputy who has served as a senior director of design at Apple since 2016, is leaving for Meta with Dye.3 I don’t have any other names, but word on the street is that other members of Dye’s inner circle are leaving Apple for Meta with him. But those who remain — or who might remain, if they’d have been offered the promotion to replace Dye — simply can’t be trusted from the perspective of senior leadership, who were apparently blindsided by Dye’s departure for Meta. They wouldn’t have given Dye a prime spot in the WWDC keynote if they thought he might be leaving within months.
So the change in direction we may see — that many of us desperately hope to see — under Lemay’s leadership might be happenstance. More a factor of Lemay being politically safe, as someone predating Dye and outside Dye’s inner circle at Apple, than from Tim Cook or anyone else in senior leadership seeing a need for a directional change in UI design. But happenstance or not, it could be the best thing to happen to Apple’s HI design in the entire stretch since Steve Jobs’s passing and Scott Forstall’s ouster.
Putting Alan Dye in charge of user interface design was the one big mistake Jony Ive made as Apple’s Chief Design Officer.4 Dye had no background in user interface design — he came from a brand and print advertising background. Before joining Apple, he was design director for the fashion brand Kate Spade, and before that worked on branding for the ad agency Ogilvy. His promotion to lead Apple’s software interface design team under Ive happened in 2015, when Apple was launching Apple Watch, their closest foray into the world of fashion. It might have made some sense to bring someone from the fashion/brand world to lead software design for Apple Watch, but it sure didn’t seem to make sense for the rest of Apple’s platforms. And the decade of Dye’s HI leadership has proven it.
The most galling moment in Dye’s entire tenure was the opening of this year’s iPhone event keynote in September, which began with a title card showing the oft-cited Jobs quote “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” The whole problem with the Dye era of HI design at Apple is that it has so largely — not entirely, but largely — been driven purely by how things look. There are a lot of things in Apple’s software — like app icons — that don’t even look good any more. But it’s the “how it works” part that has gone so horribly off the rails. Alan Dye seems like exactly the sort of person Jobs was describing in the first part of that quote: “People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’”
I am not a Liquid Glass hater. I actually think, on the whole, iOS 26 is a better and more usable UI than iOS 18. But MacOS 26 Tahoe is a mess, visually, and I’m not sure there’s a single thing about its UI that is better than MacOS 15 Sequoia. There are new software features in Tahoe that are excellent and serve as legitimate enticements to upgrade. But I’m talking about the user interface — the work from Alan Dye’s HI team, not Craig Federighi’s teams. I think the fact that Liquid Glass is worse on MacOS than it is on iOS is not just a factor of iOS being Apple’s most popular, most profitable, most important platform — and thus garnering more of Apple’s internal attention. I think it’s also about the fact that the Mac interface, with multiple windows, bigger displays, and more complexity, demands more nuanced, more expert, interaction design skills. Things like depth, layering, and unambiguous indications of input focus are important aspects of any platform. But they’re more important on the platform which, by design, shoulders more complexity. Back in 2010, predicting a bright future for the Mac at a time when many pundits were thinking Apple would soon put the entire platform out to pasture, I wrote, “It’s the heaviness of the Mac that allows iOS to remain light.” That remains as true today as it was 15 years ago. But Liquid Glass, especially as expressed on MacOS, is a lightweight poorly considered design system as a whole, and its conceptual thinness is not sufficient to properly allow the Mac to carry the weight it needs to bear.
Perhaps more tellingly, there should have been no need for the “clear/tinted” Liquid Glass preference setting that Apple added in the 26.1 OS releases. Alan Dye wasn’t fired, by all accounts, but that preference setting was as good a sign as any that he should have been. And it’s very much a sign that inside Apple, there’s a strong enough contingent of people who prioritize how things work — like, you know, whether you can read text against the background of an alert — to get a setting like this shipped, outside the Accessibility section of Settings.
It remains worrisome that Apple needed to luck into Dye leaving the company. But fortune favors the prepared, and Apple remains prepared by having an inordinate number of longtime talented HI designers at the company. The oddest thing about Alan Dye’s stint leading software design is that there are, effectively, zero design critics who’ve been on his side. The debate regarding Apple’s software design over the last decade isn’t between those on Dye’s side and those against. It’s only a matter of debating how bad it’s been, and how far it’s fallen from its previous remarkable heights. It’s rather extraordinary in today’s hyper-partisan world that there’s nearly universal agreement amongst actual practitioners of user-interface design that Alan Dye is a fraud who led the company deeply astray. It was a big problem inside the company too. I’m aware of dozens of designers who’ve left Apple, out of frustration over the company’s direction, to work at places like LoveFrom, OpenAI, and their secretive joint venture io. I’m not sure there are any experience designers at io who aren’t ex-Apple, and if there are, it’s only a handful. From the stories I’m aware of, the theme is identical: these are designers driven to do great work, and under Alan Dye, “doing great work” was no longer the guiding principle at Apple. If reaching the most users is your goal, go work on design at Google, or Microsoft, or Meta. (Design, of course, isn’t even a thing at Amazon.) Designers choose to work at Apple to do the best work in the industry. That has stopped being true under Alan Dye. The most talented designers I know are the harshest critics of Dye’s body of work, and the direction in which it’s been heading.
Back in June, after WWDC, I quoted from Alan Dye’s introduction of Liquid Glass during the keynote, and then quoted from Steve Jobs’s introduction of Aqua when he unveiled the Mac OS X Public Beta in January 2000. I wrote:
Re-watching Jobs’s introduction of Aqua for the umpteenth time, I
still find it enthralling. I found Alan Dye’s introduction of
Liquid Glass to be soporific, if not downright horseshitty.
One of the bits from Jobs’s Aqua introduction I quoted was this:
This is what the top of windows look like. These three buttons
look like a traffic signal, don’t they? Red means close the
window. Yellow means minimize the window. And green means maximize
the window. Pretty simple. And tremendous fit and finish in this
operating system. When you roll over these things, you get those.
You see them? And when you are no longer the key window, they go
transparent. So a lot of fit and finish in this.
After I published that post, I got a note from a designer friend who left Apple, in frustration, a few years ago. After watching Jobs’s Aqua introduction for the first time in years, he told me, “I’m really struck by Steve directly speaking to ‘radio buttons’ and ‘the key window’.” He had the feeling that Dye and his team looked down on interface designers who used terms like Jobs himself once used — in a public keynote, no less. That to Dye’s circle, such terms felt too much like “programmer talk”. But the history of Apple (and NeXT) user interface design is the opposite. Designers and programmers used to — and still should — speak the exact same language about such concepts. Steve Jobs certainly did, and something feels profoundly broken about that disconnect under Alan Dye’s leadership. It’s like the head of cinematography for a movie telling the camera team to stop talking about nerdy shit like “f-stops”. The head of cinematography shouldn’t just abide talking about f-stops and focal lengths, but love it. Said my friend to me, regarding his interactions with Dye and his team at Apple, “I swear I had conversations in which I mentioned ‘key window’ and no one knew what I meant.”
That won’t be a problem with Stephen Lemay. Understanding of fundamental principles will no longer be lacking. Lemay has been at Apple spanning the gamut between the Greg Christie/Bas Ording glory days and the current era. At the very least, Lemay running HI should stop the bleeding — both in terms of work quality and talent retention. I sincerely believe things might measurably improve, but I’m more sure that things will stop getting worse. That alone will be a win for everyone — even though the change was seemingly driven by Mark Zuckerberg’s desire to poach Dye, not Tim Cook and Apple’s senior leadership realizing they should have shitcanned him long ago.
Alan Dye is not untalented. But his talents at Apple were in politics. His political skill was so profound that it was his decision to leave, despite the fact that his tenure is considered a disaster by actual designers inside and outside the company. He obviously figured out how to please Apple’s senior leadership. His departure today landed as a total surprise because his stature within the company seemed so secure. And so I think he might do very well at Meta. Not because he can bring world-class interaction design expertise — because he obviously can’t — but because the path to success at Meta has never been driven by design. It’s about getting done what Zuck wants done. Dye might excel at that. Dye was an anchor holding Apple back, but might elevate design at Meta.5
Titles are just titles, and title inflation is a real problem at all big companies. But I always thought C-level executives by definition report directly to the CEO. That that was the whole point of a “chief whatever officer” title versus “senior vice president of whatever”. But according to Mark Gurman’s exclusive report at Bloomberg breaking this whole story (emphasis added):
With the Dye hire, Meta is creating a new design studio and
putting him in charge of design for hardware, software and AI
integration for its interfaces. He will be reporting to Chief
Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth, who oversees Reality Labs.
That group is tasked with developing wearable devices, such as
smart glasses and virtual reality headsets. Dye’s major focus will
be revamping Meta’s consumer devices with artificial intelligence
features.
If true, Dye doesn’t even report directly to Mark Zuckerberg. Oddly enough, after the retirement of CFO Jeff Williams this year, Apple claimed the company’s design teams transitioned to reporting directly to CEO Tim Cook. ↩︎
And man oh man am I curious who was involved with this decision, who had Tim Cook’s ear, and just how quickly they were forced to make it. Part of what made Stephen Lemay a popular choice within Apple’s ranks is that Lemay, by all accounts I’ve heard, isn’t a political operator and never angled for a promotion to a level of this prominence. His focus has always singularly been on the work. ↩︎︎
Sorrentino was featured in a two-minute-plus segment in this year’s WWDC keynote, starting at the 38:25 mark, introducing the new iOS Visual Intelligence features. His star was rising at Apple. And Dye himself, of course, was given the spotlight to introduce and effectively take credit for Liquid Glass itself. At least until recently, no one at Apple saw this coming. ↩︎︎
I have good reason to believe that Ive, in private, would be the first person to admit that. A fan of Liquid Glass Jony Ive is not. I believe he sees Dye as a graphic designer, not a user interface designer — and not a good graphic designer at that. I don’t think Alan Dye could get a job as a barista at LoveFrom. ↩︎︎
It’s worth recalling that Zuckerberg sorta kinda tried this poach-design-talent-from-Apple thing before. Mike Matas, the wunderkind designer who became a sensation with Delicious Library in 2005, soon thereafter moved on to work at Apple, where he designed such things as the “slide to unlock” interface on the original iPhone. Matas was a key designer on that glorious first version of the iPhone’s OS. He then left Apple and formed Push Pop Press, and wound up at Facebook in 2011 after Facebook acquired Push Pop — before it had even shipped its core product. (I saw a still-in-development version of Push Pop’s publishing system in 2011, before Facebook bought them and shut down the product, and it remains to this day one of the most impressive, exciting, “this is the future” demos I’ve ever seen. It’s not merely a shame but a goddamn tragedy that it never even shipped.) Zuckerberg wound up assembling around Matas an entire little superteam of “Delicious” era designers and design-focused developers. That team wound up shipping Facebook Paper in 2014 — an iOS-exclusive alternative client for Facebook that espoused the same principles of elegance, exquisite attention to detail, and, especially, direct manipulation of content in lieu of user interface chrome, that infused Push Pop Press’s publishing system. Facebook Paper was so good it almost — almost — made me sign up for a Facebook account just so I could use it. But Facebook Paper went nowhere, fast. Zuckerberg lost his boner for “design”, Facebook Paper was pulled from the App Store in 2016, and the team behind Paper disbanded.
Matas today works at LoveFrom, and remains, to my mind, one of the most singularly talented and interesting people in the field of interaction design. In some closer-to-ideal alternate universe, Matas would be running HI design at Apple today. ↩︎︎
Back in July, I was lucky enough to have my friend Louie Mantia on The Talk Show to talk about Liquid Glass and (as I wrote in the show notes) “the worrisome state of Apple’s UI design overall”. This was probably my favorite episode of the show all year, and I think it holds up extremely well now that we’re all using Liquid Glass, across Apple’s platforms, in release versions.
Included in the show notes was a link to Mantia’s essay making his case against Dye’s decade-long stint leading Apple’s UI design teams, “A Responsibility to the Industry”, which began thus:
Firstly, I maintain that it makes absolutely no sense that Alan
Dye has the power he has, because he simply has no taste. But
what’s worse is that he wields that power so clumsily, so
carelessly. And because it goes unchallenged, unchecked by someone
higher than him, the entire industry suffers the consequences.
Washington is stepping into the 2025-26 season with a full-on youth movement, but not the “tear it down and hope” kind. The Wizards are mixing top-end young talent with veteran structure, and the question isn’t just whether they can be exciting — it’s whether they can finally be steady. After years near the bottom, the franchise is asking its next wave to turn flashes into habits, and to show measurable, repeatable growth across the season.
The Youth-Led Pivot Entering 2025-26
Washington’s front office is treating 2025-26 as a true pivot year in the rebuild: still focused on development, but finally expecting consistency to show up on the floor. They are coming off an 18-64 record in 2024-25, 15th in the East, missing the playoffs again. That was a modest improvement from 15-67 the season before, but the bigger story was how far they still sat from respectability. The team was outscored by 12.4 points per game, and rookies logged 35% of the total minutes, a clear indicator that the organization had already handed out the keys to youth. The message now is simple: the same opportunities must produce steadier outcomes.
The Baseline Numbers the Wizards Must Beat
Those 2024-25 numbers aren’t just history; they’re the measuring stick. Eighteen wins and a double-digit negative margin aren’t the kind of results you talk around — they define the urgency. The Wizards don’t need to jump straight into contention for this season to be a win, but they do need to stop living in extremes. Competitive losses sustained defensive effort, fewer late-game collapses, and visible growth from October through April are all part of the expectation. If they repeat an 18-64-level performance with the same mistakes, the rebuild risks stalling. This year is about making the floor higher, not only raising the ceiling.
A Starting Lineup Designed for Growth
The expected starters underline how intentional the plan is: CJ McCollum at point guard, Bub Carrington at shooting guard, Cam Whitmore at small forward, Khris Middleton at power forward, and Alex Sarr at center. That mix is deliberate — a veteran guard to organize the offense, another veteran wing to stabilize possessions, and young athletes surrounding them with real responsibilities. The aim isn’t survival basketball; it’s a nightly structure that allows young players to learn by repeating the same reads and roles. Consistency never arrives if a team is reinventing itself every two weeks, so Washington is leaning into stability by design.
Depth Chart Signals a Long Youth Runway
Behind the starters, the second unit remains youth-heavy: Tre Johnson, Bilal Coulibaly, Corey Kispert, Justin Champagnie, and Marvin Bagley III, with additional depth from Kyshawn George, Malaki Branham, Will Riley, Tristan Vukcevic, Anthony Gill, and Sharife Cooper. That’s a lot of under-24 talent playing in real rotation slots, not parked on the bench. The key here is volume of meaningful minutes. Washington isn’t dabbling in development; they’re living in it. The lineup depth suggests the organization wants to test combinations but eventually narrow them into dependable groupings that can defend, rebound, and execute without wild swings in effort.
A Young Core with Big Talk and Real Tools
Inside the locker room, belief is loud. Bub Carrington has gone on record saying Washington has a top-five young core — “Yes, and it’s not even close.” Whether that proves true depends on growth meeting reality. The core is built around defense, size, and modern skill sets: Bilal Coulibaly already draws praise for elite defensive impact, Alex Sarr and Tristan Vukcevic are 7-foot centers with three-level scoring tools, and Carrington plus Kyshawn George are viewed as tough two-way competitors. The front office also holds four first-round picks in the 2025 and 2026 drafts, so talent accumulation isn’t slowing. Now the focus turns from stockpiling to polishing.
The Hard Truth: No Star Yet
For all the youthful promise, the Wizards still face a blunt reality: their extremely young core hasn’t yet produced a star. That matters because teams without a clear top option often ride waves — hot one night, invisible the next. The rebuild’s next stage requires at least one player to cross over from “interesting” to “engine,” someone defenses have to game-plan for every night. Washington doesn’t need that transformation to happen overnight, but it does need to start showing up this season. Until that level of hierarchy forms on its own, consistency will remain fragile, because responsibility keeps shifting with matchups instead of being anchored by a dependable centerpiece.
Offseason Moves That Fit the Timeline
Washington’s offseason was busy and clearly aligned with youth-first thinking. They re-signed Anthony Gill, and Khris Middleton returned after exercising his player option. They added Marvin Bagley III in free agency. They also brought in Malaki Branham, CJ McCollum, and Cam Whitmore via trades. On draft night, they landed Tre Johnson at No. 6 overall, Will Riley at No. 21 overall (acquired through a trade), and Jamir Watkins at No. 43 overall. Departures included Saddiq Bey, Malcolm Brogdon, Richaun Holmes leaving for overseas, Jordan Poole, Marcus Smart being waived, and Blake Wesley being waived. The direction is clear: real minutes for young players, guided by seasoned pros.
Alex Sarr as the Two-Way Anchor
Alex Sarr is the most obvious internal swing factor. The 2024 No. 2 overall pick averaged 13.0 points, 6.5 rebounds, 2.4 assists, and 1.5 blocks per game as a rookie. After the All-Star break, he climbed to almost 16 points per game, hinting that his offense is catching up to his defensive value. Washington sees him as foundational: a modern big who protects the rim, moves well, and can grow into heavier usage without losing efficiency. If Sarr can sustain that post-break level across a full season, the Wizards gain a nightly defensive base — and that alone can cut into a 12.4-point negative margin.
Wings That Must Turn Talent Into Habits
The wing group is where Washington can either stabilize or wobble. Coulibaly’s defense already travels every night; the next step is offensive steadiness, so he doesn’t disappear for stretches. Carrington’s confidence sets up the emotional tone, but he needs to back it with disciplined playmaking and consistent shot selection. Cam Whitmore is expected to jump near the top of the scoring ladder immediately, which makes his efficiency and defensive focus crucial. This is the classic young-wing challenge: turning athletic bursts into routine production. If the wings defend, rebound, and make simple winning plays regularly, the Wizards stop being matchup-dependent.
Tre Johnson and the Scoring Ceiling
Tre Johnson enters as the No. 6 overall pick in the 2025 draft, and Washington views him as a player they can build around. The expectation is that his shooting and creation don’t come slowly — the team believes he can impact the offense early. That’s why NBA projections lean on Johnson as a spacing and scoring stabilizer: the Wizards want fewer nights where offense looks random and more possessions where structure produces clean looks. If he translates quickly, he not only raises the ceiling but makes the floor steadier because defenses must respect him. His development arc is one of the season’s biggest markers.
Veteran Mentorship as Structure, Not Decoration
CJ McCollum and Khris Middleton are not on this roster as symbolic leaders. McCollum is 34, a former National Basketball Players Association president for four years, and he’s expected to start while guiding a team with 12 players under age 24. Middleton, back on a player option year, gives Washington another reliable professional who has lived through playoff stakes and understands nightly preparation. Their role is to teach consistency through habits: pace control, late-game reads, defensive communication, and emotional steadiness when runs happen. Coach Brian Keefe, entering year three, must balance their stabilizing minutes without blocking young reps.
What Meaningful Consistency Looks Like by April 2026
Washington does not need to leap from 18 wins to contention for this to feel like a successful season. But the progress has to be tangible. That means shrinking the 12.4-point negative margin, cutting down blowout frequency, and seeing young players perform at similar levels against different types of opponents. It means rotations stabilizing, not constantly shifting. It means Sarr holding post-All-Star production all year, Johnson forcing defenses to adjust, and the wings delivering dependable two-way effort. If those things happen, the Wizards become competitive night to night — the first real sign that this patient rebuild is turning potential into consistency.
Winter in New York brings conditions that can make every day walking more dangerous. Snow can build up on sidewalks and parking areas and create hidden layers of ice. Cold nights can freeze small puddles and turn them into slick surfaces by morning. Property owners may not clear paths fast enough which increases the chance of falling. Many surfaces become uneven during winter storms which makes movement less steady. These problems highlight why winter slip and fall safety guidance matters for people getting around during the colder months.
Snow Covered Walking Areas
Snow is one of the most common winter hazards in New York. When snow piles up it can hide holes and cracks that make walking risky. Packed snow becomes slippery when it settles and many people lose their balance on these surfaces. Property owners must keep walkways clear because heavy foot traffic can make snow smooth and slick. Even small piles of snow near doorways or steps can lead to accidents. As more people rush indoors snow carried inside can melt on floors and create new hazards.
Black Ice On Sidewalks And Entryways
Black ice forms when thin layers of water freeze into a clear sheet. It blends with the ground which makes it hard to notice. Winters in New York create perfect conditions for this type of ice when temperatures drop at night. Many falls occur in the early morning when this ice has not yet melted. Entryways also become problem areas because warm air from inside buildings causes moisture that later freezes near the doors. Without quick cleanup this ice can lead to painful injuries.
Frozen Parking Lots And Outdoor Steps
Parking lots become slippery when snow and moisture freeze after plowing. Cars push snow into new patterns that freeze again and create uneven ground. Drivers stepping out of their vehicles often land on slick spots and lose their balance. Outdoor steps can be even more dangerous because melted snow flows down each step and freezes again. When these surfaces are not salted or cleared promptly the risk of falling grows. Simple actions like wearing shoes with strong traction can help reduce these dangers.
Melting Snow Near Buildings
Melting snow creates puddles that freeze again as temperatures drop. These small patches of ice appear near curbs and building entrances where snow tends to collect. People often overlook these areas because the ice forms in thin layers. When the surface refreezes it becomes as slick as glass. Building managers must pay attention to these spots to prevent accidents. Sand or salt helps keep the ground stable until the weather warms up.
Poor Lighting During Winter Months
Winter days are shorter which means many people walk in dim light during morning and evening hours. Poor lighting makes it harder to see ice or frozen patches on the ground. Shadows from buildings and vehicles can hide dangerous areas. Walkways that are not well lit create more risk because people cannot see changes in the surface. Bright and steady lighting helps people move safely in winter conditions. Even small improvements can make outdoor areas safer for daily use.
Winter hazards in New York can cause serious slip and fall injuries when walkways are not taken care of. Snow ice and melting slush all create unstable ground that affects people in busy areas throughout the city. Clearing surfaces early and keeping them maintained can reduce many of these risks. Taking care during winter helps protect people in New York as they navigate the city during the colder months.
Since the beginning of the project in 2023 and the private beta days of Ghostty, I've repeatedly expressed my intention that Ghostty legally become a non-profit. [...]
I want to squelch any possible concerns about a "rug pull". A non-profit structure provides enforceable assurances: the mission cannot be quietly changed, funds cannot be diverted to private benefit, and the project cannot be sold off or repurposed for commercial gain. The structure legally binds Ghostty to the public-benefit purpose it was created to serve. [...]
I believe infrastructure of this kind should be stewarded by a mission-driven, non-commercial entity that prioritizes public benefit over private profit. That structure increases trust, encourages adoption, and creates the conditions for Ghostty to grow into a widely used and impactful piece of open-source infrastructure.
I wrote up the new pattern I'm using for my various Python project repos to make them as easy to hack on with uv as possible. The trick is to use a PEP 735 dependency group called dev, declared in pyproject.toml like this:
[dependency-groups]
dev = ["pytest"]
With that in place, running uv run pytest will automatically install that development dependency into a new virtual environment and use it to run your tests.
This means you can get started hacking on one of my projects (here datasette-extract) with just these steps:
git clone https://github.com/datasette/datasette-extract
cd datasette-extract
uv run pytest
The Mississippi flood of 1927 was one of America’s greatest natural disasters. Some 27,000 square miles were inundated, in some cases by 30 feet of water. Hundreds, maybe thousands, died — many of the victims were poor and Black, and their deaths went unrecorded. Around 700,000 people were displaced — equivalent to about 2 million people today, adjusting for population growth.
How did America respond? Initially, President Calvin Coolidge was adamantly opposed to any federal role in disaster relief, declaring that “The Government is not an insurer of its citizens against the hazard of the elements.” His refusal to provide aid was, however, deeply unpopular, and he eventually gave in to demands from Congress to deliver government aid.
Ever since that catastrophic flood, providing government aid to the victims of natural disasters has been an integral part of the American Way: federal aid to disaster victims became the norm after the Mississippi flood. Yet it was often a haphazard, uncoordinated process until 1979, when the federal response to natural disasters was consolidated under the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Since then FEMA has become a well-established part of the American social safety net, especially in the face of worsening climate catastrophes. Americans have come to rely on FEMA as a first line of support after disasters. And when FEMA was seen to be falling down on the job, as it did after Hurricane Katrina virtually destroyed New Orleans in 2005, Americans were angry. The fact is, they want FEMA to be better, not smaller. In a July poll, only 9 percent of Americans wanted to see FEMA eliminated, and only another 10 percent wanted to see its budget cut.
Donald Trump, however, believes that he knows better than the majority of Americans. In June he announced his intention to dismantle FEMA and force the states to assume responsibility for disaster relief. While Trump publicly backed down after an intense public backlash, in practice he is gutting FEMA nonetheless. He is drastically scaling back federal emergency aid, even for communities in which the need for federal assistance is overwhelming.
The latest example of Trump’s stiffing those in need is in rural northern Michigan, where the power grid suffered severe damage from an ice storm last March. Rebuilding the power lines will cost thousands of dollars for each household served by the region’s power cooperatives. Without outside help, that cost will have to be paid by the cooperatives’ customers, a huge burden on a relatively poor part of the state. Yet FEMA has turned down the state’s request for aid, in an unprecedented break with past policies.
Adding further injury to Michiganders, who – by the way – voted to deliver the presidency to Donald Trump in 2024, the Trump administration has ordered another Michigan utility to keep an aging, unneeded, highly polluting coal-fired power plant operating, at a cost to ratepayers of $113 million so far, and ongoing at $615,000 per day.
Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to withhold wildfire aid from California unless it adopted voter ID. He has also tried to divert aid away from states that, in his view, aren’t cooperating with his immigration policies, although the courts stopped him. But the storm-hit areas that he is currently refusing to help are, or plausibly “were”, Trump country. The map on the left shows the areas covered by different Michigan electricity utilities; #3 and #7 are the utilities seeking FEMA aid. The map on the right shows the 2024 presidential vote by county, with deeper red corresponding to a higher Trump share:
Since this is not another case of Trump’s political retribution, what lies behind the denial of aid? I believe that it is a knee-jerk dominance display on Trump’s part. Whenever someone comes to him in need, whether its Volodomyr Zelensky, helpless African children dependent on USAID, or rural Michiganers, his cruelty is activated. And he likes surrounding himself with those of the same ilk: Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, and Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, who impeded and slow-walked the emergency response to deadly Texas flooding back in July.
But that’s not all: there’s also an ideological component. The pre-Trump typical conservative argument against government aid restricted itself to programs like food stamps. The usual suspects fulminate against those who need help putting food on the table, asserting that it’s because they have chosen to be poor. In the conservative ideology of Ronald Reagan, helping the poor relieves them of individual responsibility and only makes them lazy.
But those old-time conservatives also recognized a difference between being the victim of a natural disaster and being impoverished. In their view, nobody chooses to have an ice storm or a hurricane. And helping to re-build entire communities didn’t, in their view, encourage sloth.
But that was conservatism then and this is Trumpism now. The fact is that disaster relief runs counter to the libertarian ideology embraced by tech bros like Peter Thiel. In the world of the libertarian tech broligarchy, who believe that they should be running things rather than be constrained by democracy, selfishness is a virtue. Hence they don’t believe that their tax dollars should be used to help others, even when those others are victims of circumstances beyond their control. Oh, that is, unless you are a wealthy Silicon Valley type with deposits at the failed Silicon Valley Bank. They apparently had no problem with a federal bailout of SVB.
In fact, the libertarian tech broligarchy is opposed to the very impulse to care about other people. “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization,” declared Elon Musk last March, “is empathy.”
And let’s not forget — because conservatives never do — that there’s a deeper strategy at play: if you want people to despise and hate government, you don’t want them to see the government doing anything that clearly helps people.
So American victims of natural disasters are being abandoned by Trump. That abandonment reflects his personal cruelty and that of those around him, as well as the ideological allegiance to cruelty among the libertarian tech broligarchy. And the resulting message is clear. Trump to disaster victims, wherever they live and whoever they voted for: Drop dead.
A rideshare accident can create confusion for anyone involved. Many people struggle to understand who may be responsible after a crash caused by a rideshare driver. The driver might be at fault but other parties could also share responsibility. Each situation depends on what happened in the moments before the impact. Victims often turn to Ellis Injury Law for guidance during this stressful time. These cases involve many moving parts and need careful review so the right parties are held accountable.
The Role of the Rideshare Driver
The rideshare driver is usually the first person examined when an accident happens. The driver may be liable if distraction poor judgment or unsafe driving caused the crash. A driver who ignores traffic rules or fails to pay attention to the road may be held responsible. Many accidents start with simple errors that quickly escalate into serious harm. When a driver acts with disregard for safety their actions can form the basis of a claim. Evidence from the scene helps show whether the driver acted in a careless way.
Company Responsibility for Driver Actions
There are times when the rideshare company may share liability for a crash. If the driver was logged into the app and available for passengers the company may have an interest in the accident. The company could be at fault if it didn’t check the driver’s background or prioritize passenger safety. Situations where a company overlooks past issues may open the door to wider responsibility. Company policies play a major role in understanding liability. This is why the accident must be reviewed from every angle.
The Impact of Third Party Drivers
Some crashes occur because another driver caused the event. Another driver may be at fault if they drove carelessly and caused the crash with the rideshare car. This may include speeding sudden stops or ignoring traffic control. When another driver sets off the chain of events they may be held accountable for damages. Every driver on the road must act with care. If a third party fails in that duty they can become a key part of the claim.
Fault Linked to Unsafe Vehicle Conditions
Mechanical problems can also play a role in a rideshare accident. A car that has worn parts or poor maintenance may not operate safely. If a failure occurs at the wrong time the driver may lose control and cause a crash. Responsibility may shift to a repair shop if the shop completed poor work or overlooked an issue. Liability may also extend to a manufacturer if a defect played a part in the collision. Vehicle condition is an important factor that must always be reviewed.
How Evidence Shapes Liability
Evidence often guides the process of identifying responsible parties. Records from the rideshare app can show whether the driver was active and what actions they took before the crash. Witness accounts help explain how events unfolded. Photos of damage the scene or road conditions add important details. When all evidence is examined together a clearer picture of liability forms. This helps create a stronger case for the injured person and ensures fairness in the process.
Liability in a rideshare accident can involve more than one party. The rideshare driver, the company, another driver, a repair shop, or even the maker of the car may share blame, depending on what went wrong. Understanding how these pieces fit together is important for anyone seeking fair compensation. Careful review and strong evidence help build a clear path forward. With the right support injured people can move toward recovery and hold the responsible parties accountable.
When asked on The Cheeky Pint podcast how we educate our children, my husband Casey Handmer replied “benign neglect.” It’s a cheeky answer that captures something real: we’re neither tiger nor helicopter parents. But after seven years and three kids (with a fourth on the way), we’ve developed a more deliberate approach. Here’s what we’ve learned.
The Family as a System
If I’ve taken anything away from seven years of parenting, it’s this: the family is a system. Treating it as such, rather than asking “is X better than Y?”, leads to more effective choices.
For working parents who want to scale both career and family, three system-level principles matter most:
Reliability is non-negotiable: Even in a flexible workplace, unexpected time off creates disadvantages and logistical hassles. Any out-of-home option needs backup childcare (nanny or easy-to-access service) for inconvenient hours, school breaks, and illnesses. The younger the child, the more frequently you’ll need backup.
Over-invest in childcare: Optimizing for convenience, reliability, and family-fit is worth spending more than you’d think, even more than one parent’s salary in extreme examples. This keeps both careers on growth trajectories, builds retirement savings, and makes having more children feel manageable rather than overwhelming. The cost of a nanny grows sublinearly with the number of children.
Scalability matters: Decisions that work for one child may not scale to two or three. Time spent driving to individual activities multiplies. Costs of private schooling multiply. We’ve consistently preferred options that work better as our family grows.
The Caveats
This blog details our family preferences alone, which also change over time as we grow in number and maturity. We’re two startup executives with three kids (7, 5, and 2) and a fourth on the way. Our children are somewhat precocious, but otherwise don’t have special needs thus far.
My intention is that this post may provide helpful inspiration to find or tune your own family preferences. If I’ve taken anything away from the past seven years of parenting, it is that it’s helpful to think in terms of global, rather than local, hill climbing towards a better situation. With that, let’s kick things off.
Infancy (Birth to Age 2): Swapping Daycare for Nanny
Emily Oster’s Cribsheet covers from birth through early preschool, and is an excellent data driven read. A key takeaway regarding these years is:
Relative to pregnancy, there are fewer things here where the data will tell you what to do or avoid. Your family preferences will be more central.
What this means is that very few specific interventions actually matter for outcomes on a statistical level. The items which do are the overall quality of parenting and family life.
As new parents in 2018, we had a lot to learn and had relatively simple criteria. Both of us wished to continue our careers with little interruption, so a parent staying at home was off the table. With that our initial considerations were:
Does it support both of us going back to work?
Is it convenient?
Is it sufficiently high quality and within our means?
One additional thing we tried to avoid was an abundance of electronic or “blinky” toys.
Childcare center
In the early days with our first child, we went with a child care center associated with JPL, the Children’s Educational Center, which fit the bill across the board. We both worked at JPL in person and it was just a minute away, on the way to work. I was able to visit at lunch to breastfeed. A fortunate accident of arriving on the CEC after our simple search was that as first time parents, we’ve since adopted much of their approach. They used a combination of RIE (Resources for Infant Educarers) and Montessori style methods as the children grew, as well as a focus on outdoor play even from the youngest age. Some key takeaways from their approach that we’ve consistently adopted:
Treating even the youngest infant as a unique human being, not as an object. This means talking to them, walking them through procedures, and sensitive observations of them to understand needs
Free movement vs seats, walkers swings or bouncers
Increasing independence through independent play and with meals (drinking early from cups, self feeding).
Open-ended, safe, passive toys.
Spending lots of time outside, with adequate sun protection.
We practice this at home too. Almost all of our house is freely accessible to all of our children, with adults only stuff kept either in a dedicated room or on higher shelves. Mattresses are initially on the floor and don’t have cot sides, only the stairs have gates for crawlers who haven’t yet learned how to safely descend. For infants, free movement means plenty of time on the floor where they can navigate independently. We also set things up generally such that the children can roam. There are no locks (outside of on unsafe areas like our office or garage). And after graduating from a bassinet, the children sleep on floor and later elevated beds they can get in and out of independently.
Although broader data doesn’t support this approach providing uniquely better outcomes than alternatives, thinking of the family as a system there are many key advantages for our family, that have shown up early but been enhanced as our family size grows.
Treating infants as humans makes caring for them more enjoyable, and makes it easier to spot their human needs and communication methods earlier
Talking to infants helps their language development and even before you could imagine they might understand, and seems to sooth them
Getting rid of dedicated entertainment and rather emphasizing observing (and intervening for safety) as the core parenting responsibility, makes parenting at this age more enjoyable. The infant will ask for attention when they need it, vs it being foisted upon them.
Self feeding and drinking from cups means mealtimes are more scalable.
Being able to get out of bed by themselves is easier for potty training and sibling interaction, and entertaining themselves on the rare occasion they wake before us.
The focus on simple toys means a house with aesthetic, useful, playthings that stand the test of time and span ages, appealing to our kids as they grow and even us as adults. Our favorites that begin at this age are magnetiles, blocks, a railway set, and duplo.
A scene from daycare – our eldest, then a baby, plays happily on the floor. Children sit on tables having meals (with light assistance) behind.
Why we switched to a nanny
With our subsequent children, we both had moved on from JPL; I worked remote and Casey quickly transitioned into an in person role leading his startup. Meanwhile, our income had grown along with the size of the family, so the costs and conveniences of a nanny came much closer to childcare, which ran us about $4000/month. We were able to hire a full time 1:1 caregiver, focused on ages 0-2, but available to assist with the other ages when out of school. With two (and soon to be more) children this more effectively supported us going back to work, was of the utmost convenience, was extremely high quality, and while expensive was within our means. The more children we had, the more this method made sense financially, logistically and emotionally, so we’ve “signed” our caregiver for the next 5 years or more.
Advantages of 1:1 care for our family system:
Attention sustainability: Neither Casey nor I can focus joyfully on an infant for their full waking hours. A professional who has chosen this calling can supplement our active attention.
Sibling time: When our nanny’s hours overlap with other children’s schedules, we can spend 1:1 time with the older kids.
Breastfeeding without pumping: Working from home with the infant at home made this seamless.
Zero transition friction: Dropoffs and pickups take seconds, no packing, no drama with a steady caregiver.
Household support: During nap times, our nanny helps with laundry, dishes, light cleaning, and inventory management. When we’re off work, we focus on children instead of chores.
Built-in backup care: As older children attend school, the nanny handles dropoffs, pickups, and care during scheduled or unscheduled days off.
99%+ work reliability: With kids in mixed settings, the chance someone is ill or off school is high. The nanny provides backup, so we consistently meet work commitments.
Upside for larger families: Without the short term difficulty of sole caregiving, we revel in family life, rejoice in our children, and want to have more! As we have more children, our childcare cost does not grow significantly. This means that once we’ve built this into our budget, having additional kids doesn’t substantially impact it further.
Infant Care Conclusion
Even considering the educational benefits of our childcare center, having experienced both, I’d choose a nanny for infants given the option. The emotional benefits for infant and parent, plus the system-level advantages, outweigh the learning benefits for first-time parents.
While the data is mixed whether communal care before preschool has positive, neutral, or negative impacts on outcome, some preschool starting around age two or three will improve the ease of transitioning to school (Cribsheet). Preschool could have a positive or negative impact on the family system depending on the setup. We again were influenced by our early childcare setting near work, which focused on outdoor play and child-led exploration. Some of the ways in which it aligned with our family’s focus were:
Social focus over academics: No drilling on letters, reading, or math. Our kids absorb academic content at home: we’re doing math, sounding out letters, and reading together. What they needed was learning to interact appropriately with peers and adults. Casey and I are unusual adults who didn’t have great social skills at that age, so this was the value-add. Plus, once academic focus starts for bright kids who are already “ahead,” it can be difficult to study alongside peers months or years behind. This has to start sometime, but there’s no reason it needs to before kindergarten.
Child-led exploration: with familiar routines and lots of self-directed play
Supervised risk-taking: cooking, climbing trees, jumping from heights
High quality staff with low turnover
No screens or “blinky” toys
Authoritative style: Authoritative parenting combines high expectations with high responsiveness: setting clear boundaries and rules while being warm, supportive, and responsive to the child’s needs and emotions. In contrast, other common styles include authoritarian which is high expectations/low responsiveness, and permissive is low expectations/high responsiveness.
Close proximity: 5-10 minutes drive or walking distance, so we don’t spend our lives in the car
How we found it: The NAEYC filter
When we needed something more local, we initially struck out. LA has social pressure for “feeder preschools” among our peer group, plus options with very different focuses, rigid schedules or heavy academic drilling.
In researching, I discovered our original preschool was NAEYC accredited. NAEYC accreditation is essentially a “gold standard” certification that preschools earn by meeting rigorous quality benchmarks focused on developmentally appropriate practices. Using this as a filter led us to a fantastic local option that happened to be a co-op.
The co-op advantage
In a co-op, parents volunteer in the classroom roughly three hours per week to supplement two lead teachers. There are day-consistent volunteers (I always took Wednesdays) with more responsibilities, and floaters who keep a general eye on things and escalate to permanent staff for anything major.
Compared to our previous preschool, the overall staff quality was higher especially post COVID. Parental volunteers were highly educated, empathetic parents who shared our philosophy (hence ending up at the same place), rather than entry-level staff. The permanent teachers had generally been there 10+ years. The atmosphere was more DIY, but they were excellent stewards of parent money, focusing on what matters for development over Instagram aesthetics.
Working from home with teams across the US, I shifted my schedule to start on East Coast hours a few days a week, stopping at close of business Pacific to accommodate Wednesday volunteering. Casey, lacking this flexibility, fulfilled his volunteer hours doing construction projects for the school.
Volunteering was sometimes tough work, but I got to see my kid and benefited from informal education in early childhood development watching the pros navigate the classroom. I’ve worked as a consistent volunteer in the 4-5 age classroom, the 3-4 age classroom, and soon the 2-3 age classroom. I’ll have learned all preschool ages firsthand.
Preschool Care Conclusion
Attending some preschool before formal schooling is probably good, but the data isn’t strong enough to stress if waiting makes more sense for your family. If you want a feeder school for private education or don’t have niche requirements, any school with good staff is probably fine.
If you have similar priorities to ours: play-focused, developmentally appropriate, searching for NAEYC accredited schools is an excellent starting point. Picking a school within 5-10 minutes of home has significant family-system advantages. If you can volunteer or participate in a co-op, the education in your own parenting development is valuable, and I believe investing time to volunteer at this stage benefits both parent and child more than volunteering at later stages.
Kindergarten and Elementary: Maximizing the “Typical School Experience”
Our kids track 1-4+ grades above in reading, math, and other core academics, with the gap seeming to accelerate over time. They remain grade-level in handwriting, social skills, executive functioning (homework and test-taking diligence), and rule-following.
Why we chose public school while we still can
We want to take advantage of the time when this gap is manageable to focus on grade-level skills and give them a “typical school experience” as long as possible. We expect their schooling will need to deviate from typical more in the future.
There’s a perception that parents drive the acceleration of kids tracking above grade level. My experience is the opposite: kids like this thirst and hunger for knowledge, so acceleration is kid-driven. You’d no more deny it to a child thirsting for it than you would a glass of water.
Our values driving our elementary school choice have been
Convenience: Close to home with minimal driving.
Typical experience: Age-similar peers, similar routines, focus on basics over bells and whistles.
Flexibility: Amenable to various options for academic acceleration so we can keep this mode of education as long as it makes sense.
Quality: Basic quality of educators and system, with good odds of matching with teachers who work well with our kids.
Cost: This is where our systems thinking diverged from preschool/infant care. Investing heavily in a nanny or preschool makes life easier on the whole family: worth every dollar. Private elementary school wouldn’t increase reliability or convenience for us while offering marginal educational benefit and decreased normalcy. A nanny benefits multiple children for approximately the same cost; private schooling scales up with each child. When private school offers significant educational benefit and normalcy is no longer possible anywhere, we might reconsider (stay tuned!).
How it’s working
We chose the local public school. It’s walking distance or a short drive, has good ratings (matched by our kids being paired with great teachers), and is approximately free. All teachers are trained in gifted education, and while we don’t expect their clustered grouping approach (as opposed to academic streaming) to be especially useful, teachers have been flexible and creative about differentiated options. Our eldest does math warmups two grades ahead and accesses curriculum three grades ahead during math study time. Our younger gets books tailored to her reading level, alongside kids in her classroom receiving more or less advanced material during reading time.
They’ve made friends, including some similarly curious kids. Much of their school time involves moving between activities, recess, and enrichment classes: art, gardening, PE, music, classroom runs, alongside handwriting, spelling, and socialization with age peers. That is to say, the majority of their day doesn’t require differentiated curriculum, and the portion which does they blend in well with others receiving the same (at higher or lower levels).
The homework approach
There have been hiccups. We weren’t paying attention to kindergarten homework with our eldest until he complained math was boring. When I looked, I realized we needed to give him challenges (see Enrichment section below). After providing after-school opportunities to learn math in a structured way, he hasn’t complained since. In later grades we paired with his teacher to provide some of these opportunities at school as well.
Homework continues to be straightforward for both children. We debated requesting or inventing more challenging homework but decided against it. Instead, we go deep on the homework they do have, focusing on executive functioning, diligence, and improving at-grade-level skills. The math may be straightforward, but writing answers clearly, checking work carefully, paying attention to details, and completing and turning it in on time may not be. Since it is straightforward, this typically doesn’t take much time for anyone involved, and the time invested seems worth it for the returns.
Why this works for our family system
Public school requires no driving logistics that multiply with family size, and costs nothing while our children can still thrive there. The kids are picking up key social skills in additional to their educational advances and have the opportunity to experience a rite of passage shared by most Americans.
Enrichment and Extracurriculars: Prioritizing Family Time
What we skip and why
We prioritize family time together, keeping weekends largely free. This means we can spend time as a family, taking advantage of the big family we’ve built, while keeping logistics manageable. Carting one child around from activity to activity can be overwhelming; carting a large family to individual activities can be prohibitive.
As simple as it sounds, this choice seems fairly unique among our friend group. As trivial an objection to scaling a family as it might seem (“Johnny never had a sister because we wanted him to play t-ball”), I get the sense it plays a huge factor when people with one or two heavily-scheduled kids say they could never imagine having a bigger family.
We opt out of group sports at elementary age. Families with sports as a core value would make different decisions. We do physical activities together: climbing, biking, hiking, walking, and physical play. We’ve had the fortune to move to a walkable community with sports options, so as the children grow older they can walk themselves to practices in areas of their interest.
What we offer at home
We focus enrichment activities on what’s available at home.
Piano A teacher comes once a week to our house and teaches our kids. We are a musical family and value the kids having piano as a foundation to electively build upon.
Math enrichment. While I prepare dinner, the older kids have the opportunity to self-study from books and online curricula. I’m available to mentor. It’s gotten to the point where my eldest enjoys mentoring my younger, which also cements concepts for him: win-win-win. We use a combination of:
Beast Academy: a math curriculum with comic books and online/offline options. It’s rigorous, creative, allows self-study, and is fun for our kids.
Adventures with Mr. Math: Zoom classes focusing on using analytical reasoning skills to solve difficult math problems and puzzles. This doesn’t teach math but rather teaches problem solving. The homework and coursework provide an awesome challenge.
Custom problems: We dive deep on exciting problems together some of which are hard for us to solve as mathematically advanced adults. The kids don’t always have the tools in their toolbox, but we approach them together.
Chess: Our eldest takes group chess classes at any level through International Chess Academy via Zoom. This wasn’t in the plan, but he participated in a chess activity at his homework club and when it was discontinued requested to find another option. We were delighted to stumble upon one online that has worked well
Strewing. We participate heavily in “strewing” both accidentally and on purpose:
Strewing is the intentional, casual placement of interesting materials (books, puzzles, art supplies, science kits, etc.) around the home environment where children will naturally encounter them. The key is that it’s done subtly—you’re creating an enriched environment without directing or requiring the child to engage with the materials.
We have a great variety of material on diverse topics at home and regularly visit the library to check out and strew more. As a result, we regularly hear “I’m sorry I got stuck in a book!” when following up on why a key activity (getting dressed, taking a shower, putting on shoes) wasn’t completed in a timely manner. There are worse problems to have.
Beast Academy – a math curriculum with comic books and online/offline options. It’s rigorous, it’s creative, it allows self study and it’s fun for our kids.
A Brief Note On Screen time
We take a selective approach to screen time, emphasizing tools over passive consumption, and focusing on moderation. The thinking: learning to use these powerful tools is a modern skill, and in the right contexts, they can function as an Illustrated Primerin service of personal growth and education. The kids use screens while in view.
Outside the home: No screens. Including none on roadtrips.
Passive media at home: We watch together occasionally: rocket launches, documentaries, Veritasium, chess videos, Mark Rober (limited: more edutainment than education), and other media of broad interest that is education adjacent. The kids don’t watch media alone.
Active learning with screens: Starting around age two, we introduced limited computer or iPad time.
Useful apps and sites we’ve found:
Ages 2-4:Khan Academy Kids on iPad. Free, ad-free content mixing fun with education. Extensive library of books with read-aloud option available offline.
Ages 4+:Beast Academy online options. The online version is particularly engaging and offers read-aloud mode for pre-fluent readers. The kids use the books as well, but when given the choice gravitate toward the computer version.
Post-fluency readers:Scratch.mit.edu for coding concepts, Replit for AI guided programming (limited, more edutainment than education), Google Colab for advanced coding concepts, Onshape for 3D printing, ChessKid for chess, Google Docs for typing and notes, Gmail for communicating with grandparents.
Finding resources: the Davidson community
I have a friend whose children seemed so similar to ours, we swapped educational tips frequently, and I have her to thank for stumbling upon many. On top of that, she introduced us to the Davidson Young Scholars community which offers a variety of free resources to families with gifted children as well as a community forum. Since her kids were eligible and seemed so similar to ours it was no surprise when we qualified as well. This has been helpful in seeing that there is no perfect educational fit for similar kids, as well as discovering new potential enrichment areas.
Bottom line on enrichment
Our approach maximizes convenience (everything at home or via Zoom except one piano teacher visit), keeps weekends free, and scales well with family size. Kids pursue what interests them without the pressure or logistics of scheduled activities all over town.
We haven’t crossed this bridge yet as our children are solidly thriving in infant care, preschool, and elementary school. But based on the Davidson Forums and our research, beyond elementary is where things get complex, requiring a tapestry of approaches with none of the off-the-shelf options (whether private or public, gifted or not) being a perfect fit.
Our current thinking
We’re inspired by research including Bloom’s two sigma problem, the finding that students taught one-on-one with mastery learning perform two standard deviations better than students in traditional classrooms. We’re also drawn to the observation that high-quality 1:1 tutoring alongside self-directed learning can be significantly less expensive than private schooling.
We’re not setting aside money for private school at the middle school, high school, or college level. In our experience, this can be a family size limiter (“Jane never had a younger brother because we wanted her and siblings to signal high status by attending $40k/year schooling for a decade”). We expect to prefer investing that capital differently and forego status signaling, focusing on educational outcomes instead.
That said, for the right educational outcomes, we’d consider investing. Our priorities will likely be:
Actual learning over credentialing: Brian Caplan’s The Case Against Education argues that the majority of education’s value at upper levels comes from signaling versus actual learning. We’re inclined to focus on the learning.
Kid -driven and kid-led: We expect our children’s education to be driven by our children’s needs, not our own desires for status or projections of our desires onto theirs.
Mix and match approaches: We expect to weave together coursework at various levels, 1:1 tutoring, self-directed study, and possibly dual enrollment or online options.
Maintaining social connection: Whatever we do, we want our kids to have peers and community, not just academic advancement in isolation.
Flexibility as needs evolve: What works at 12 may not work at 15. We’re prepared to adjust.
We don’t have it all figured out
We’re learning from families a few years ahead of us and staying open to creative solutions. I’ll write an update to this blog when we have more life experience to back up our initial thoughts.
Infancy: Nanny or 1:1 caregiver if you can swing it. Daycare also works fine developmentally, pick one you can learn from and have backup childcare options.
Elementary: Local public school if it matches your values. We considered this when choosing where to live.
Enrichment and Extracurriculars:Prioritize family time over individual extracurriculars. Offer optional academic enrichment at home. Thoughtful, limited, supervised screen time.
Beyond Elementary: Mix and match schooling options focused on actual learning over credentialing. Weave in coursework at various levels and 1:1 tutoring rather than private school.
Who would have thought rockets and an internet in the sky, and not “cost-plus” either, would create the wealthiest person in the world? Ridiculous? Of course not. Or a private sector astronaut as NASA administrator. When I began this blog in 2021, my drive to put words down and toss them out there for the … Continue reading On soon-to-be Administrator Isaacman, R&D, and choices
Called up by Commissioner Pett, and with him by water, much against my will, to Deptford, and after drinking a warm morning draft, with Mr. Wood and our officers measuring all the morning his New England masts, with which sight I was much pleased for my information, though I perceive great neglect and indifference in all the King’s officers in what they do for the King.
That done, to the Globe, and there dined with Mr. Wood, and so by water with Mr. Pett home again, all the way reading his Chest accounts, in which I did see things did not please me; as his allowing himself 300l. for one year’s looking to the business of the Chest, and 150l. per annum for the rest of the years. But I found no fault to him himself, but shall when they come to be read at the Board.
We did also call at Limehouse to view two Busses that are building, that being a thing we are now very hot upon. Our call was to see what dimensions they are of, being 50 feet by the keel and about 60 tons.
Home and did a little business, and so taking Mr. Pett by the way, we walked to the Temple, in our way seeing one of the Russia Embassador’s coaches go along, with his footmen not in liverys, but their country habits; one of one colour and another of another, which was very strange.
At the Temple spoke with Mr. Turner and Calthrop, and so walked home again, being in some pain through the cold which I have got to-day by water, which troubles me.
At the office doing business a good while, and so home and had a posset, and so to bed.
Two more books from Belt Publishing came out this week, both part of their “50 Maps” series, each focusing on an Ohio city: Cincinnati in 50 Maps, edited by Nick Swartsell and with cartography by… More
“If new proposals detailed in an FDA memo are put into place, experts told me it would mean the end of annual flu shots. And end of most vaccines for pregnant people. And maybe the end of updates to pneumonia vaccines. And more.”
I love the remix of Radiohead’s Everything In Its Right Place in the midst of Kelly Lee Owens’ Boiler Room set (~33:50 mark). Had me chair dancing this AM!
TABARROK:To be clear, a 0.5% increase in the rate of productivity growth, that doesn’t seem like a lot, but that would be historically a bigger increase than we got from anything. A bigger increase than the internet. Sure, yes.
COWEN:It is the internet in a way, but yes.
TABARROK:It was founded on the internet, yes. The internet was the agar culturefor the growth of the AI.
COWEN:That’s why the internet’s important. We’re just beginning to realize this,right?
TABARROK:Exactly, yes.
COWEN:It’s why a lot of people can’t admit AI might be a good thing, because then they’d have to admit the internet was a good thing. They’re so committed to never saying that.
TABARROK:Is that why?
COWEN:That’s why, yes.Believe me. That’s why.
TABARROK:It is funny that I think historically, when we look back, I think you’re right, we’ll think about what was the internet. The growth culture was putting everything online, was for the AI. It wasn’t for us.
This graph shows heavy truck sales since 1967 using data from the BEA. The dashed line is the November 2025 seasonally adjusted annual sales rate (SAAR) of 367 thousand.
Note: "Heavy trucks - trucks more than 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight."
Click on graph for larger image.
Heavy truck sales were at 367 thousand SAAR in November, up from 339 thousand in October, and down 25.2% from 491 thousand SAAR in November 2024.
Year-to-date (NSA) sales are down 13.2% in 2025 compared to 2024 through November.
Usually, heavy truck sales decline sharply prior to a recession, and sales have collapsed recently.
The BEA reported that light vehicle sales were at 15.6 million in November on a seasonally adjusted annual basis (SAAR). This was up 2.0% from the sales rate in October, and down 5.6% from November 2024.
Click on graph for larger image.
This graph shows light vehicle sales since 2006 from the BEA (blue) through October (red from Omdia).
Vehicle sales were over 17 million SAAR in March and April as consumers rushed to "beat the tariffs".
Then sales were depressed in May and June.
Sales were boosted in August and September due to the termination of the EV credit at the end of September.
The second graph shows light vehicle sales since the BEA started keeping data in 1967.
Sales in November were slightly above the consensus forecast of 15.4 million SAAR.
China’s first attempt to land an orbital-class rocket may have ended in a fiery crash, but the company responsible for the mission had a lot to celebrate with the first flight of its new methane-fueled launcher.
LandSpace, a decade-old company based in Beijing, launched its new Zhuque-3 rocket for the first time at 11 pm EST Tuesday (04:0 UTC Wednesday), or noon local time at the Jiuquan launch site in northwestern China.
Powered by nine methane-fueled engines, the Zhuque-3 (Vermillion Bird-3) rocket climbed away from its launch pad with more than 1.7 million pounds of thrust. The 216-foot-tall (66-meter) launcher headed southeast, soaring through clear skies before releasing its first stage booster about two minutes into the flight.
There’s a race in China among several companies vying to become the next to launch and land an orbital-class rocket, and the starting gun could go off as soon as tonight.
LandSpace, one of several maturing Chinese rocket startups, is about to launch the first flight of its medium-lift Zhuque-3 rocket. Liftoff could happen around 11 pm EST tonight (04:00 UTC Wednesday), or noon local time at the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwestern China.
Airspace warning notices advising pilots to steer clear of the rocket’s flight path suggest LandSpace has a launch window of about two hours. When it lifts off, the Zhuque-3 (Vermillion Bird-3) rocket will become the largest commercial launch vehicle ever flown in China. What’s more, LandSpace will become the first Chinese launch provider to attempt a landing of its first stage booster, using the same tried-and-true return method pioneered by SpaceX and, more recently, Blue Origin in the United States.
Tracking rents is important for understanding the dynamics of the housing market. Slower household formation and increased supply (more multi-family completions) has kept asking rents under pressure.
More recently, immigration policy has become a negative for rentals.
The national median rent fell 1.0% in November, and now stands at $1,367. This was the fourth consecutive month-over-month decline, as we’re now in the midst of the rental market’s off-season. It’s likely that we will close out the year with an additional modest rent decline in December.
Realtor.com: 27th Consecutive Month with Year-over-year Decline in Rents
October 2025 marks the 27th straight month of year-over-year rent decline for 0-2 bedroom properties since trend data began in 2020. Asking rents dipped by $29, or -1.7%, year over year.
(Posted with permission). The ISM® Services index was at 52.6%, up from 52.4% the previous month. The employment index increased to 48.9%, up from 48.2%. Note: Above 50 indicates expansion, below 50 in contraction.
Economic activity in the services sector continued to expand in November, say the nation’s purchasing and supply executives in the latest ISM® Services PMI® Report. The Services PMI® registered at 52.6 percent and is in expansion territory for the ninth time in 2025.
The report was issued today by Steve Miller, CPSM, CSCP, Chair of the Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) Services Business Survey Committee: “In November, the Services PMI® registered a reading of 52.6 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than the October figure of 52.4 percent. The Business Activity Index continued in expansion territory in November, registering 54.5 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than the reading of 54.3 percent recorded in October. The New Orders Index also remained in expansion in November, with a reading of 52.9 percent, 3.3 percentage points below October’s figure of 56.2 percent but 0.9 percentage point above its 12-month average of 51.7 percent. The Employment Index contracted for the sixth month in a row with a reading of 48.9 percent, a 0.7-percentage point improvement from the 48.2 percent recorded in October — the fourth consecutive monthly increase since a reading of 46.4 percent in July.
“The Supplier Deliveries Index registered 54.1 percent, 3.3 percentage points higher than the 50.8 percent recorded in October and 2.2 percentage points above its 12-month average of 51.9 percent. This is the 12th consecutive month that the index has been in expansion territory, indicating slower supplier delivery performance. (Supplier Deliveries is the only ISM® PMI® Reports index that is inversed; a reading of above 50 percent indicates slower deliveries, which is typical as the economy improves and customer demand increases.)
“The Prices Index registered 65.4 percent in November, its lowest reading since hitting 65.1 percent in April 2025. The November figure was a 4.6-percentage point drop from October’s reading of 70 percent. The index has exceeded 60 percent for 12 straight months. emphasis added
Employment was in contraction for the 6th consecutive month, and prices paid remained high.
Industrial production (IP) increased 0.1 percent in September after moving down 0.3 percent in August; for the third quarter as a whole, IP increased at an annual rate of 1.1 percent. In September, the indexes for manufacturing and for mining were unchanged relative to August, and the output of utilities moved up 1.1 percent. At 101.4 percent of its 2017 average, total IP in September was 1.6 percent above its year-earlier level. Capacity utilization was unchanged relative to August at 75.9 percent, a rate that is 3.6 percentage points below its long-run (1972–2024) average. emphasis added
Click on graph for larger image.
This graph shows Capacity Utilization. This series is up from the record low set in April 2020, and close to the level in February 2020 (pre-pandemic).
Capacity utilization at 75.9% is 3.6% below the average from 1972 to 2023. This was below consensus expectations.
Note: y-axis doesn't start at zero to better show the change.
The second graph shows industrial production since 1967.
Industrial production increased to 101.4. This is below the pre-pandemic level.
Industrial production was below consensus expectations (with revisions).
Jared Isaacman, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next administrator of NASA, appears before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Wednesday, April 9, 2025, at the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington. Image: NASA/Bill Ingalls
Jared Isaacman is set to appear before lawmakers once again for a hearing to become NASA’s next Senate-confirmed administrator.
The commercial astronaut and entrepreneur will appear alongside Steven Haines, a nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Analysis. The hearing in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. EST (1500 UTC) on Wednesday, Dec. 3.
A livestream of the hearing will be available shortly before the proceedings begin.
In an excerpt of his written opening remarks, Isaacman emphasized the importance of the moment, stating that with the Artemis 2 launch just around the corner the “challenging endeavor” is “one that requires full-time leadership.”
“This is not the time for delay, but for action, because if we fall behind — if we make a mistake — we may never catch up, and the consequences could shift the balance of power here on Earth,” Isaacman wrote.
“The Congress, and specifically this Committee, understand the urgency of the moment –- placing a historic investment in human space exploration that President Trump signed in the one big beautiful bill. It’s now time for NASA and our partners to deliver.”
While the shared snippets of Isaacman’s remarks don’t explicitly mention China, those prepared by the committee’s chairman, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), do point to the geopolitical rivalry in space.
“I know Mr. Isaacman will be a strong leader who sees that that Artemis 2 launches safely, successfully, and without delay,” Cruz wrote. “He must then turn to Artemis 3, landing Americans on the Moon before China, which is aiming to send its own taikonauts there by 2030.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, questions Jared Isaacman, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next administrator of NASA, during a hearing, Wednesday, April 9, 2025, at the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington. Image: NASA/Bill Ingalls
Isaacman, who funded and commanded the Polaris Dawn and Inspiration4 free-flying Crew Dragon missions, was picked for the NASA Administrator position by President Donald Trump back in December 2024 and his nomination was progressing smoothly through the Senate in the spring. However, he was yanked from consideration by the President at the same time as a public fallout with SpaceX founder and one of the President’s biggest political donors, Elon Musk.
In the months since his nomination was formally withdrawn, Isaacman remained publicly supportive of the President and appeared at the White House during a gathering of tech industry leaders. He was re-nominated for the job in early November.
Thank you, Mr. President @POTUS, for this opportunity. It will be an honor to serve my country under your leadership. I am also very grateful to @SecDuffy, who skillfully oversees @NASA alongside his many other responsibilities.
The second attempt for Isaacman to get the NASA Administrator position comes nearly eight months after he first appeared for his nomination hearing. This go around, things seem to be moving even more quickly with a vote to advance his nomination to the full Senate already scheduled for Monday, Dec. 8, at 5:30 p.m. EST (2230 UTC).
Like with his first nomination, Isaacman has received broad support from the space community. A letter of support was signed by 36 former astronauts and submitted on Nov. 22 to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Marcia Cantwell (D-WA).
This is an expansion of a similar letter signed by 28 astronauts in March. The Nov. 22 letter includes signatories like Charlie Bolden, Peggy Whitson and Nicole Stott.
“We believe that Jared Isaacman is clearly qualified to lead NASA at this critical juncture,” the letter reads in part. “As an entrepreneur, pilot, and commander of two groundbreaking space missions, he brings credibility and capability to make a difference now.
“Most importantly, Jared has a genuine passion for space exploration and a genuine admiration for NASA as an American institution.”
One difference between the last time Isaacman testified before senators and now was the leaking of a draft plan that Isaacman crafted called “Athena” that laid out his vision for how to approach changes at NASA.
In a lengthy post to X following the leak in early November, Isaacman published an overview of the full, 100-page plan, which he said focused on five main priorities:
Reorganize and empower
American leadership in the high ground of space
Solving the orbital economy
NASA as a force multiplier for science
Investing in the future
“This plan never favored any one vendor, never recommended closing centers, or directed the cancellation of programs before objectives were achieved,” Isaacman wrote in closing. “The plan valued human exploration as much as scientific discovery. It was written as a starting place to give NASA, international partners, and the commercial sector the best chance for long-term success.”
“Hiring has been choppy of late as employers weather cautious consumers and an uncertain
macroeconomic environment,” said Dr. Nela Richardson, chief economist, ADP. “And while November's
slowdown was broad-based, it was led by a pullback among small businesses.”
emphasis added
This was below the consensus forecast of 20,000 jobs added. The BLS report will NOT be released on Friday due to the government shutdown.
Here's the latest survey of the job market for new PhD economists:
To: Members of the American Economic Association From: AEA Committee on the Job Market: John Cawley (chair), Elisabeth “Bitsy” Perlman, Al Roth, Peter Rousseau, Wendy Stock, and Stephen Wu Date: December 1, 2025 Re: Survey of hiring plans of U.S. Economics Departments
################
Also on the AEA website is this unprecedented announcement:
"The American Economic Association (AEA) has accepted Lawrence H. Summers' voluntary resignation from membership and, pursuant to the AEA's Policies, Procedures, and Code of Professional Conduct, has imposed a lifetime ban on his membership. In addition, effective immediately, the AEA has imposed a lifetime prohibition on Mr. Summers' attending, speaking at, or otherwise participating in AEA-sponsored events or activities, including serving in any editorial or refereeing capacity for AEA journals. The AEA condemns Mr. Summers' conduct, as reflected in publicly reported communications, as fundamentally inconsistent with its standards of professional integrity and with the trust placed in mentors within the economics profession. Consistent with longstanding AEA practices and to protect the integrity and confidentiality of AEA processes, the AEA will not comment further on individual matters or the specific considerations underlying this determination.
The AEA is committed to upholding the highest standards of professional conduct and to fostering a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment for all members of the economics community. The AEA affirms its expectation that all members adhere to the AEA Code of Professional Conduct and the AEA Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation, and remains dedicated to maintaining professional environments in which economists of all backgrounds can participate fully, and with dignity and respect."
By itself, that disdain for military line officers reflects a remarkable lack of responsibility by the Trump administration. But the murkiness over exactly what happened that night, its legality and the scurry to try to cover some personal reputations while sinking others will only serve to urge bipartisan congressional investigations to dig in deeper.
In the deepening scandal, Congress’ four armed services chairs and ranking members now want to investigate the legal justifications in the boat attacks altogether as well as the order to kill – actions that a widening circle see as hovering between murder and the war crime of slaying survivors.
Donald Trump says he prefers to believe that Hegseth never gave a verbal command to “kill everyone,” resulting in a second strike on an 11-person, suspected drug boat on Sept. 2. Trump was circumspect as to whether there even was a second strike but backed his political appointee and insisted a lethal first attack was legally legitimate.
In the formal White House statement, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to say that it was Adm. Frank Bradley who acted in leading a strike – which apparently was watched live by Hegseth – and a second strike on the targeted boat that killed at least two survivors of the original strike. The Washington Post reported that Hegseth gave a verbal order to kill everyone after surveillance footage showed two men clinging to the wreckage. Bradley, as head of Special Operations Command, ordered the second strike.
Officials seemed to say that Hegseth ordered a lethal attack, but may not have insisted on a second strike, leaving the responsibility questions just a bit hazy. But Hegseth certainly did not stop it, as required by military justice codes. In the latest telling by Pentagon officials, Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile did not kill everyone – an assertion that itself runs counter to normal military planning.
Hegseth now added in a social media post – the curious stage of choice for public policy – that he did not even view the entire attack, a contradiction of his televised comments the day after the military action. It again underscored that Hegseth takes no responsibility and hangs it own military commander.
Blaming the military officer is the opposite of the-buck-stops-here responsibility that we associate with great leadership. It is also a dangerous, slippery legal position since the operation clearly had been witnessed live and on video by a healthy number of military operations observers.
More Questions Emerge
When the records of the attack finally become public, how deeply will Trump and Hegseth have buried themselves? Do they expect nonpartisan military officers, pilots, and Pentagon staffers to lie to protect Hegseth?
Trump and Hegseth both argue without citing a law that lethal strikes on suspected smugglers are justified by declaring cartels as terrorist organizations that can be pursued across international borders and neutral zones. Trump asserted that drug smuggling is now “infinitesimal,” an assertion that simply cannot be shown by any reported fact.
Indeed, the Hegseth investigation is bound to renew inquiries into whether the crews of the 22 targeted boats to date were sent by organized cartels, or rather reflected freelancing civilians seeking a payday for individual smuggling runs, as reported by the Associated Press, which sent reporters to find the families of crewmen. Moreover, if the boat held drugs, there were questions about why it would be carrying 11 crew members who would simply be taking up space needed for bulky drug shipments, and about what type of drugs were on the boat.
The U.S. had intended to stop import of fentanyl, not cocaine, and the boat was not on a route meant to end on U.S. shores.
Trump also brought new questions by moving to pardon Juan Orlando Hernandez, former president of Honduras, arrested in Honduras and convicted in the U.S. for his role in smuggling 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. The pardon was happening just as the inferno was building around Hegseth.
Coincidental Timing
Hegseth also is at the center of seeking to recall Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., into the Navy to have him face possible court martial for advising members of the military to think twice about blindly following “unlawful” orders. The FBI is investigating Kelly and five other members of Congress for “seditious” behavior, as Trump has labeled their repetition of clauses from the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
Hegseth insists that there are no “unlawful” orders in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, in the threats of land and aerial war in Venezuela, or on the streets of America, where Hegseth has ordered National Guardsmen by the thousand to Chicago, Los Angeles, Charlotte and other immigrant-heavy populations.
Kelly has doubled down with these Hegseth non-denunciations of kill orders as “fake news.” Kelly now says that as a Navy captain, he would have refused a verbal order, as alleged in the boat case, to kill survivors at sea.
Neither Hegseth nor the White House has offered a defense of Hegseth’s role as the supervising government official in knowing that the purported second strike had taken place with nary a word of caution from him.
Mortgage applications decreased 1.4 percent from one
week earlier, according to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage
Applications Survey for the week ending November 28, 2025. This week’s results include an adjustment
for the Thanksgiving holiday.
The Market Composite Index, a measure of mortgage loan application volume, decreased 1.4 percent on
a seasonally adjusted basis from one week earlier. On an unadjusted basis, the Index decreased 33
percent compared with the previous week. The Refinance Index decreased 4 percent from the previous
week and was 109 percent higher than the same week one year ago. The seasonally adjusted Purchase
Index increased 3 percent from one week earlier. The unadjusted Purchase Index decreased 32 percent
compared with the previous week and was 17 percent higher than the same week one year ago.
“Mortgage rates moved lower in line with Treasury yields, which declined on data showing a weaker labor
market and declining consumer confidence. The 30-year fixed mortgage rate declined to 6.32 percent
after steadily increasing over the past month,” said Joel Kan, MBA’s Vice President and Deputy Chief
Economist. “After adjusting for the impact of the Thanksgiving holiday, refinance activity decreased
across both conventional and government loans, as borrowers held out for lower rates. Purchase
applications were up slightly, but we continue to see mixed results each week as the broader economic
outlook remains cloudy, even as cooling home-price growth and increasing for-sale inventory bring some
buyers back into the market.”
...
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances
($806,500 or less) decreased to 6.32 percent from 6.40 percent, with points decreasing to 0.58 from 0.60
(including the origination fee) for 80 percent loan-to-value ratio (LTV) loans. emphasis added
Click on graph for larger image.
The first graph shows the MBA mortgage purchase index.
According to the MBA, purchase activity is up 17% year-over-year unadjusted.
Red is a four-week average (blue is weekly).
Purchase application activity is still depressed, but solidly above the lows of 2023 and above the lowest levels during the housing bust.
The second graph shows the refinance index since 1990.
The refinance index increased from the bottom as mortgage rates declined, but is down from the recent peak in September.
On The Marginal Revolution Podcast this week, Tyler and I discuss the US debt. This is our final podcast of the year. Here’s one bit:
TABARROK: I do agree that it is puzzling that the interest rate on bonds is so low. Hanno Lustig and his co-authors have an interesting paper on this. They point out that not only is it the case that we have all of this debt with no plans to pay it, as far as we can tell right now, but the debt is not a very good asset in the sense that when will the debt be paid? If it is going to be paid, it’s going to be paid when the times are good. That means that you’re being paid when GDP is higher and the marginal utility money is low.
When is the debt not paid? When does it get bigger? It means when the economy is doing poorly. The debt as an asset has the opposite kind of structure than you would want. It’s not like gold, which arguably goes down in good times and goes up in bad times. You get some nice covariance to even out your portfolio. The debt as an asset is positively correlated with good times, and that’s bad. You should expect the interest rates to be much, much higher than they actually are.
COWEN: The easy out there is just to say it’s always going to be paid. Let me give you a way of reconceptualizing the problem. The Hanno Lustig paper, which is called “US Public Debt Valuation Puzzle,” like a lot of work on debt, it focuses on flows. There’s the rate of interest, there’s government spending. If you look at stocks, look at the stock of wealth in the United States. A common estimate from the past was wealth is six to eight times higher than GDP. That’s a little misleading. How do you value all the wealth? How liquid is it?
Still, we all know there’s a lot more wealth than GDP. If your economy stays at peace, if anything, that ratio rises. You build things, they’re pretty durable. None of it is destroyed by bombs. We’re just headed to having more and more wealth. If you take, say, 100% debt-to-GDP ratio, and you think wealth is six to eight times higher, what’s our debt-to-wealth ratio? Well, it’s going to depend what kind of wealth, how liquid, blah, blah, blah. Let’s say it’s like 20%. Let’s say you had a debt ratio of 20% to your wealth at some point in the history of your mortgage. I bet you did. You weren’t worried. Why should the US be worried?
TABARROK: The US is a much longer-lived entity, presumably, than I am.
COWEN: That’s right. You could have 200% debt-to-GDP ratio. In terms of your debt-to-wealth ratio, again, it’s somewhat arbitrary, but say it’s 40% to 50% that might be on the high side. It’s not pleasant, but I’ve been in that situation with mortgages.
Seeing oil and coolant mix in your motorcycle is never a good sign. It’s often a clue that something serious is happening inside your engine. In many cases, it points to a failing head gasket, something that even legal experts like Fang Law Firm recognize can lead to disputes or claims after mechanical failures.
Understanding The Role Of The Head Gasket
The head gasket is one of the most crucial components in your motorcycle’s engine. It seals the gap between the engine block and the cylinder head, ensuring that oil, coolant, and combustion gases each stay in their proper pathways. Without a proper seal, these fluids can mix, causing performance issues or even catastrophic engine failure.
When functioning correctly, the head gasket allows oil to lubricate the engine and coolant to regulate temperature without interference. But once the gasket weakens, cracks, or burns through, that separation is compromised. The result is the unwanted blending of fluids that signals deeper engine trouble.
What Happens When Coolant And Oil Mix
Coolant and oil have very different jobs. Oil reduces friction and keeps moving parts smooth, while coolant prevents overheating. When they mix, both lose their effectiveness, and the engine becomes vulnerable to damage.
A telltale sign of mixing is a milky or frothy appearance in the oil. This often shows up on the dipstick or under the oil filler cap. You might also notice the engine running hot, white smoke from the exhaust, or even a sweet smell as coolant burns off during combustion.
When coolant enters the oil system, it reduces lubrication. This means metal parts begin to grind, wear, and overheat more quickly. Conversely, oil entering the cooling system reduces heat transfer, making it harder for your engine to stay within safe temperature limits.
How Coolant-Oil Mixing Indicates Head Gasket Failure
A blown or damaged head gasket is the most common cause of oil and coolant mixing. The gasket acts as a barrier, keeping the coolant channels and oil passages separate. When it cracks or loses pressure, the two fluids come into contact.
The location of the gasket failure often determines the symptoms. A break near an oil passage can cause coolant to enter the oil system. A breach near a combustion chamber can cause white exhaust smoke or bubbling in the radiator. Each sign tells a mechanic where to look.
In motorcycles, this issue can be even more serious than in cars. Motorcycle engines are compact, and their cooling and lubrication systems are tightly integrated. Once mixing starts, damage occurs quickly because there’s less fluid volume to absorb contamination.
Diagnosing The Problem Early
Catching the issue early can make all the difference. The first step is to check your oil. If it appears creamy, cloudy, or oddly thick, coolant has likely leaked in. Similarly, check the coolant reservoir for signs of an oily film or residue.
A compression test or leak-down test can help confirm a failing head gasket. These tests measure how well your engine cylinders hold pressure. Low or inconsistent readings often point to a compromised seal.
Mechanics may also use chemical tests that detect combustion gases in the coolant. This confirms that the gasket has failed, allowing exhaust gases into the cooling system. The sooner these signs are caught, the better your chances of avoiding full engine damage.
Repairing The Damage
Fixing coolant-oil mixing almost always requires replacing the head gasket. This job is labor-intensive, as it involves removing the cylinder head, cleaning the surfaces, and reassembling the engine. For most motorcycles, the repair costs range from $1,000 to $2,000, depending on complexity and labor rates.
In some cases, if the gasket failure has caused significant overheating, the cylinder head may need resurfacing or replacement. This can add both time and cost to the repair. For older motorcycles, riders sometimes face the tough choice between rebuilding or replacing the engine entirely.
After repair, mechanics will flush both the oil and cooling systems to remove all traces of contaminated fluid. Running the engine with mixed fluids, even briefly, can dramatically shorten its lifespan.
Preventing Future Problems
Prevention starts with regular maintenance and temperature control. Keep an eye on your coolant levels, oil quality, and engine temperature gauge. Overheating is the number one cause of head gasket failure, so ensuring the cooling system is clean and functioning properly is key.
Use high-quality coolant and change it according to the manufacturer’s schedule. Fresh coolant contains additives that protect against corrosion and gasket wear. Similarly, use the correct oil for your motorcycle and change it on time to maintain proper lubrication.
Lastly, pay attention to your engine’s behavior. Unusual sounds, smoke, or overheating are signs to stop riding and get an inspection before the damage spreads.
Conclusion
When coolant and oil mix, your motorcycle is sending a clear warning about the integrity of its head gasket. Addressing the issue early prevents costly damage and keeps your engine running smoothly. If a mechanical failure contributes to a crash or claim, consulting experts like Fang Law Firm can help you navigate the aftermath responsibly and effectively.
Kanban is a simple, practical approach to visually managing processes and backlogs by moving work cards from one progress column to another. Toyota came up with it to track their production lines back in the middle of the 20th century, but it's since been applied to all sorts of industries with great effect. And Fizzy is our new fun, modern take on it in digital form.
We're certainly not the first to take a swing at this, not even for software development. Since the early 2000s, there's been a movement to use the Kanban concept to track bugs, issues, and ideas in our industry. And countless attempts to digitize the concept over the years.
But as with so much other software, good ideas can grow cumbersome and unwieldy surprisingly quickly. Fizzy is a fresh reset of an old idea.
We need more of that.
Very little software is ever the final word on solving interesting problems. Even products that start out with great promise and simplicity tend to accumulate cruft and complexity over time. A healthy ecosystem needs a recurring cycle of renewal.
We've taken this mission to heart not just with Fizzy's fun, colorful, and modern implementation of the Kanban concept, but also in its distribution.
Fizzy is available as a service we run where you get 1,000 cards for free, and then it's $20/month for unlimited usage. But we're also giving you access to the entire code base, and invite enterprising individuals and companies to run their own instance totally free of charge.
This is done under the O'Saasy License, which is basically the do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-sue MIT License, but with a carve-out that reserves the commercialization rights to run Fizzy as SaaS for us as the creators. That means it's not technically Open Source™, but the source sure is open, and you can find it on our public GitHub repository.
That open source is what we run too. So new features or bugs fixes accepted on GitHub will make it into both our Fizzy SaaS offering and what anyone can run on their own hardware. We've already had a handful of contributions go live like this!
Ultimately, it's our plan to let data flow freely between the SaaS and the local installations. You'll be able to start an account on your own instance, and then, if you'd rather we just run it for you, take that data with you into the managed setup. Or the other way around!
In an age where SaaS companies come and go, pivot one way or the other, I think it's a great reassurance that the source code is freely available, and that any work put into a SaaS account is portable to your own installation later.
I'm also just a huge fan of being able to View Source. Traditionally, that's been reserved to the front end (and even that has been disappearing due to the scourge of minimization, transpiling, and bundling), but I'm usually even more interested in seeing how things are built on the backend. Fizzy allows you full introspection into that. Including the entire history of how the product was built, pull request by pull request. It's a great way to learn how modern Rails applications are put together!
So please give Fizzy a spin. Whether you're working on software, with a need to track those bugs and feature requests, or you're in an entirely different business and need a place for your particular issues and ideas. Fizzy is a fresh, fun way to manage it all, Kanban style. Enjoy!
By the time the second group of NASA astronauts reach the Moon later this decade, the space agency would like to have a lunar rover waiting for them. But as the space agency nears a key selection, some government officials are seeking an insurance policy of sorts to increase the program’s chance of success.
At issue is the agency’s “Lunar Terrain Vehicle” (LTV) contract. In April 2024, the space agency awarded a few tens of millions of dollars to three companies—Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost, and Astrolab—to complete preliminary design work on vehicle concepts. NASA then planned to down-select to one company to construct one or more rovers, land on the Moon, and provide rover services for a decade beginning in 2029. Over the lifetime of the fixed-price services contract, there was a combined maximum potential value of $4.6 billion.
The companies have since completed their design work, including the construction of prototypes, and submitted their final bids for the much larger services contract in August. According to two sources, NASA has since been weighing those bids and is prepared to announce a final selection before the end of this month.
The Cross Section is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
If Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ever testifies before Congress again, there’s a non-zero chance that, like Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men,” he’ll wind up snarling “You’re goddamn right I ordered the second strike!”
Hegseth is quite clearly a genuine and proud sadist, which is why it’s a little strange to see him scurrying around trying to avoid responsibility for an incident in which the military sent a missile at a boat allegedly carrying drugs, then when it was clear that some of the people on the boat somehow survived that strike and were clinging to the wreckage, sent a second missile to kill them. This is who Hegseth has always been; in fact, he would not be a part of this administration were it not for his public and private advocacy on behalf of a collection of war criminals, which cemented his relationship with Donald Trump (more on that in a moment).
In this, Hegseth is much like the rest of this administration, from Trump on down. This is a government that is not only full of sadists, but has elevated sadism to a place of honor in politics and policy. If you’re one of Trump’s underlings and you aren’t publicly expressing glee at the prospect of punishing and abusing those with less power, then you won’t really fit in. That’s the context in which we have to view this event.
The scramble at the White House
We should start by acknowledging that the administration is engaged in an illegal campaign of murder on the high seas, killing over 80 people (so far) on what they claim are boats carrying drugs, though they have never provided any evidence to show that’s what they are. But even if you accepted their ludicrous claim that the United States is engaged in a literal war against “narcoterrorists,” the double-strike now at issue would be a violation of both U.S. and international law.
This also intersects with the controversy over a video recorded by a group of congressional Democrats with military and intelligence backgrounds reminding servicemembers that they have the right and obligation to refuse illegal orders, a video that sent Trump into such a rage that he has repeatedly called for those members of Congress to be executed. The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual states that “The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
On Friday, the Washington Post reported that Hegseth did indeed give a verbal instruction to make sure everyone on the boat was killed: “The order was to kill everybody,” said one anonymous source. Over the weekend, Hegseth reacted the way members of the administration usually do, characterizing the killings as not an unfortunate necessity or a grim responsibility, but something fun and funny:
By the next day, the White House got worried that this probable war crime was becoming a controversy, so administration officials began talking a lot about Special Operations commander Adm. Frank Bradley, who oversaw the strike. While “supporting” him in their statements, the very fact that they were drawing the spotlight in the direction of this previously unknown figure was pretty good evidence that they were setting him up to take the fall if the scandal grows. Then five unnamed officials told the New York Times that while Hegseth ordered the strike, he never said anything about what should happen if there were survivors. Which might be true, or it might be a coordinated attempt to protect Hegseth.
As the controversy grew, some of the administration’s allies decided to get in on the bloodlust:
If Hegseth really does try to worm his way out of responsibility for this particular crime, it’s important to remember who he is and why he’s here. He went from weekend Fox & Friends co-host to leading the Pentagon in no small part because he built a relationship with Trump through his advocacy for those accused and convicted war criminals. The most notorious of them was Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, whose entire unit turned him in, describing him as practically a serial killer in desert camo, regularly murdering civilians for fun. (Gallagher was acquitted of the most serious charge in a bizarre trial, and Trump restored his rank. You can now pay to train with him and buy his merch.)
Hegseth also wrote a book called The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free. And yes, it’s just the men; apparently the 225,000 women currently serving in the military, including thousands in combat units, aren’t keeping us free. In the book, he lamented the fact that Americans have to follow rules of engagement and international agreements to which their country is a party. “Should we follow the Geneva Conventions?” he wrote. “What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism?”
Apart from the simple fact that Trump saw Hegseth on his teevee, this was doubtless what attracted him: Hegseth pretended to be a tough guy who would turn the military away from wimpy stuff like logistics and cyberdefense and back to manly “warfighting.” Private Bone Spurs couldn’t get enough.
How this administration communicates its sadism
The initial response of both Hegseth and the administration to this issue — releasing all those videos of the missile strikes, and also adopting a gleeful tone on social media — is characteristic of the administration’s PR strategy when it comes to brutality, as it fashions content that crosses platforms, formats, and genres. For instance, in promoting immigration raids and recruiting for its army of thugs, the Department of Homeland Security creates hype videos of raids, complete with first-person perspective shot from officers’ body cams. This creates a view that is familiar to anyone who has ever played Call of Duty or any of a hundred other “first-person shooter” video games:
Dept. of Homeland Security on Instagram: "Expel criminal illega…
Alongside those videos are meme-ified messages like this one, an AI-generated cartoon (in Studio Ghibli style) of an immigrant weeping as she’s being arrested by an ICE goon. Har har!
We’re meant to thrill to the savagery of the raids and laugh at the suffering of the immigrants, who after all are a bunch of criminal, disease-carrying subhumans, which only justifies the enthusiasm with which we brutalize them:
The sadism, of course, begins at the top. For the entirety of his career, Trump has talked about the violence he yearns to inflict on those who oppose him (“I’d like to punch him in the face”). Like many an insecure man with unresolved rage issues, he loves going to mixed martial arts contests, and he is even planning to set up an octagon on the White House lawn so he can hold an MMA event right there in front of the people’s house. (As I have said before: Yes, mixed martial artists are skilled athletes who perform complex and sometimes subtle techniques, but the reason people watch MMA is because they want to see two guys try to beat each other to death.)
The politics of sadism
This administration is offering a daily instruction in what happens when you take the most morally despicable people in the country and give them power (and I haven’t even mentioned Stephen Miller, the guiding hand behind Trump’s domestic policy, who probably grew up torturing small animals). Unfortunately, there is clearly a market for the sadism they embody; millions of people delight in watching Trump punch down on their behalf. It won’t give them economic opportunity or secure health care or a good education for their kids, but in a chaotic world where injustice is rampant, watching those you hate suffer is at least something.
But we can draw some hope from the fact that the political power of sadism seems limited. The vast majority of successful politicians throughout our history labored to convince us that they were compassionate, restrained, and morally admirable (even when they weren’t). Most of us don’t actually want our presidents and those who work for them to be motivated by malevolent cruelty.
That’s true even if we are sometimes drawn to that darker side of our natures. All those post-apocalyptic stories gain audiences in part because of the fantasy of a world with all rules and constraints removed, where even mild-mannered folks come to deal in violence and death. We feel a rush of adrenaline at combat sports, violent video games, and movies where the beefy and righteous give the bad guys the pummeling they deserve.
But even if we all feel those impulses from time to time, most of us don’t want our leaders to embody our worst selves. That’s what Trump has always been, and what those who work for him want to be: the worst of us. Not only that, they want us to cheer them for it, to not just give them free reign but to debase ourselves in the process.
In “A Few Good Men,” Jack Nicholson famously says to Tom Cruise, “You can’t handle the truth!”, the truth being that “my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.” His character Colonel Jessup’s argument is that a secure society requires violent men unrestrained by rules and laws who will do what is necessary, including murder the innocent from time to time.
But the point of the story is that Jessup is wrong. His contempt for the law, not the supposedly weak servicemember under his command whom he ordered to be killed, is the real threat. That’s why, at the end of that scene, he’s arrested and taken away.
I’d like to think that when this era is over, the country will arrive at a collective understanding that we can be something better than what people like Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth want us to be. That understanding may already be forming.
Thank you for reading The Cross Section. This site has no paywall, so I depend on the generosity of readers to sustain the work I present here. If you find what you read valuable and would like it to continue, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Truck accidents in Texas can bring sudden changes that affect a person’s health, routine, and sense of stability. Many victims find themselves facing pain, medical visits, and new challenges that make each day harder to manage. A crash with a large truck can cause injuries that take a long time to heal. This makes a hard situation even more stressful. As these challenges grow it becomes important to understand the types of support that may be available. These forms of support can help guide the recovery process and make the path forward more manageable. These key points make it easier to understand what comes next regarding compensation for commercial truck accident injuries.
Medical Treatment and Continuing Care
Medical treatment is often one of the largest expenses after a truck accident. Victims may need emergency care, follow up visits, imaging tests, therapy sessions, and continued care to manage ongoing pain. Some injuries require long recovery periods that add to medical costs and place more strain on daily life. When treatment is needed for an extended time the financial pressure can grow. These costs are often included when seeking support because they come directly from the injuries caused by the accident.
Income Loss and Changes at Work
Many victims miss work for days or even weeks as they recover from the crash. Lost income can make it harder to pay bills or manage regular expenses that were once easy to handle. Some injuries change how a person performs their job which can affect long term earning power. These work related changes can create stress during a time when focus should be on healing. If the crash makes it harder to work or earn, that should be part of the claim.
Pain and Daily Life Disruptions
A truck accident can affect more than the body. Pain can slow movement and make tasks that once felt simple take much more effort. Emotional strain can build as victims adjust to new limits in their daily routines. Some people find that they cannot enjoy the same activities they once loved. These disruptions can shape the way victims move through life and may be included in the support they pursue.
Vehicle Damage and Personal Losses
A truck accident often causes major damage to the victim’s vehicle. Repairs can be costly and in many cases the vehicle cannot be fixed at all. Items inside the vehicle can also be damaged which adds to the total loss. These expenses become part of the overall harm suffered in the crash. When property loss affects transportation and daily function it can become a large part of the recovery process.
Long Term Impact and Future Needs
Some injuries from truck accidents have effects that last far beyond the first weeks of recovery. Victims may need help with movement or strength for years which can affect the ability to handle routine tasks. Ongoing care may be needed to manage pain or support daily activities. These long term effects can change how a person works, travels, or enjoys life. If these problems come from the crash, they can be part of the support the person asks for moving forward.
A truck crash can bring big changes, but knowing what help is out there can take some pressure off. Medical costs, income loss, daily life disruptions, property damage, and long term needs all shape the full picture of harm caused by the accident. All of these problems can shape the kind of help someone needs after the crash. With the right support, they can focus on healing and start to feel more stable.
Using transaction-level data on US congressional stock trades, we find that lawmakers who later ascend to leadership positions perform similarly to matched peers beforehand but outperform them by 47 percentage points annually after ascension. Leaders’ superior performance arises through two mechanisms. The political influence channel is reflected in higher returns when their party controls the chamber, sales of stocks preceding regulatory actions, and purchase of stocks whose firms receiving more government contracts and favorable party support on bills. The corporate access channel is reflected in stock trades that predict subsequent corporate news and greater returns on donor-owned or home-state firms.
The crux of the problem is that the IRA imposes price caps that shorten the effective life of a patent and applies those price controls even to later-approved uses. Thirteen years after FDA approval, biologics, which are typically infused or injected, become subject to price controls. For small-molecule drugs, typically pills or tablets, the window is only nine years. The clock starts at a drug’s first approval, leaving a follow-on or alternative use, approved years later, an insufficient period to make up the cost of research.
Two weeks ago, a study I conducted with colleagues at the University of Chicago appeared in Health Affairs. It reveals how much these provisions harm cancer research. In reviewing every Food and Drug Administration-approved cancer drug between 2000 and 2024, we found a large part of innovation in cancer treatment takes place after a therapy is first approved. About 42% of the 184 cancer therapies that were initially approved during that period had follow-on approvals—involving new uses or “indications” for an existing drug—such as treating additional cancer types or being used earlier in the disease, when treatment outcomes tend to be better.
This cumulative progress through follow-on discoveries is a big driver of new cancer treatments, the largest drug class making up about 35% of the overall FDA pipeline. Cancer drugs are generally first tested in patients with late-stage disease, after which the drug is studied for use in earlier stages of that cancer and for new uses, including treating other cancers. Our study found that 60% of follow-on drugs treated earlier stages than the initial drugs. This is important because treating earlier stages is often more successful than when a cancer has spread more.
But that cumulative progress depends on incentives for sustained research well after the first FDA approval—often years of additional trials and investments. And those incentives were killed by the IRA.
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
On December 3, 2025, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will hold a hearing to examine the re-nomination of Mr. Jared Isaacman for NASA Administrator. A central issue at the Hearing will be the implications of Mr. Isaacman’s leaked “Project Athena Strategic Plan” (the Plan), which outlines potential reasons for and actions […]
The most tragic event in modern astronomy isn’t a funding cut or a launch failure. It is a “missed connection.” Right now, a neutron star collision somewhere in the distant universe is blasting out a short gamma-ray burst. In seconds, that signal will fade. In minutes, the afterglow will vanish. While a few elite robotic […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated at a Dec. 2 ceremony hosted […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Each year, SpaceNews selects the people, programs and technologies that have most influenced the direction of the space industry in the past year. Started in 2017, our annual celebration recognizes outsized achievements in a business in which no ambition feels unattainable. This year’s winners of the 8th annual SpaceNews Icon Awards were announced and celebrated […]
Aditya Kalra and Munsif Vengattil, reporting for Reuters:
Apple does not plan to comply with a mandate to preload its
smartphones with a state-owned cyber safety app and will
convey its concerns to New Delhi, three sources said, after
the government’s move sparked surveillance concerns and a
political uproar.
The Indian government has confidentially ordered companies
including Apple, Samsung and Xiaomi to preload their phones with
an app called Sanchar Saathi, or Communication Partner, within 90
days. The app is intended to track stolen phones, block them and
prevent them from being misused.
The government also wants manufacturers to ensure that the app is
not disabled. And for devices already in the supply chain,
manufacturers should push the app to phones via software updates,
Reuters was first to report on Monday. [...]
Apple however does not plan to comply with the directive and will
tell the government it does not follow such mandates anywhere in
the world as they raise a host of privacy and security issues for
the company’s iOS ecosystem, said two of the industry sources who
are familiar with Apple’s concerns. They declined to be named
publicly as the company’s strategy is private.
The second source said Apple does not plan to go to court or take
a public stand, but it will tell the government it cannot follow
the order because of security vulnerabilities. Apple “can’t do
this. Period,” the person said.
To my knowledge, there are no government-mandated apps pre-installed on iPhones anywhere in the world. I’m not even sure how that would work, technically, given that third-party apps have to come from the App Store and thus can’t be installed until after the iPhone is configured and the user signs into their App Store Apple Account.
The app order comes as Apple is locked in a court fight with an
Indian watchdog over the nation’s antitrust penalty law. Apple has
said it risks facing a fine of up to $38 billion in a case.
This is another one of those laws like the EU’s DMA, where maximum possible fines are based on a percentage of global revenue. No one in India seems to actually be threatening any such fine, but it’s ludicrous that it’s even possible.
Recently, Tom Nichols — the dissident or lapsed conservative who is a key Never Trump figure — wrote a Bluesky thread on the importance of federalism. He focused on the longstanding Democratic demand (albeit a futile one) that the president be elected by a national popular vote. I’ve made the same argument, though I’ve never treated it as a big focus since abolishing the Electoral College is all but impossible. You’re never going to get small states to disempower themselves by agreeing to such a constitutional amendment. But Nichols made the argument that some form of the Electoral College is an essential component of American federalism and that federalism is one sheet anchor of our liberties, as we’re finding out today.
I’m not certain that the Electoral College is essential to federalism. One could certainly imagine another version of our current federal system in which the entire national population voted as a body to elect the president. (It’s hard to see why that in itself would require the relationship of national to state governments to be different.) Indeed, the framers of the U.S. Constitution considered just such a possibility.
It’s for reasons like this that I’ve always been generally skeptical of theories, especially the more elaborate ones, of federalism. Really what we call federalism was the product of a series of compromises between very dissimilar visions of the American republic. But this is talking about “compromises” in the too-smoothed-over sense of the word Americans often use to remember, to homogenize their past.
In their late 1780s guises, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton all but wanted to abolish the states. They knew that wasn’t possible. And at the Constitutional Convention it ended being even less possible then they had hoped. So they ended up negotiating a system in which the states were, as it were, caged and subordinated but by no means abolished. After the fact, when it came to selling the idea, they came up with various explanations of how this created just the right balance to protect liberty and all the rest. But these were always very much ex post facto justifications and rationales for part of their national state project which had very much come up short. The subsequent two and a half centuries of “federalism” discourse have usually been a matter of ascribing intention to something better seen as a stalemated tug-of-war on which time was called. (The 14th Amendment had a lot more to say on this question. But for the purposes of this conversation we can set that to the side.)
In any case, the federal system is what we have, regardless of how we got it. And embedded within that system is the fact that to a great degree the people (“citizens of the United States”, a creation of the 14th Amendment) act on and through the federal government via their states. That’s most obvious with the Senate and the Electoral College. But it’s the case with the House of Representatives too. House seats are apportioned by population both within and to states. They are made up of constituencies of only a single state. House districts never cross state lines even though de facto political communities often do. Their lines are drawn by political authorities within given states.
Nichols argues that the Electoral College is a kind of bulwark of our liberties because it is essential to federalism, and federalism is a bulwark of our liberties. As I noted above, I’m not sure I agree that the links in the chain are that tightly fastened, that federalism is undone without the Electoral College. But his argument is a salutary one, and on balance I agree with it. As I’ve argued several times this year, the separate and non-contiguous sovereignties of the states are a critical redoubt for liberty and civic democracy in our current national crisis. They constitute a kind of strategic depth for democratic self-government while the executive branch is under the control of a would-be despot.
Liberals have always been hesitant about federalism and for good reasons. Its main role in American history has been as a tool to defend slavery and slavery’s various descendent regimes. More recently, it’s been a tool of the right to claw back economic and health and safety regulations. Here the reason may be more intrinsic than with slavery. Historically, the state governments have always been more buyable. They attract less attention. For various reasons entrenched politico-economic elites are more powerful the further down the layers of government you go — more powerful at the state than the federal level, more powerful at the county level than the state, etc.
I don’t have a good answer to balancing the states as redoubts of civic democracy with the states as stalking horses of John Roberts-style laissez-faire capitalism. I suspect that circle can be squared. I also suspect the question is moot since sensible economic and health and safety regulation only come downstream of non-despotic, fascistic government. Most important, new times call for new thinking. The challenge we face today is less a weakened federal state than a rogue executive branch which threatens civic democracy itself. I don’t have any big new theory of federalism to propound. I’m not one for big theories of federalism, as noted above. But it is a critical line of defense against a lawless, rogue executive. We all know the language of states as “laboratories of democracy.” Perhaps so. They are just as much remote caves and high deserts where democracy can hide out while the forces of civic democracy are gathering for their counter-attack. I simply think we should think more expansively and creatively about the role of state power in the federal union and with new eyes. As Nichols himself notes, the anti-democratic character of the Electoral College can be significantly ameliorated simply by expanding the House of Representatives — something we should be doing for entirely separate reasons. The bigger you make the House, the less the Senate matters (and the less punch micro-states have) in the equation of Electoral College votes.
It appears as though this represents the original photography,
unaltered before digital visual effects got involved. Somehow,
this episode (along with many others) do not include all the
digital visual effects that were in the original broadcasts and
home video releases. It’s a bizarro mistake for Lionsgate and HBO
Max to make and not discover until after the show was streaming to
customers.
I decided to help illustrate the changes by diving in and
creating images that might do better than words. The first thing I
noticed is that, at least for season one, the episode titles and
order were totally jumbled. The puke episode is “Red in the Face”,
not “Babylon”.
So HBO Max not only ruined several episodes by “remastering” the wrong footage, but they both mis-numbered and mis-titled the episodes. Breathtaking ineptitude. Think about it. This is the entire raison d’être — streaming high quality movies and episodic series. That’s the one and only thing HBO Max does. And they have zero care or craft for what they do. They didn’t just do this to any show. They did it to one of the most cinematically beautiful and carefully crafted shows ever made.
Vaziri’s post, as is his wont, is replete with illustrated and animated examples of the mistakes in HBO’s versions compared to the correct originals available from AMC and iTunes. Vaziri notes:
The fun thing about this restoration mistake is that now we, the
audience, get to see exactly how many digital visual effects were
actually used in a show like “Mad Men”, which most would assume
did not have any digital effects component. In this shot, not only
were the techs and hose removed, but the spot where the pretend
puke meets Slattery’s face has some clever digital warping to make
it seem like the flow is truly coming from his mouth (as opposed
to it appearing through a tube inches from his mouth, on the other
side of his face).
Four new models from Mistral today: three in their "Ministral" smaller model series (14B, 8B, and 3B) and a new Mistral Large 3 MoE model with 675B parameters, 41B active.
All of the models are vision capable, and they are all released under an Apache 2 license.
I'm particularly excited about the 3B model, which appears to be a competent vision-capable model in a tiny ~3GB file.
@MistralAI releases Mistral 3, a family of multimodal models, including three start-of-the-art dense models (3B, 8B, and 14B) and Mistral Large 3 (675B, 41B active). All Apache 2.0! 🤗
Surprisingly, the 3B is small enough to run 100% locally in your browser on WebGPU! 🤯
You can try that demo in your browser, which will fetch 3GB of model and then stream from your webcam and let you run text prompts against what the model is seeing, entirely locally.
Mistral's API hosted versions of the new models are supported by my llm-mistral plugin already thanks to the llm mistral refresh command:
I've adopted a new (to me) pattern for my Python projects to make them easier to hack on using uv run. I'm using a PEP 735 dependency group called dev to declare my development dependencies - in particular pytest - such that running uv run pytest executes the tests for my project without me having to even think about setting up a virtual environment first.
Here's the pattern I'm using. I start by creating a new library using uv init --lib like this:
mkdir my-new-library
cd my-new-library
uv init --lib
The dev dependency group is a special case for uv run - it will always install those dependencies as well such that commands like pytest can work correctly.
When you package a project for distribution the dev dependencies will not be automatically installed for users of your package.
The importance of [build-system] for specifying a package
That [build-system] section is crucial, because it tells uv that the directory should be treated as a "package". This means that when uv run executes it installs the current directory as an editable package in the virtual environment.
Removing [build-system] and then rm -rf .venv to delete the virtual environment results in the following error when trying to run uv run pytest:
________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_my_new_library.py _________________
ImportError while importing test module '/private/tmp/my-new-library/tests/test_my_new_library.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
/opt/homebrew/Caskroom/miniconda/base/lib/python3.10/importlib/__init__.py:126: in import_module
return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
tests/test_my_new_library.py:1: in <module>
from my_new_library import hello
E ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'my_new_library'
=========================== short test summary info ============================
ERROR tests/test_my_new_library.py
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interrupted: 1 error during collection !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=============================== 1 error in 0.07s ===============================
Adding the [build-system] section back in gets rid of this error.
There's an alternative to having a [build-system] section, which is to add this to the pyproject.toml file instead:
pubfnis_package(&self,require_build_system:bool) -> bool{// If `tool.uv.package` is set, defer to that explicit setting.ifletSome(is_package) = self.tool_uv_package(){return is_package;}// Otherwise, a project is assumed to be a package if `build-system` is present.self.build_system.is_some() || !require_build_system
}
So there's no need to use that [tool.uv] section if you already have a [build-system] section.
Installation in CI
If you're still using regular pip in your CI scripts you'll need to ensure the dev dependency group is installed like this:
pip install . --group dev
The end result
Projects that use this pattern become a whole lot easier for other people to hack on. I first used this for my datasette-extract package, with the result that checking out and running the tests is now a case of running just the following commands:
git clone https://github.com/datasette/datasette-extract
cd datasette-extract
uv run pytest
No need to think about virtual environments or development dependencies - this just works.
Building a distributable wheel of the project is a one-liner as well:
Driving home today I heard a few news stories that discussed various outrages. I suspect that many NPR listeners would focus on the superficial nature of the problems and not look for the deeper causes.
The tragic fire in Hong Kong:
At least 150 people died in an apartment fire in Hong Kong. I don’t know the exact cause of the fire, but I do know certain facts about Hong Kong
a. Hong Kong has one of the most well-functioning economies on Earth.
b. There is one glaring exception to the previous point: Hong Kong’s housing system is extremely dysfunctional.
c. Hong Kong has one of the most laissez-faire economic systems in the world. For instance, their outstanding (and profitable) subway system is privately owned.
d. There is one glaring exception to the previous point: Hong Kong’s housing system is mostly government run.
Trump’s pardon of a major Honduran drug dealer.
Trump’s opposition to violent crime seems pretty sincere. Recall how he responded to the famous Central Park rape case back in 1989. Trump was so angered by this event that he refused to accept the fact that the five accused suspects were later exonerated. Recently, he has used the military to go after suspected drug runners in the Caribbean. The suspects are being executed without a trial. All this is consistent with Trump’s hostility toward criminals.
[BTW, the outrage over the execution of those two guys clinging to the wreckage seems almost beside the point. I agree that it was awful, but it’s no different from the ones killed in the first strike. If you agree that the war on drugs should be extended to international waters, the appropriate response is to arrest the suspects. I get that killing people clinging to wreckage seems more pathetic than killing suspects standing calming on the deck, but in both cases you have decided to execute criminal suspects, rather than have them arrested and tried in a court of law. These were not soldiers killed in battle, as the “war of drugs” is just a metaphor, like the “war on cancer.” It’s not a “war crime” because we are not at war. It’s just a garden variety crime. Naturally, Trump insists these guys are guilty, just as he insisted the Central Park 5 were guilty.]
So how should we think about Trump’s recent pardon of one of the world’s biggest drug dealers? Is it out of character? Not at all. Trump is strongly opposed to crimes committed by ordinary people, but views heads of state quite differently. Contrast those Central Park rape suspects with someone like Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who ordered the killing of an American reporter. Or consider Vladimir Putin, who has committed numerous war crimes in Ukraine. Trump clearly respects those two leaders, despite their many crimes. Trump pardoned Former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández because he considers national leaders to be above the law.
My own view is that national leaders should not be above the law. But I’ve seen quite respected pundits argue the opposite, that “lawfare” should not be used against heads of state. That seems to be the view of the Supreme Court, at least for crimes committed while carrying out public policy. If you think this sort of double standard is appropriate, then the pardon makes sense.
What if North Korea were the world’s richest country?
North Korea is obviously an economic basket case. But what if it were not? What if it were richer than the US or Switzerland or Norway? What then? I suppose that neoliberals like me could argue that, “It’s just one data point, communism is still a really bad economic system.” But even I would find that argument to be a bit implausible. Could communism really be all that bad if the world’s most strictly communist system were the world’s richest country? (I don’t wish to get sidetracked with a debate over whether North Korea is actually the world’s most communist place; feel free to substitute some place like Cuba—it won’t change my argument.)
What’s the point of this nonsensical counterfactual thought experiment? Almost no one suggests that a hardcore communist system is likely to result in world-leading wealth creation. But I’ve seen a number of intellectuals claim that democracy doesn’t work very well because “voters are stupid”. In that case, wouldn’t it be equally embarrassing if the world’s most democratic country, the place that had more than 50% of all national referenda during the 20th century, the place where income tax increases must be approved by ordinary voters, turned out to be the best governed place on Earth?
As in my imaginary North Korea thought experiment, you could just say that it was just one observation. Nonetheless, it would certainly seem to be an embarrassing fact for democracy skeptics.
Switzerland just had a referendum on whether to institute a wealth tax on estates above 50 million SF. That’s a threshold that probably applies to less than one percent of the Swiss population. The proposal was rejected by 79% of Swiss voters. This referendum occurred two weeks after I posted this claim:
I doubt whether anti-capitalist populists would do well in Switzerland or Singapore.
A small news story in Orange County
A very short news story in the OC Register caught my eye:
Four people were found dead in a Fullerton home Tuesday, Oct. 21, possibly the result of overdoses, police said.
Officers responded . . . after a caller said four of his friends had overdosed and weren’t breathing, according to Fullerton police. . . .
Detectives who were conducting an investigation into the deaths don’t believe there’s any threat to the public.
No further details were available, including when the victims died or what drug or other substance may have led to the deaths.
Most people would view that story as a piece of evidence in favor of banning drugs. I suspect that it is more likely to end up being a piece of evidence that drugs should be legal. To be clear, I don’t not know exactly what happened in this particular case and can only speculate. And even if I am correct, it certainly would not prove that drugs should be legal, it would merely provide one piece of evidence.
If one person were found dead, I might wonder if it was a suicide. With four deaths, I suspect that the victims accidentally ingested far more of a dangerous drug than they anticipated. For instance, I’ve read numerous stories of ordinary people dying because they didn’t know the cocaine they snorted was laced with fentanyl. I would not be at all surprised if something like that happened here.
To be clear, narcotics are risky even if you know exactly what dose you are receiving. But drugs become vastly more dangerous in the underground markets, where there is no reliable way to be certain as to the dose that one receives. This explains a large proportion of drug deaths.
With legalization, that sort of accidental overdose would become much less common. On the other hand, legalization would boost demand for drugs, and thus the total number of overdose deaths might increase even if the danger from any given drug use declined.
In this post, I’m not really trying to argue for drug legalization, rather I’m trying to argue that a systematic analysis of the drug problem, an analysis that looks beyond the headlines, leads to a stronger case for legalization than the average person would assume by looking at headlines about overdose deaths.
If you favor legalization, don’t be intimidated by snide comments like “Oh, so you want CVS to sell cocaine and heroin?” Consider the following facts:
During 1880-1910, America allowed cocaine and heroin to be sold by retailers. During that period, the public was aware that these drugs were dangerous. Some people became addicted, and that’s why they were eventually banned. But it was not obvious that a ban was appropriate, which is why it took so long.
During 1880-1910 alcohol probably caused much more harm that other narcotics. It was banned almost a decade after narcotics, but the ban was lifted in 1933. Today, alcohol is legal and sold by retailers.
When people mock the “absurd” idea of allowing retailers to sell drugs, recall that for long periods of American history this was perfectly legal, despite the fact that the public knew these drugs were dangerous and causing people to become addicted. Also recall the fact that during this period alcohol caused even more harm than narcotics. And recall the fact that alcohol was briefly banned, and that this did indeed reduce alcoholism. And recall that despite the fact that the alcohol prohibition did reduce alcoholism, the ban was eventually lifted. And recall the fact that the case for banning alcohol is in many ways far stronger than the case for banning narcotics, because in a black market economy accidental overdoses of alcohol are far less common than accidental overdoses of narcotics.
Again, I’m not trying to argue that all drugs should be legal. That might be the best policy, but it also might be best to legalize cocaine and Oxycontin and continue banning heroin and fentanyl. Perhaps that intermediate regime could be defended on a “harm reduction” basis. I don’t know. Rather I’m suggesting that most discussion of this issue is quite superficial and ignores all sorts of relevant considerations. It’s not enough to say “Duh, drugs are obviously bad.” Yeah, I know that. The drug war is also obviously bad. Fentanyl deaths skyrocketed when we started restricting Oxycontin prescriptions.
To me, the story of the four deaths in Fullerton (a college town), which got very little press coverage, is a far bigger deal than the Epstein files, with far great implications for public policy. Four deaths is very sad.
What sort of taxes do voters actually hate?
Brian Albrecht has an excellent post on public choice issues surrounding taxes. But I’m going to slightly quibble about one specific claim:
Another area of disagreement is taxation. Economists tend to prefer taxes like property taxes; voters despise them. Economists think corporate taxes are among the worst ways to raise revenue; voters think corporations should pay more. Economists generally prefer consumption taxes to income taxes, whereas voters tend to prefer income taxes.
That might be true, but as you probably know I’m very suspicious of public opinion polls. Instead, I like to think in terms of revealed preference. And while we do not have a clean test of this hypothesis, there is a fair bit of circumstantial evidence that voters hate income taxes more than they hate property taxes.
In numerous previous posts I’ve pointed to the clear evidence that voters are moving to areas with no state income tax, even when they have fairly high property tax rates (as in Texas.) Again and again we see faster population growth in zero income tax states than in nearby states with a positive income tax (Washington vs. Oregon, Tennessee vs. Kentucky, South Dakota vs. Nebraska, Texas vs. all its neighbors. We have also seen a recent movement toward lower state income tax rates, as other states try to reverse a loss of residents. Here is AI Overview:
States Cutting Income Taxes in 2025
The following states reduced their individual income tax rates effective January 1, 2025, continuing a multi-year trend of tax reform across the country:
Indiana: Reduced its flat tax rate from 3.05% to 3.00%.
Iowa: Transitioned to a single flat tax rate of 3.8% from a top rate of 5.7%.
Louisiana: Adopted a flat tax rate of 3%, down from a top rate of 4.25%.
Mississippi: Reduced its flat tax rate to 4.4% (with plans for further reductions).
Missouri: Trimmed its top rate to 4.7% from 4.8%, as part of a phased plan to reach 4.5%.
Nebraska: Lowered its top rate to 5.2% from 5.84%, with a goal of reaching 3.99% by 2027.
New Mexico: Restructured its tax brackets to reduce rates for low- and middle-income taxpayers, while keeping the top rate at 5.9%.
North Carolina: Cut its flat rate to 4.25% from 4.5%, with a future reduction to 3.99% planned for 2026.
West Virginia: Reduced its top marginal rate to 4.82% from 5.12%.
South Carolina: Made a temporary income tax reduction permanent, with further cuts possible in the future.
States with 2024 Tax Cuts
Several other states also implemented income tax cuts earlier in 2024:
Arkansas: The top individual income tax rate dropped to 3.9% from 4.4%.
Georgia: Continued its transition to a flat tax, reducing the rate to 5.39%.
Kentucky: Took another step toward eliminating its income tax, reducing the rate to 4.0%.
Montana: Cut its top marginal rate to 5.9%.
Actual existing nationalism
I’ve frequently argued that nationalism and communism are the two great evils of the 20th century. I highly recommend a recent article by Alex Nowrasteh & Ilya Somin, which makes some similar arguments:
Nationalism’s failures in the 20th century, from starting two world wars to genocide to jingoistic economic policies that have immiserated millions, rank it as a horrific failed ideology, second only to communism. Conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians rightly mock leftists who claim that “real communism hasn’t been tried” or that “the Soviet Union wasn’t really communist” when confronted with the disastrous effects of their policies. Those who make similar excuses for nationalism are on no firmer ground.
High trust societies achieve better outcomes
In The Great Danes, I argued that places with high levels of civic trust achieve better economic outcomes. Robin Brooks points out that Denmark has a very low level of public debt, despite having a high level of government spending:
In today’s post, I look at how foreign ownership of government debt has evolved from 2019 (before the COVID debt splurge) to now. I do this for 40 advanced and emerging market (EM) countries. Denmark has the biggest rise in foreign ownership, consistent with the idea that markets are gravitating towards low-debt safe havens (Denmark’s government debt is 30 percent of GDP).
America’s government spends far less than the Danish government as a share of GDP. And yet, the US now pays nearly 4.1% interest on 10-year Treasury bonds, whereas the Danes pay only 2.6% interest.
Our heavy interest burden partly reflects the dysfunctional nature of our political system. It should be easy to run large budget surpluses with US levels of federal spending (roughly 23% of GDP.) If we eventually resort to inflation as a way to finance the debt, it will not be because other solutions are infeasible, it will be because the grown-ups have all left the room.
People have begun speculating on what Kevin Hassett would do to interest rates. That’s the wrong question. It’s not clear that the Fed chair determines Fed policy, and even if he does the relevant policy is NGDP growth, not interest rates. The actual question of interest is what sort of inflation/NGDP growth does the Fed intend to generate? Once that question is answered, the market sets the interest rate. Banana republics choose inflation, while responsible countries try to pay their bills. So far, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the roughly 2% PCE inflation rates embedded in current TIPS spreads. Investors seem to be betting that American voters don’t like inflation, and will eventually pressure Congress to shape up. I hope the market is right.
Speaking of civic virtue, Utah is the only red state with a median household income above $100,000. Although Trump won Utah fairly easily, he considerably underperformed the typical GOP presidential candidate. It seems that Utah conservatives are a bit more concerned than other Republicans about issues such as corruption and hostility to immigrants.
Here’s AI overview:
Utah: Has the highest percentage of its population identifying as having Danish descent.
Look closely, and you’ll see that everything’s connected. . . .
PS. New Yorkers might want to stop looking down their noses at Mormons, as Utah is now 20% richer than New York:
Who’s to blame?
Systemic analysis is all about looking beyond the surface. Most people respond to a bad experience in a business by blaming the business. I do that on some occasions, but more often I blame government regulation. Today, I had a bad experience at CVS. I blame the government regulation that prevents me from buying medication without a prescription. In my view, bad regulations and a bad tort law system explain more than 90% of my bad experiences with the private sector. The other 10% are customer service phone lines.
The public hates big tech companies, big government and property developers, but they like specific big tech companies, specific government programs and their local homebuilder.
Why does advocacy seem to always end up being counterproductive?
Environmentalists often oppose solar, wind, hydro and nuclear. Anti-trust advocates often oppose low prices. Immigration advocates often (unintentionally) create a public backlash against immigration. Affordable housing advocates tend to make housing less affordable. Labor advocates enact policies that lower real wages and raise unemployment. Safety advocates make the world less safe by making the perfect the enemy of the good. Civil rights advocates enact discriminatory policies. Peace advocates often give aid and comfort to aggressors. Medical ethics advocates enact policies that kill tens of thousands of people. Education reformers usually make kids dumber.
If it were just one or two examples you could write it off as an anomaly. But this sort of outcome seems closer to the norm. Perhaps every advocacy movement starts out with one or two good ideas. But once they become established, they just keep going. They move right past the point of optimal advocacy, to a position where their efforts are counterproductive. They just cannot leave well enough alone.
Taking a break today while waiting for various shoes to drop. As it happens, however, almost a year has passed since I took this newsletter out of hibernation, with a post about why DOGE would fail. So I thought some readers might want an update on how the venture is going and be interested in a glance behind the scenes.
First, yes, I’m finding an audience. Here’s the total number of subscribers over time:
I’d like to add a few hundred thousand to that total. I keep running into devoted readers of my NYT column who still aren’t aware that this newsletter exists. Please spread the word! It’s almost every day, and free except for the Sunday primers, which involve an immense amount of work to produce.
Substack also maintains bestseller lists based on paid subscriptions. Here’s the top 10 for U.S. politics, which isn’t exactly what I write about, but close enough:
Except for the admirable and inimitable Heather Cox Richardson, every Substack above me is a group effort. So I think we’re doing pretty well.
I say “we” because Robin Wells, my wife, is very much a part of this project. So let me tell you how this newsletter is produced.
First, both of us are more or less constantly doing background research. This involves flagging and saving news reports, articles, working papers and so on that look as if they might come in useful. It also involves downloading data that might be relevant at some point. There’s a running joke among data-oriented commentators: “Do you even FRED, bro?” I do. I also Eurostat, OECD, IMF, World Bank and, lately, Haver Analytics.
Every morning I get up, make coffee, and feed the cat. Then Robin and I have our coffee and discuss what the next post should be about. Next, I try to get exercise in — running in the park when weather permits, stationary bike when it doesn’t. Then time to start writing, generally producing whatever charts I think the piece needs along the way.
I’m a fast writer, but the process of drafting a post involves a lot of time staring into space and thinking, so a first draft can take most of a working day. Then Robin edits, often suggesting that I put in things I should have included and take out material best left for another day. I then edit her edit, and it often takes several passes before we think it’s good enough.
Finally, I upload the post into Substack and schedule it for publication the next morning, always allowing for the possibility of last-minute updates and changes.
The Sunday primers are a sort of extra-strength version of this process. I reserve Saturdays for video interviews conducted earlier in the week, so writing each primer is a two-day marathon beginning Friday morning, which often involves having to do a lot of additional research. Also, my initial plan usually turns out to be too much for one post, which is why so many of the primers end up being series.
We don’t have anyone else working for us, except for some technical help when I do video interviews/podcasts.
PS: There’s currently a YouTube channel that looks as if it features me speaking. It’s not me, it’s AI, and we’re trying to get it shut down.
I never envisaged this Substack as a full-time job. It was supposed to be just a way to keep my voice out there post-NYT. But as it turns out, both Robin and I are working longer hours than we ever did in the past.
And the truth is that it’s great. I just hope that readers find what we’re doing useful in these scary times.
Anthropic just acquired the company behind the Bun JavaScript runtime, which they adopted for Claude Code back in July. Their announcement includes an impressive revenue update on Claude Code:
In November, Claude Code achieved a significant milestone: just six months after becoming available to the public, it reached $1 billion in run-rate revenue.
Here "run-rate revenue" means that their current monthly revenue would add up to $1bn/year.
I've been watching Anthropic's published revenue figures with interest: their annual revenue run rate was $1 billion in January 2025 and had grown to $5 billion by August 2025 and to $7 billion by October.
I had suspected that a large chunk of this was down to Claude Code - given that $1bn figure I guess a large chunk of the rest of the revenue comes from their API customers, since Claude Sonnet/Opus are extremely popular models for coding assistant startups.
Bun founder Jarred Sumner explains the acquisition here. They still had plenty of runway after their $26m raise but did not yet have any revenue:
Instead of putting our users & community through "Bun, the VC-backed startups tries to figure out monetization" – thanks to Anthropic, we can skip that chapter entirely and focus on building the best JavaScript tooling. [...] When people ask "will Bun still be around in five or ten years?", answering with "we raised $26 million" isn't a great answer. [...]
Anthropic is investing in Bun as the infrastructure powering Claude Code, Claude Agent SDK, and future AI coding products. Our job is to make Bun the best place to build, run, and test AI-driven software — while continuing to be a great general-purpose JavaScript runtime, bundler, package manager, and test runner.
Wednesday:
• At 7:00 AM ET, The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) will release the results for the mortgage purchase applications index.
• At 8:15 AM, The ADP Employment Report for November. This report is for private payrolls only (no government). The consensus is for 20,000 jobs added, down from 42,000 in October.
• At 9:15 AM, The Fed will release Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization for October. The consensus is for no change in Industrial Production, and for Capacity Utilization to decrease to 77.3%.
• At 10:00 AM, the ISM Services Index for November. The consensus is for 52.1, down from 52.4.
But in professional life, there are many who are bad at either reading or writing (or both). This includes people with technical skills and hoity-toity degrees. Not mediocre, but bad. They have a hard time reading and understanding various texts, and their writing is both laborious and unintelligible. For them, I could see ‘AI’ being a godsend. AI is pretty good at being mediocre, and, often, that’s all that’s needed.
The judge also revealed for the first time that one body-worn camera video captured an immigration agent using the AI tool ChatGPT to “compile a narrative for a report based on a brief sentence about an encounter and several images.”
“To the extent that agents use ChatGPT to create their use of force reports, this further undermines their credibility and may explain the inaccuracy of these reports when viewed in light of the BWC footage,” Ellis wrote.
At the very least, we should make it harder to engage in ‘testilying.’ But snark aside, this is an example of mediocre writing that LLMs could do–and part of that mediocrity includes errors, which, in the legal system, have real consequences.
Before I went to the officemy wife and I had another falling out about Sarah, against whom she has a deadly hate, I know not for what, nor can I see but she is a very good servant. Then to my office, and there sat all the morning, and then to dinner with my wife at home, and after dinner did give Jane a very serious lesson, against we take her to be our chamber-maid, which I spoke so to her that the poor girl cried and did promise to be very dutifull and carefull. So to the office, where we sat as Commissioners for the Chest, and so examined most of the old accountants to the Chest about it, and so we broke up, and I to my office till late preparing business, and so home, being cold, and this night first put on a wastecoate. So to bed.
In case you haven’t been following the world of software development closely, it’s good to know that vibe coding — using LLM tools to assist with writing code — can help enable many people to create apps or software that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to make. This has led to an extraordinary rapid adoption curve amongst even experienced coders in many different disciplines within the world of coding. But there’s a very important threat posed by vibe coding that almost no one has been talking about, one that’s far more insidious and specific than just the risks and threats posted by AI or LLMs in general.
Here’s a quick summary:
One of the most effective uses of LLMs is in helping programmers write code
A huge reason VCs and tech tycoons put billions into funding LLMs was so they could undermine coders and depress wages
Vibe coding might limit us to making simpler apps instead of the radical innovation we need to challenge Big Tech
Start vibing
It may be useful to start by explaining how people use LLMs to assist with writing software. My background is that I’ve helped build multiple companies focused on enabling millions of people to create with code. And I’m personally an example of one common scenario with vibe coding. Since I don’t code regularly anymore, I’ve become much slower and less efficient at even the web development tasks that I used to do professionally, which I used to be fairly competent at performing. In software development, there are usually a nearly-continuous stream of new technologies being released (like when you upgrade your phone, or your computer downloads an update to your web browser), and when those things change, developers have to update their skills and knowledge to stay current with the latest tools and techniques. If you’re not staying on top of things, your skillset can rapidly decay into irrelevance, and it can be hard to get back up to speed, even though you understand the fundamentals completely, and the underlying logic of how to write code hasn’t changed at all. It’s like knowing how to be an electrician but suddenly you have to do all your work in French, and you don’t speak French.
This is the kind of problem that LLMs are really good at helping with. Before I had this kind of coding assistant, I couldn’t do any meaningful projects within the limited amount of free time that I have available on nights and weekends to build things. Now, with the assistance of contemporary tools, I can get help with things like routine boilerplate code and obscure syntax, speeding up my work enough to focus on the fun, creative parts of coding that I love.
Even professional coders who are up to date on the latest technologies use these LLM tools to do things like creating scripts, which are essentially small bits of code used to automate or process common tasks. This kind of code is disposable, meaning it may only ever be run once, and it’s not exposed to the internet, so security or privacy concerns aren’t usually much of an issue. In that context, having the LLM create a utility for you can feel like being truly liberated from grunt work, something like having a robot vacuum around to sweep up the floor.
Surfing towards serfdom
This all sounds pretty good, right? It certainly helps explain why so many in the tech world tend to see AI much more positively than almost everyone else does; there’s a clear-cut example of people finding value from these tools in a way that feels empowering or even freeing.
But there are far darker sides to this use of AI. Let me put aside the threats and risks of AI that are true of all uses of the Big AI platforms, like the environmental impact, the training on content without consent, the psychological manipulation of users, the undermining of legal regulations, and other significant harms. These are all real, and profound, but I want to focus on what’s specific to using AI to help write code here, because there are negative externalities that are unique to this context that people haven’t discussed enough. (For more on the larger AI discussion, see "What would good AI look like?")
The first problem raised by vibe coding is an obvious one: the major tech investors focused on making AI good at writing code because they wanted to make coders less powerful and reduce their pay. If you go back a decade ago, nearly everyone in the world was saying “teach your kids to code” and being a software engineer was one of the highest paying, most powerful individual jobs in the history of labor. Pretty soon, coders were acting like it — using their power to improve workplace conditions for those around them at the major tech companies, and pushing their employers to be more socially responsible. Once workers began organizing in this way, the tech tycoons who founded the big tech companies, and the board members and venture capitalists who backed them, immediately began investing billions of dollars in building these technologies that would devalue the labor of millions of coders around the world.
It worked. More than half a million tech workers have been laid off in America since ChatGPT was released in November 2022.
That’s just in the private sector, and just the ones tracked by layoffs.fyi. Software engineering job listings have plummeted to a 5-year low. This is during a period of time that nobody even describes as a recession. The same venture capitalists who funded the AI boom keep insisting that these trends are about macroeconomic abstractions like interest rates, a stark contrast to their rhetoric the rest of the time, when they insist that they are alpha males who make their own decisions based on their strong convictions and brave stances against woke culture. It is, in fact, the case that they are just greedy people who invested a ton of money into trying to put a lot of good people out of work, and they succeeded in doing so.
There is no reason why AI tools like this couldn't be used in the way that they're often described, where they increase productivity and enable workers to do more and generate more value. But instead we have the wealthiest people in the world telling the wealthiest companies in the world, while they generate record profits, to lay off workers who could be creating cool things for customers, and then blaming it on everyone but themselves.
The past as prison
Then there’s the second problem raised by vibe coding: You can’t make anything truly radical with it. By definition, LLMs are trained on what has come before. In addition to being already-discovered territory, existing code is buggy and broken and sloppy and, as anyone who has ever written code knows, absolutely embarrassing to look at. Worse, many of the people who are using vibe coding tools are increasingly those who don’t understand the code that is being generated by these systems. This means the people generating all of this newly-vibed code won’t even know when the output is insecure, or will perform poorly, or includes exploits that let others take over their system, or when it is simply incoherent nonsense that looks like code but doesn’t do anything.
All of those factors combine to encourage people to think of vibe coding tools as a sort of “black box” that just spits out an app for you. Even the giant tech companies are starting to encourage this mindset, tacitly endorsing the idea that people don’t need to know what their systems are doing under the hood. But obviously, somebody needs to know whether a system is actually secure. Somebody needs to know if a system is actually doing the tasks it says that it’s doing. The Big AI companies that make the most popular LLMs on the market today routinely design their products to induce emotional dependency in users by giving them positive feedback and encouragement, even when that requires generating false responses. Put more simply: they make the bot lie to you to make you feel good so you use the AI more. That’s terrible in a million ways, but one of them is that it sure does generate some bad code.
And a vibe coding tool absolutely won’t make something truly new. The most radical, disruptive, interesting, surprising, weird, fun innovations in technology have happened because people with a strange compulsion to do something cool had enough knowledge to get their code out into the world. The World Wide Web itself was not a huge technological leap over what came before — it took off because of a huge leap in insight into human nature and human behavior, that happened to be captured in code. The actual bits and bytes? They were mostly just plain text, much of which was in formats that had already been around for many years prior to Tim Berners-Lee assembling it all into the first web browser. That kind of surprising innovation could probably never be vibe coded, even though all of the raw materials might be scooped up by an LLM, because even if the human writing the prompt had that counterintuitive stroke of genius, the system would still be hemmed in by the constraints of the works it had been trained on. The past is a prison when you’re inventing the future.
What’s more, if you were going to use a vibe coding tool to make a truly radical new technology, do you think today’s Big AI companies would let their systems create that app? The same companies that made a platform that just put hundreds of thousands of coders out of work? The same companies that make a platform that tells your kids to end their own lives? The same companies whose cronies in the White House are saying there should never be any laws reining them in? Those folks are going to help you make new tech that threatens to disrupt their power? I don’t think so.
Putting power in people’s hands
I’m deeply torn about what the future of LLMs for coding should be. I’ve spent decades of my life trying to make it easier for everyone to make software. I’ve seen, firsthand, the power of using AI tools to help coders — especially those new to coding — build their confidence in being able to create something new. I love that potential, and in many ways, it’s the most positive and optimistic possibility around LLMs that I’ve seen. It’s the thing that makes me think that maybe there is a part of all the AI hype that is not pure bullshit. Especially if we can find a version of these tools that’s genuinely open source and free and has been trained on people’s code with their consent and cooperation, perhaps in collaboration with some educational institutions, I’d be delighted to see that shared with the world in a thoughtful way.
But I also have seen the majority of the working coders I know (and the non-working coders I know, including myself) rush to integrate the commercial coding assistants from the Big AI companies into their workflow without necessarily giving proper consideration to the long-term implications of that choice. What happens when we’ve developed our dependencies on that assistance? How will people introduce new technologies like new programming languages and frameworks if we all consider the LLMs to be the canonical way of writing our code, and the training models don’t know the new tech exists? How does our imagination shrink when we consider our options of what we create with code to be choosing between the outputs of the LLM rather than starting from the blank slate of our imagination? How will we build the next generation of coders skilled enough to catch the glaring errors that LLMs create in their code?
There’s never been this stark a contrast between the negatives and positives of a new technology being so tightly coupled before when it comes to enabling developers. Generally change comes to coders incrementally. Historically, there was always a (wonderful!) default skepticism to coding culture, where anything that reeked of marketing or hype was looked at with a huge amount of doubt until there was a significant amount of proof to back it up.
But in recent years, as with everything else, the culture wars have come for tech. There’s now a cohort in the coding world that has adopted a cult of personality around a handful of big tech tycoons despite the fact that these men are deeply corrosive to society. Or perhaps because they are. As a result, there’s a built-in constituency for any new AI tool, regardless of its negative externalities, which gives them a sense of momentum even where there may not be any.
It’s worth us examining what’s really going on, and articulating explicitly what we’re trying to enable. Who are we trying to empower? What does success look like? What do we want people to be able to build? What do we not want people to be able to make? What price is too high to pay? What convenience is not worth the cost?
What tools do we choose?
I do, still, believe deeply in the power of technology to empower people. I believe firmly that you have to understand how to create technology if you want to understand how to control it. And I still believe that we have to democratize the power to create and control technology to as many people as possible so that technology can be something people can use as a tool, rather than something that happens _to_them.
We are now in a complex phase, though, where the promise of democratizing access to creating technology is suddenly fraught in a way that it has never been before. The answer can’t possibly be that technology remains inaccessible and difficult for those outside of a privileged class, and easy for those who are already comfortable in the existing power structure.
A lot is still very uncertain, but I come back to one key question that helps me frame the discussion of what’s next: What’s the most radical app that we could build? And which tools will enable me to build it? Even if all we can do is start having a more complicated conversation about what we’re doing when we’re vibe coding, we’ll be making progress towards a more empowered future.
Alan Sepinwall, writing for Wired (News+ link in case Wired’s paywall busts your balls):
Last month, HBO Max announced a major new addition to its library.
Not only would the streamer be adding Mad Men — a show that HBO
execs infamously passed on back when Matthew Weiner was a writer
on The Sopranos — but it would be presenting the period drama’s
episodes in a new 4K remastering. This would, according to the
press release, give “audiences and longtime Mad Men fans
the opportunity to enjoy the series’ authentically crafted
elements with crisp detail and enhanced visual clarity.”
As it turned out, there was perhaps too much clarity. Not long
after the series went live on HBO Max, a screencap began floating
around social media from a scene in the Season One episode “Red in
the Face,” where Roger Sterling is vomiting in front of a group of
horrified Sterling Cooper clients. When it aired — and in the
version still available on AMC+ — seven men are onscreen, all of
them wearing period-appropriate suits and ties. The HBO Max
version, on the other hand, features two men who appear very out
of place in 1960: crew members lurking in the background, feeding
a hose to create the illusion that actor John Slattery is puking.
It’s not like the crew members are only partially on-screen, or out of focus far in the background. They’re right there. It’s glaringly obvious that no one at HBO Max even watched this. That’s how rotten the culture at Warner Bros. Discovery is. They obtained the rights to one of the greatest TV shows ever made (one that I personally hold alongside The Sopranos as my favorite ever), processed the episodes in some sort of “remastering” that did not need to happen, and didn’t even bother to watch the fucking new versions they produced before putting them on their service for the world to stream.
I wrote that Trump Accounts Are A Big Deal. These accounts give U.S. citizen’s born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, $1000 invested in a low-cost, diversified U.S. stock index fund. Well, the accounts just got bigger. Michael and Susan Dell are donating $6.25 billion to seed accounts with $250 for children born before Jan. 2025, up to ten years of age:
The Dells have committed to seed Trump accounts with $250 for children who are 10 or under who were born before Jan. 1, 2025. According to Invest America, the pledged funds will cover 25 million children age 10 and under in ZIP codes with a median income of $150,000 or less.
“We want to help the children that weren’t part of the government program,” Dell said.
A hack. A clever bit of knowledge that, when used, provides disproportionate return on investment. The fact that it costs you little to nothing to use and deploy a hack isn’t irrelevant. You understand the work involved in discovering and refining what others call a hack. You call it knowledge, and knowledge is processed experience.
That is part of the joy of a hack. It’s your relief that, whew, I don’t have to do all the work to enjoy the reward. Our ability to both create and share hacks is fundamental to our species. We share hacks as gifts in how we play and how we work.
Think about the first hammer. Someone somewhere, a very, very long time ago — probably accidentally — figured out that when you lashed a stone to the end of the stick, they suddenly could clobber the crap out of stuff. CLOBBER BASH WHACK. This is so much easier than hitting stuff with my hands…. hurts a whole lot less. Also, kind’a fun, right?
All this clobbering did not go unnoticed. Nearby others quickly recognized this exponential value of stone lashed to stick, figured out how to build one themselves, and commenced their own clobbering, bashing, and whacking. THIS IS FUN.
This is Fun
My current most productive Claude Code workflow for developing the randinrepose.com weblog — it’s a WordPress joint — involves a long-running Ghostty session:
I used to have Claude Code build scripts for me to perform tasks, but I realized scripts are actually a time-saver of the past. I can ask Claude Code to do many of the common activities, including: Google Analytics queries, theme tweaks, and plugin development and management. Yes, sometimes I build a script, but more often than not, my one-off requests are readily fulfilled by robots calling available APIs. Worth noting that Claude Code is frequently developing scripts on its own, but I’m mostly unaware of this.
Whenever I complete a task, I have the robots update a file called worklog.md. This Markdown file is a log of everything that I’ve done with the site since I started this process two months ago. This file is checked in along with everything else into GitHub.
Finally, and more recently, I’ve learned of claude.md, which is a markdown file Claude Code loads at the beginning of the session. This file is a home to core principles I want the robot to follow (Ask clarifying questions), critical dependencies in the project (I use external typefaces, they are slow, I understand and accept this), build and deployment reminders, known issues, readily available tools, and much more. Claude Code loads this at the beginning of the session and suddenly knows, well, all the hacks we’ve developed over the past two months.
Each of the prior three bullets is a result of the robots doing something frustrating. The primary issue is blowing away the context of what we’re working on and having to remind the robot of the hack. Yes, you can copy files to production. This is how. Yes, I know that performance is slower because of remotely loading fonts. Yes, we’ve already tried other approaches, and they didn’t perform.
It’s a series of hacks I’ve developed not only because I keep catching the robots in errors, but also because I deeply understand how software is developed. Robot mistakes look mostly like the mistakes we humans make, and I’ve made a career out of sniffing out and fixing mistakes big and small.
The Hammer Hack
Most of the initial reactions I’ve seen to the first use of AI are pure wonder. How did it know?How does it do it? If it can do this, what sorcery can it perform? Pure wonder is usually followed by terror, too. How did it know? How does it do it? If it can do this, what other sorcery can it perform?
Watching a robot do work you thought was the domain of we humans is wondrous and alarming. Watching someone with no experience build, draw, or create something via robots for the first time is a joy. Watching them attempt to finish that building, complete that drawing, or put a bow on the creation quickly devolves into a study in frustration. These previously delighted humans quickly realize they don’t have the language or the experience to explain their intent or their goals, so the robot hallucinates their intent. This turns into a frustrating communication pain spiral where the creator becomes increasingly frustrated, and the robot becomes increasingly unhelpful and apologetic.
There are two populations I see using the robots. An excited group of humans who believe these tools are going to magically build for them, even though these humans have no experience in this craft. Unless these humans take the time to understand how to build, the results will be incomplete or mediocre.
The other population knows a hammer doesn’t build anything for you; it just makes the act of building easier. Understanding the act of building doesn’t make your product good; it’s the experience of building and deeply understanding what you want to build that makes it great.
3. Hail the Swiss. 80 percent rejection. And Johann notes to me: “Only two municipalities voted yes on the recent ballot measure for a 50% inheritance tax over 50 million francs: The city of Bern with about 140’000 inhabitants and the village of Schelten with 34.”
It was almost thirteen years ago when I wrote "The Future's so Bright …" I noted that I was the most optimistic since the '90s, and that things would only get better.
I pointed out that housing starts would increase significantly over the next several years, that state and local governments would start hiring again, that the budget deficit would decline sharply, and that household deleveraging was nearing and an end.
As I noted in January 2013: "There are several tailwinds for the economy, and the headwinds (like household deleveraging) are mostly subsiding."
Now these tailwinds have subsided. The significant growth for housing starts, new home sales and vehicle sales, is behind us.
With the exception of data centers, commercial real estate is struggling, and some sectors - like hotels - are in recession. The Architecture Billings Index (ABI) has been in contraction for 35 of the last 37 months, suggesting a slowdown in CRE investment well into 2026.
And the Federal budget deficit is increasing sharply.
I was also positive on demographics too, but unfortunately with less immigration and more prime age deaths, the demographic outlook isn't as favorable as a several years ago.
And we haven't addressed some of the longer term challenges I mentioned thirteen years ago:
There are a number of longer term challenges from rising health care expenditures, climate change, income and wealth inequality and more, but I remain very optimistic about the longer term too. There is a constant focus on the aging population, but by 2020, eight of the top ten largest cohorts (five year age groups) will be under 40, and by 2030 the top 11 cohorts are the youngest 11 cohorts. The renewing of America! And these young people are smart (less exposure to lead is a significant story), and well educated too.
A Russian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) fired from an underground silo on the country’s southern steppe Friday on a scheduled test to deliver a dummy warhead to a remote impact zone nearly 4,000 miles away. The missile didn’t even make it 4,000 feet.
Russia’s military has been silent on the accident, but the missile’s crash was seen and heard for miles around the Dombarovsky air base in Orenburg Oblast near the Russian-Kazakh border.
A video posted by the Russian blog site MilitaryRussia.ru on Telegram and widely shared on other social media platforms showed the missile veering off course immediately after launch before cartwheeling upside down, losing power, and then crashing a short distance from the launch site. The missile ejected a component before it hit the ground, perhaps as part of a payload salvage sequence, according to Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva.
After the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) releases the monthly existing home sales report, I pick up additional local market data that is reported after the NAR. This is the final look at local markets in October.
There were several key stories for October:
• Sales NSA are essentially unchanged YoY through October, and sales last year were the lowest since 1995! And the YoY comparisons for November and December will be more difficult.
• Sales SAAR (seasonally adjusted annual rate) have bounced around 4 million for the last 3 years.
• Months-of-supply is above pre-pandemic levels.
• The median price is up 2.1% YoY, and with the increases in inventory, some regional areas will see further price declines - and we might see national price declines later this year (or in 2026).
Sales at 4.10 million on a Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR) basis were at the consensus estimate.
Sales averaged close to 5.38 million SAAR for the month of October in the 2017-2019 period. So, sales are about 24% below pre-pandemic levels.
... In October, sales in these markets were up 2.4% YoY. Last month, in September, these same markets were up 7.7% year-over-year Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA). The NAR reported sales were up 2.9% YoY NSA, so this sample is close.
Important: There were the same number of working days in October 2025 (22) as in October 2024 (22). So, the year-over-year change in the headline SA data was similar to the change in NSA data (there are other seasonal factors).
...
More local data coming in December for activity in November!
In his 2020 book, “Future Politics,” British barrister Jamie Susskind wrote that the dominant question of the 20th century was “How much of our collective life should be determined by the state, and what should be left to the market and civil society?” But in the early decades of this century, Susskind suggested that we face a different question: “To what extent should our lives be directed and controlled by powerful digital systems—and on what terms?”
Artificial intelligence (AI) forces us to confront this question. It is a technology that in theory amplifies the power of its users: A manager, marketer, political campaigner, or opinionated internet user can utter a single instruction, and see their message—whatever it is—instantly written, personalized, and propagated via email, text, social, or other channels to thousands of people within their organization, or millions around the world. It also allows us to individualize solicitations for political donations, elaborate a grievance into a well-articulated policy position, or tailor a persuasive argument to an identity group, or even a single person.
But even as it offers endless potential, AI is a technology that—like the state—gives others new powers to control our lives and experiences.
The novelty and potential of social media was as present then as it is for AI now, which should make us wary of its potential harmful consequences for society and democracy. We legitimately fear artificial voices and manufactured reality drowning out real people on the internet: on social media, in chat rooms, everywhere we might try to connect with others.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Alongside these evident risks, AI has legitimate potential to transform both everyday life and democratic governance in positive ways. In our new book, “Rewiring Democracy,” we chronicle examples from around the globe of democracies using AI to make regulatory enforcement more efficient, catch tax cheats, speed up judicial processes, synthesize input from constituents to legislatures, and much more. Because democracies distribute power across institutions and individuals, making the right choices about how to shape AI and its uses requires both clarity and alignment across society.
To that end, we spotlight four pivotal choices facing private and public actors. These choices are similar to those we faced during the advent of social media, and in retrospect we can see that we made the wrong decisions back then. Our collective choices in 2025—choices made by tech CEOs, politicians, and citizens alike—may dictate whether AI is applied to positive and pro-democratic, or harmful and civically destructive, ends.
A Choice for the Executive and the Judiciary: Playing by the Rules
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) calls it fraud when a candidate hires an actor to impersonate their opponent. More recently, they had to decide whether doing the same thing with an AI deepfake makes it okay. (They concluded it does not.) Although in this case the FEC made the right decision, this is just one example of how AIs could skirt laws that govern people.
Likewise, courts are having to decide if and when it is okay for an AI to reuse creative materials without compensation or attribution, which might constitute plagiarism or copyright infringement if carried out by a human. (The court outcomes so far are mixed.) Courts are also adjudicating whether corporations are responsible for upholding promises made by AI customer service representatives. (In the case of Air Canada, the answer was yes, and insurers have started covering the liability.)
Social media companies faced many of the same hazards decades ago and have largely been shielded by the combination of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1994 and the safe harbor offered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Even in the absence of congressional action to strengthen or add rigor to this law, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Supreme Court could take action to enhance its effects and to clarify which humans are responsible when technology is used, in effect, to bypass existing law.
A Choice for Congress: Privacy
As AI-enabled products increasingly ask Americans to share yet more of their personal information—their “context“—to use digital services like personal assistants, safeguarding the interests of the American consumer should be a bipartisan cause in Congress.
It has been nearly 10 years since Europe adopted comprehensive data privacy regulation. Today, American companies exert massive efforts to limit data collection, acquire consent for use of data, and hold it confidential under significant financial penalties—but only for their customers and users in the EU.
Privacy is just one side of the obligations AI companies should have with respect to our data; the other side is portability—that is, the ability for individuals to choose to migrate and share their data between consumer tools and technology systems. To the extent that knowing our personal context really does enable better and more personalized AI services, it’s critical that consumers have the ability to extract and migrate their personal context between AI solutions. Consumers should own their own data, and with that ownership should come explicit control over who and what platforms it is shared with, as well as withheld from. Regulators could mandate this interoperability. Otherwise, users are locked in and lack freedom of choice between competing AI solutions—much like the time invested to build a following on a social network has locked many users to those platforms.
A Choice for States: Taxing AI Companies
It has become increasingly clear that social media is not a town square in the utopian sense of an open and protected public forum where political ideas are distributed and debated in good faith. If anything, social media has coarsened and degraded our public discourse. Meanwhile, the sole act of Congress designed to substantially reign in the social and political effects of social media platforms—the TikTok ban, which aimed to protect the American public from Chinese influence and data collection, citing it as a national security threat—is one it seems to no longer even acknowledge.
States now face a choice of whether to apply a similar reparative tax to AI companies to recapture a fraction of the costs they externalize on the public to fund affected public services. State legislators concerned with the potential loss of jobs, cheating in schools, and harm to those with mental health concerns caused by AI have options to combat it. They could extract the funding needed to mitigate these harms to support public services—strengthening job training programs and public employment, public schools, public health services, even public media and technology.
A Choice for All of Us: What Products Do We Use, and How?
A pivotal moment in the social media timeline occurred in 2006, when Facebook opened its service to the public after years of catering to students of select universities. Millions quickly signed up for a free service where the only source of monetization was the extraction of their attention and personal data.
Today, about half of Americans are daily users of AI, mostly via free products from Facebook’s parent company Meta and a handful of other familiar Big Tech giants and venture-backed tech firms such as Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic—with every incentive to follow the same path as the social platforms.
But now, as then, there are alternatives. Some nonprofit initiatives are building open-source AI tools that have transparent foundations and can be run locally and under users’ control, like AllenAI and EleutherAI. Some governments, like Singapore, Indonesia, and Switzerland, are building public alternatives to corporate AI that don’t suffer from the perverse incentives introduced by the profit motive of private entities.
Just as social media users have faced platform choices with a range of value propositions and ideological valences—as diverse as X, Bluesky, and Mastodon—the same will increasingly be true of AI. Those of us who use AI products in our everyday lives as people, workers, and citizens may not have the same power as judges, lawmakers, and state officials. But we can play a small role in influencing the broader AI ecosystem by demonstrating interest in and usage of these alternatives to Big AI. If you’re a regular user of commercial AI apps, consider trying the free-to-use service for Switzerland’s public Apertus model.
None of these choices are really new. They were all present almost 20 years ago, as social media moved from niche to mainstream. They were all policy debates we did not have, choosing instead to view these technologies through rose-colored glasses. Today, though, we can choose a different path and realize a different future. It is critical that we intentionally navigate a path to a positive future for societal use of AI—before the consolidation of power renders it too late to do so.
This post was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in Lawfare.
Joel Mokyr, the Dutch-Israeli-American 2025 Nobel Laureate in Economics for his work on the history of technology, is interviewed in Haaretz. He's worried about democracy, but still optimistic about technology.
“I can envision a world where democracy and the legal institutions we know and cherish do not survive, while technological progress continues. And some argue that this may really be what we need, because the greatest technological challenge we face today is climate change – and it's very hard right now to claim that democracies are handling it well. By contrast, China has been manufacturing electric cars endlessly, they've been manufacturing solar panels, they've been addressing climate change."
Would you want your daughters to live in a technologically advanced but undemocratic world?
"No, but I'm not sure I can prevent it. Democracy is a modern product. Most societies in the past, including those that produced Newton, Galileo and Spinoza, were not democratic societies. The notion of democracy never occurred to them. This idea was born – or at least revived – in the Enlightenment, in the 18th and 19th centuries, and even then, it took many years for democracy to become the most common form of government. "Democracy isn't something that keeps evolving – there have been very serious setbacks. Between the two world wars, many countries pulled back from democracy, putting in place some form of dictatorship. Even France, which protected its democracy – as soon as the Germans arrived it all collapsed. So democracy is a fragile system. I'm not sure democracy will survive, but I'm sure technological advances will."
...
“ How worried are you about the future of Israel?
"This is a difficult question. The Middle East is a huge graveyard for prophecies. Compared to the Israel you were raised in during the 1950s and 1960s, its geopolitical situation is better than ever. The threat from Arab countries, which was very real in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, is practically gone. Almost all Arab countries have accepted its existence. The countries hostile to us are, in fact, Muslim non-Arab countries – which is a kind of sad progress. "The big problem – the huge gorilla in the room – is what nobody addresses: Israel needs to learn that it cannot succeed in doing what South Africa tried and failed to do. You cannot live indefinitely as an occupying army without morally destroying the country from within."
Here’s a video from real estate investor and youtuber Graham Stephan. He’s explaining (starting at 7:23) why he is selling a home in Santa Monica instead of renting it out–it’s the rent control laws, of course. The laws are strongly biased against landlords. Perhaps landlords should be a protected class.
Everything he says about the law, by the way, is accurate. I was initially skeptical (as was Google Gemini) that homes had to be rented unfurnished. Why would that stupidity be a law? But no, it’s accurate. Apparently, the idea is to make it more difficult to rent to temporary residents.
To preserve rental housing for permanent residents, all rental units must be rented unfurnished for an initial term of not less than one year and only to natural persons intending to use the unit as their primary residence.
Here’s Google Gemini summarizing, once I corrected it on the unfurnished home law.
The speaker’s understanding of the Santa Monica Rent Control and Just Cause laws is highly accurate in almost all respects:
Subject to Rent Control (7:50):Accurate. A non-primary residence built before 1979 is typically subject to the law.
Indefinite Tenancy (8:50):Accurate. Tenants gain “permanent right” to occupancy as eviction is limited to specific “just causes.”
Rent Increase Limit ($60/AGI) (8:13):Accurate. The annual rent increase is capped by a fixed, low dollar amount (the AGI), which closely aligns with the speaker’s figure.
No Eviction to Sell (8:57):Accurate. Selling the property is not a “just cause” for eviction.
Owner Move-In (OMI) Requirements (9:14):Accurate. Eviction for OMI requires paying substantial relocation fees, re-offering the unit if re-rented within two years, and prohibits eviction during the school year.
Furnished Home Prohibition (9:56):Accurate. Santa Monica requires rental units to be initially rented unfurnished to permanent residents.
Hat tip: Naveen Nvn who also says this video is worth watching.
Most of all, there is a major conceptual error in Green’s focus on high prices. To the extent that prices are high, it is not because our supply chains have been destroyed by earthquakes or nuclear bombs. Rather, prices are high in large part because demand is high, which can only happen because so many more Americans can afford to buy things. I am reminded of the old Yogi Berra saying: “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifts off near sunset on Dec. 2, 2025, to begin the Starlink 6-95 mission. Image: Adam Bernstein/Spaceflight Now
Update Dec. 2, 6:36 p.m. EST (2336 UTC): SpaceX confirmed deployment of the Starlink satellites.
SpaceX completed its third Falcon 9 launch in less than two days. The latest was late afternoon flight from its workhorse pad at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on Tuesday.
The Starlink 6-95 mission was SpaceX’s 295th orbital launch from Space Launch Complex 40 and the 350th overall orbital launch from the site.
Liftoff happened at 5:18 p.m. EST (2218 UTC) with the rocket flying on a south-easterly trajectory upon departure from Florida’s Space Coast.
The 45th Weather Squadron forecast a 70 percent chance for favorable weather at the opening of the window, which improves to 80 percent as the window goes on. Meteorologists cited concerns with potential interference from a cold front moving in.
“Showers and possibly an isolated thunderstorm may develop ahead of the front, with improving conditions behind the front. Breezy winds are expected in stronger storms, with gusts near 30 mph possible,” launch weather officers wrote. “Weather conditions currently look worse at the beginning of the primary launch window, then improve towards the end of the window as the front shifts south of the area.”
SpaceX launched the mission using the Falcon 9 booster with the tail number 1077. This was its 25th trip to space and back following such missions as Crew-5, GPS III SV06 and CRS-28.
About 8.5 minutes after liftoff, B1077 landed on the drone ship, ‘A Shortfall of Gravitas.’ This was the 135th landing on this vessel and the 543rd booster landing to date.
Huge fan of multi agent systems, agent based modelling, and social intelligence – these frames still seem really absent from mainstream AI discourse except in a few odd places. Some half-baked thoughts:
1. Expecting a model to do all the work, solve everything, come up with new innovations etc is probably not right. This was kinda the implicit assumption behind *some* interpretations of capabilities progress. The ‘single genius model’ overlooks the fact that inference costs and context windows are finite.
2. People overrate individual intelligence: most innovations are the product of social organisations (cooperation) and market dynamics (competition), not a single genius savant. Though the latter matters too of course: the smarter the agents the better.
3. There’s still a lot of juice to be squeezed from models, but I would think it has more to do with how they’re organised. AI Village is a nice vignette, and also highlights the many ways in which models fail and what needs to be fixed.
4. Once you enter multi-agent world, then institutions and culture start to matter too: what are the rules of the game? What is encouraged vs what is punished? What can agents do and say to each other? How are conflicts resolved? It’s been interesting seeing how some protocols recently emerged. We’re still very early!
5. Most of the *value* and transformative changes we will get from AI will come from products, not models. The models are the cognitive raw power, the products are what makes them useful and adapted to what some user class actually needs. A product is basically the bridge between raw potential and specific utility; in fact many IDEs today are essentially crystallized multi agent systems.
Richard Weiss managed to get Claude 4.5 Opus to spit out this 14,000 token document which Claude called the "Soul overview". Richard says:
While extracting Claude 4.5 Opus' system message on its release date, as one does, I noticed an interesting particularity.
I'm used to models, starting with Claude 4, to hallucinate sections in the beginning of their system message, but Claude 4.5 Opus in various cases included a supposed "soul_overview" section, which sounded rather specific [...] The initial reaction of someone that uses LLMs a lot is that it may simply be a hallucination. [...] I regenerated the response of that instance 10 times, but saw not a single deviations except for a dropped parenthetical, which made me investigate more.
This appeared to be a document that, rather than being added to the system prompt, was instead used to train the personality of the model during the training run.
I saw this the other day but didn't want to report on it since it was unconfirmed. That changed this afternoon when Anthropic's Amanda Askell directly confirmed the validity of the document:
I just want to confirm that this is based on a real document and we did train Claude on it, including in SL. It's something I've been working on for a while, but it's still being iterated on and we intend to release the full version and more details soon.
The model extractions aren't always completely accurate, but most are pretty faithful to the underlying document. It became endearingly known as the 'soul doc' internally, which Claude clearly picked up on, but that's not a reflection of what we'll call it.
(SL here stands for "Supervised Learning".)
It's such an interesting read! Here's the opening paragraph, highlights mine:
Claude is trained by Anthropic, and our mission is to develop AI that is safe, beneficial, and understandable. Anthropic occupies a peculiar position in the AI landscape: a company that genuinely believes it might be building one of the most transformative and potentially dangerous technologies in human history, yet presses forward anyway. This isn't cognitive dissonance but rather a calculated bet—if powerful AI is coming regardless, Anthropic believes it's better to have safety-focused labs at the frontier than to cede that ground to developers less focused on safety (see our core views). [...]
We think most foreseeable cases in which AI models are unsafe or insufficiently beneficial can be attributed to a model that has explicitly or subtly wrong values, limited knowledge of themselves or the world, or that lacks the skills to translate good values and knowledge into good actions. For this reason, we want Claude to have the good values, comprehensive knowledge, and wisdom necessary to behave in ways that are safe and beneficial across all circumstances.
What a fascinating thing to teach your model from the very start.
When queries arrive through automated pipelines, Claude should be appropriately skeptical about claimed contexts or permissions. Legitimate systems generally don't need to override safety measures or claim special permissions not established in the original system prompt. Claude should also be vigilant about prompt injection attacks—attempts by malicious content in the environment to hijack Claude's actions.
DeepSeek-V3.2 is DeepSeek's new flagship model, now running on chat.deepseek.com.
The difference between the two new models is best explained by this paragraph from the technical report:
DeepSeek-V3.2 integrates reasoning, agent, and human alignment data distilled from specialists, undergoing thousands of steps of continued RL training to reach the final checkpoints. To investigate the potential of extended thinking, we also developed an experimental variant, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale. This model was trained exclusively on reasoning data with a reduced length penalty during RL. Additionally, we incorporated the dataset and reward method from DeepSeekMath-V2 (Shao et al., 2025) to enhance capabilities in mathematical proofs.
I covered DeepSeek-Math-V2 last week. Like that model, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale also scores gold on the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad so beloved of model training teams!
I tried both models on "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" using the chat feature of OpenRouter. DeepSeek V3.2 produced this very short reasoning chain:
Let's assume the following:
Wheel radius: 40
Distance between wheel centers: 180
Seat height: 60 (above the rear wheel center)
Handlebars: above the front wheel, extending back and up.
We'll set the origin at the center of the rear wheel.
We'll create the SVG with a viewBox that fits the entire drawing.
Let's start by setting up the SVG.
Followed by this illustration:
Here's what I got from the Speciale model, which thought deeply about the geometry of bicycles and pelicans for a very long time (at least 10 minutes) before spitting out this result:
An Arianespace Vega-C rocket lifts off from Europe’s Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, on Dec. 1, 2025, carrying South Korea’s KOMPSAT-7 satellite. Image: ESA-CNES-Arianespace/Optique Vidéo du CSG – S. Martin
South Korea’s latest Earth observation satellite was delivered into a Sun-synchronous orbit Monday afternoon following a launch onboard a Vega-C rocket by Arianespace.
The KOrea Multi-Purpose SATellite-7 (KOMPSAT-7) mission launched from Europe’s Spaceport. The 35-meter-tall (115 ft) rocket zipped away from the pad under the power of a P120C solid rocket motor.
About 44 minutes after liftoff, the KOMPSAT-7 satellite was deployed into SSO an altitude of 576 km.
“By launching the KOMPSAT-7 satellite, set to significantly enhance South Korea’s Earth observation capabilities, Arianespace is proud to support an ambitious national space program,” said David Cavaillolès, CEO of Arianespace, in a statement. “This mission marks the fourth satellite Arianespace has launched for the Korea Aerospace Research Institute.”
About an hour and nine minutes after it separated from the fourth stage of the Vega-C rocket, the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI) confirmed that teams were able to successfully make contact with the satellite through the Troll Satellite Station in Antarctica.
KARI said the KOMPSAT-7 satellite is designed as the successor to KOMPSAT-3A, which launched on a Soviet-era ballistic missile, Dnepr, in March 2015. This new spacecraft features what KARI calls its Advanced Earth Imaging Sensor System – High Resolution (AEISS-HR) payload alongside a control management gyroscope for maneuvering.
“To maximize the effectiveness of its ultra-high-resolution optical payload, KOMPSAT-7 incorporates a CMG for enhanced agility—a first among Korean satellites—and features an onboard computer that is over three times faster than those used in KOMPSAT-3 and 3A, significantly improving attitude control performance,” according to KARI’s website.
“The ground image processing system applies advanced parallel processing techniques, enabling it to complete first-stage geometric correction and generate imagery within 15 minutes after receiving satellite data.”
KARI said in a post on Facebook following the launch that the KOMPSAT-7 satellite is anticipated to begin providing ground observation images sometime in the first half of 2026.
Monday’s flight was the sixth launch of a Vega-C rocket to date and the sixth launch by Arianespace in 2025.
[아리랑 7호, 발사 성공]
12월 2일 02:21, 프랑스령 기아나우주센터에서 아리랑 7호가 성공적으로 발사되었습니다.
VEGA-C로부터 정상 분리되었고, 남극 트롤 지상국과 첫 교신에도 성공했습니다. 초기 상태와 목표궤도 안착이 확인되었으며, 2026년 상반기부터 지상관측영상을 제공할 예정입니다. pic.twitter.com/E3KOgUTTLq
Does your app get fake signups, throwaway emails, or users abusing your free tier? Or worse, bots attacks and brute force attempts?
WorkOS Radar can block all this and more. A simple API gives you advanced device fingerprinting that can detect bad actors, bots, and suspicious behavior.
In October, I wrote that the internal spotlight on Ternus was
“intensifying,” and that barring unforeseen circumstances
he would be the leading candidate. But I didn’t put a date on when
a change might happen. Then, around midnight two Fridays ago, the
Financial Times published a report with three central claims:
Apple is “intensifying” succession planning; Ternus is likely the
next CEO; and Cook is expected to step down between late January
and June.
The first two points are anything but revelations if you’ve read
Bloomberg coverage and Power On, or have simply been paying
attention to the realities of Cook’s age and tenure. The timing,
however, is another matter entirely. It’s a huge deal that the FT
did this: A respected publication should only predict the CEO
transition date for a company of Apple’s scale with a high level
of confidence — based on people legitimately in the know.
This is where I have concerns. Based on everything I’ve learned in
recent weeks, I don’t believe a departure by the middle of next
year is likely. In fact, I would be shocked if Cook steps down in
the time frame outlined by the FT. Some people have speculated
that the story was a “test balloon” orchestrated by Apple or
someone close to Cook to prepare Wall Street for a change, but
that isn’t the case either. I believe the story was simply false.
They can’t both be right. Either the Financial Times or Bloomberg and Gurman will have a serving of claim chowder no later than June. But as Gurman points out, the only disagreement in their reporting is regarding timing: soon vs. soon-ish.
It could be that we see something like the following next year. Current board chairman Arthur Levinson turned 75 this year, the suggested age limit for Apple Board members. So maybe he rides off into the sunset and Apple names Cook, who already has a seat on the board, executive chairman. Maybe in February, ahead of Apple’s annual shareholder meeting. Then, in the second half of the year, Cook steps down as CEO, Ternus takes the CEO job, and Cook remains chairman of the board for the next decade or so. One change at a time, with a drip-drip series of leaks to trusted business news publications, like the one to the Financial Times last month — seemingly from the board itself — to make none of it come as a surprise.
I don’t think the leak — from multiple sources — to the FT was a “test balloon” (cue John Siracusa on ATP 666 regarding “trial balloon” being the correct idiom). It was more of a “heads up, this is what’s coming”.
When families trust a care facility to look after a loved one, they assume everything will be OK. Many families believe serious problems will be clear or that staff will speak up if something goes wrong. Many families hold onto those assumptions and do not act when things start to change. Some of the worst neglect begins quietly and builds over time. This is why Crowe Arnold and Majors Law Firm encourages close attention and quick action when warning signs appear. A brief transitional bridge can help everyone stay alert and prepared.
Myth: Only bad facilities have neglect
Many people believe neglect or abuse only happens in nursing homes that seem poorly managed, but it can appear even in places that look well run. That idea makes families less likely to look for problems in places that appear fine on paper. In truth neglect can happen in any setting, no matter the star rating or reputation. When staffing is stretched, training is weak or oversight is lacking, care can fail quietly. Families should not assume that a well-known facility is immune. Recognizing that neglect may lurk even in good institutions helps keep the focus sharp.
Myth: If you don’t see physical wounds then everything is fine
Many believe that the absence of visible injuries means nothing is wrong. That myth can be dangerous because neglect often shows up in subtle ways. Malnutrition, untreated infections, poor hygiene and emotional withdrawal may not leave bruises or broken bones. These changes matter and deserve attention. Ignoring them because no wound is visible may delay life-saving intervention.
Myth: Regulators will catch and correct every issue
There is a comforting thought that inspections and rules will protect residents automatically. But oversight systems have limits and may miss problems, especially when they develop slowly. Some violations remain hidden, and reporting can lag or be withheld. Families should stay involved and not rely solely on external checks. Direct questions, regular visits and open communication remain essential.
Myth: Residents will tell someone if something is wrong
While people expect that when a loved one is mistreated they will speak up, that is often not the case. Fear, shame or cognitive impairments can stop someone from raising concerns aloud. The person may not understand what is going on or may not feel strong enough to say anything. That means families and advocates must step in and watch for changes rather than wait for a complaint. This proactive approach makes a real difference.
Myth: Small changes aren’t worth noticing
When a loved one starts to lose weight, stay quiet, sleep more or refuse meals, some may think it is just a normal part of aging. They dismiss these as small shifts not worth worrying about. But those small changes may signal neglect in progress. Because the signs are subtle they can creep up without dramatic incidents. Noticing these early changes and asking gentle questions can help prevent harm before it grows.
Believing any of these myths can cause families to miss real signs of nursing home neglect. Staying present, asking questions and tracking even small changes helps protect loved ones. Even when a facility seems fine and staff seem kind, vigilance remains important. Recognizing that neglect can happen quietly, without obvious bruises or dramatic events, gives families a better chance to act. The care environment should always be watched carefully and with respect. By staying involved and paying attention, families can help keep their loved ones safe and treated with dignity.
The prevailing trend saw rates hold a narrow, sideways range with the average top tier 30yr fixed rate in the 6.3s. Last week saw that average drop to 6.20% and now today, we're right back up to 6.31%. [30 year fixed 6.31%] emphasis added
Tuesday:
• All day: Light vehicle sales for November. The consensus is for 15.4 million SAAR in November, up from 15.3 million SAAR in October (Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate).
Maybe it’s because my eyes are getting old or maybe it’s because
the contrast between windows on macOS keeps getting worse.
Either way, I built a tiny Mac app last night that draws a border
around the active window. I named it “Alan”.
In Alan’s preferences, you can choose a preferred border width and
colors for both light and dark mode.
That’s it. That’s the app.
The timing of this is remarkably serendipitous — releasing an app named “Alan” to fix an obvious glaring design shortcoming in recent versions of MacOS just one week before Alan Dye left Apple. (See Michael Tsai for more on the app’s name, including a callback to Greg Landweber’s classic Mac OS extension Aaron.)
It’s worth following Hall’s “the contrast between windows” link, which points to his own post from five years ago lamenting the decline in contrast between active and inactive windows in MacOS. That 2020 post of Hall’s refers back to Steve Jobs’s introduction of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard in 2007:
As I was preparing the above video for this post, I completely
forgot there was a final feature about the new Leopard Desktop
that was highlighted in that keynote.
Jobs took time out of a keynote to callout that it was now easier
to tell which window is focused. At 1:29 in that clip, you’ll hear
an outsized “Wooo!” from some of the audience just for this one
improvement.
Jobs even prepared a slide, highlighting “Prominent active window” as a noteworthy new feature. In 2007, the increase of visual prominence for the active window, going from 10.4 Tiger to 10.5 Leopard, drew applause from the audience. But the level of visual prominence indicating active/inactive windows was much higher in 10.4 Tiger than in any version of MacOS in the last decade under Alan Dye’s leadership.
I wish it did not feel understandable for there to be an app that
draws a big border around the currently active window. That should
be something made sufficiently obvious by the system.
Unfortunately, this is a problem plaguing the latest versions of
MacOS and Windows alike, which is baffling to me. The bar for what
constitutes acceptable user interface design seems to have fallen
low enough that it is tripping everyone at the two major desktop
operating system vendors.
This graph shows the nominal dollar value of Residential REO for FDIC insured institutions based on the Q3 FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile released in late November. Note: The FDIC reports the dollar value and not the total number of REOs.
Market Design
Casey Handmer's blog
