Blue Origin makes impressive strides with reuse—next launch will refly booster

Blue Origin confirmed Thursday that the next launch of its New Glenn rocket will carry a large communications satellite into low-Earth orbit for AST SpaceMobile.

The rocket will launch the next-generation Block 2 BlueBird satellite "no earlier than late February" from Launch Complex 36 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

However, the update from Blue Origin appears to have buried the real news toward the end: "The mission follows the successful NG-2 mission, which included the landing of the 'Never Tell Me The Odds' booster. The same booster is being refurbished to power NG-3," the company said.

Read full article

Comments

Another Jeff Bezos company has announced plans to develop a megaconstellation

The announcement came out of the blue, from Blue, on Wednesday.

The space company founded by Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin, said it was developing a new megaconstellation named TeraWave to deliver data speeds of up to 6Tbps anywhere on Earth. The constellation will consist of 5,408 optically interconnected satellites, with a majority in low-Earth orbit and the remainder in medium-Earth orbit.

The satellites in low-Earth orbit will provide up to 144Gbps through radio spectrum, whereas those in medium-Earth orbit will provide higher data rates through optical links.

Read full article

Comments

Let's save the human species!

Take a look at the marvel that is modern China. The endless gleaming lines of bullet trains. The air taxis and the drone delivery services and the driverless cars. The bubble tea franchises and the cavernous malls and the fast fashion and the pay-with-your-face apps and the robot waiters and the automated factories. The Shanghai clubs and the side streets of Chongqing and the manicured parks of Shenzhen.

You are looking at the peak. China will continue to be a spectacular, world-leading civilization for a couple more decades, but sometime around the century’s halfway point, demographic decline will begin to sap its vitality. Sometime around the mid-2010s, China’s birth rate fell off a cliff, and has not stopped falling since:

Source: Bloomberg

It’s difficult to state just how stark and catastrophic of a collapse this is. The number of births in China fell by 17% in just the last year. In fact, as economist Jesús Fernández-Villaverde recently pointed out, China had fewer births in 2025 than in 1776, when its population was less than a fifth of what it is now.

China’s total fertility rate now stands at around 0.93, less than half the replacement level. At that rate, every four grandparents will have fewer than one grandchild. Fernández-Villaverde explains what this means for the future of China’s population:

[I]f China could somehow sustain 7.92 million births per year from now on, its population would eventually stabilize at roughly 625 million, far below today’s 1.405 billion. In reality, as smaller cohorts reach childbearing age, births will fall well below 7.92 million. Hence, 625 million is a very generous upper bound[.]

But this isn’t a post about China; it’s about the whole world. Those who expect China’s low fertility to end its bid to dominate the globe are in for a severe disappointment, since fertility is falling in the rest of the world as well. It’s true that China is an especially severe case — a TFR of less than 1.0 puts it in a special category with Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand (Japan, interestingly, is still slightly higher). But over the past decade, fertility has begun collapsing all over the world, much faster than it had been declining before.

Fernández-Villaverde has a good set of slides from 2023 explaining why the new fertility crisis is different and more urgent than traditional concerns. In earlier times, fertility tended to gently decline in each country until it was just under the replacement rate — the kind of baby deficit that seemed like it could be fixed with reasonable policies. But since the mid-2010s, the fertility decline has accelerated, and there seems to be no bottom to the new collapse; every year, statistical agencies revise their already negative projections downward even more.

When they confront these stark numbers, there are several things that people tell themselves (or shout on social media) to try to cope with the notion of a shrinking humanity. I’ll go through the most common of these coping statements, and explain why each of them is wrong.

1. “The only thing that matters is per capita living standards, so a shrinking population is fine”

People who say this forget that a shrinking population is also an aging population. Old people can work longer, but eventually their bodies and minds break down and they need to be supported by younger workers. Here’s what I wrote in 2024:

[With an aging population] every working-age adult has to toil harder and consume less in order to support a growing number of people who are too old to work…In the 1990s and 2000s, there were more than 5 working-age Americans (age 15-64) for every elderly American (64+). By 2021, there were fewer than 4. That means that the economic burden of supporting each elderly American is now shared among only 4 people instead of 5…And in other rich countries, it’s even worse. In France, there are only 3 working-age people for every elderly person. In Japan, there are only two[.]

And here’s what I wrote in 2023:

[A] shrinking population means that profitable investments will be a lot harder to come by…[I]f there are more old people and fewer younger people, then demand for the assets of the old is going to have to be split among more sellers. And that will mean a lower price. In other words…people will have to save more and more during their working years in order to make it to a comfortable retirement.

And here’s the upshot:

So in general, the shrinking world will be a world of toil. Working people will have to bear the burdens of higher taxes, more eldercare, and longer working lives. And despite working more, they will have to be thrifty and ascetic, saving more money for their own retirements.

On top of all this, a shrinking population creates a problem for physical infrastructure. Road systems, sewer systems, electrical grids, and so on were built to support a certain size of population; cut the population in half, and there won’t be enough people to support all that infrastructure in any given area. We tend to forget just how quickly human structures depreciate and fall into ruin, and how much human maintenance they require to remain usable.

You can try to consolidate people into fewer towns and smaller areas, but human mobility is not infinite; some people will be stuck in decaying towns, rotting away in despair.

2. “Productivity improvements will compensate for shrinking populations”

It’s true that if you raise total factor productivity, it will compensate for a shrinking work force. But there are three big problems here. The first is that with a few exceptions, every country is already trying as hard as it can to raise productivity, so there’s no button you can press that says “raise productivity even more” when your labor force starts to shrink.

The second problem is that shrinking workforces also shrink the number of people who are available to work on improving productivity. Chad Jones models this out in a 2022 paper, which shows some potentially dire consequences from a shrinking pool of researchers.

The third problem is that aging populations tend to have lower productivity growth:

And this is from Ozimek et al. (2018):

The aggregate data show a clear relationship between an older workforce and lower productivity at the state-industry level, in both cross-section and panel models. The results are confirmed using employer-employee linked data…that show having older coworkers reduces an individual’s wages.

So low fertility will actually make it harder to raise productivity to compensate for low fertility.

3. “Robots will make human workers unnecessary anyway”

I encounter this one a lot these days. But this is also a coping statement rather than a solution. For one thing, we have no idea if it’s true or not. So far, AI systems are able to do some things very well and other things not very well, meaning there’s still a lot of need for human labor.1 That might change — we might develop AI systems that do everything well, allowing technology to replace labor instead of complementing it. But we don’t know if we’ll be able to do that, and it’s foolish of us to place all our hopes in that one possibility.

On top of that, total replacement of the human labor force with AI would just be a different kind of posthuman future. It would be an incredibly disruptive event for societies as they are currently set up. At the very least it would require massive labor reallocation of the type that we haven’t proven very good at in the past, creating a vast dispossessed underclass almost overnight. It could also drive up prices for electricity, land, and water to the point where humans are essentially driven to starvation, requiring large-scale redistribution of capital income in order to keep the human population alive. That would disrupt every political system on Earth, possibly causing disruptions more severe than occurred during the Industrial Revolution.

In other words, this is not a scenario to comfort ourselves with.

4. “Concerns about low fertility are racist and sexist”

When I warn about low fertility on social media, I inevitably encounter a few progressives telling me not to worry, because:

  1. Concerns about low fertility are actually just concerns about low white fertility, and

  2. Concerns about low fertility are excuses to enslave women and turn them into baby-making machines.

The first of these is just flat-out false. Asian fertility is lower than white fertility, for one thing. But fertility rates are also collapsing at an accelerating rate throughout the entire world, including Africa, Latin America, India, and poor countries in general:

As for sexism, I haven’t seen anyone contemplate turning society into The Handmaid’s Tale, and even deeply religious Muslim countries have seen stark fertility decline. So enslaving women doesn’t seem to be on the list of policy responses to the population crisis.

5. “We can just pay people to have more kids”

Paying people to have more kids does “work”, in the sense that people do have more kids when you pay them to do so. The problem is that they don’t have very many more kids; the effect sizes are so small that the amount of money required to boost fertility to near replacement levels would be prohibitive.

China has been trying to boost fertility with economic support for years, with no apparent result. Hungary tried to pay people to have more kids, with no lasting results at all. South Korea implemented a very substantial “baby bonus”, equivalent to about $700 per month, and it had the effect of reducing the fertility decline by 4.7% — not nearly enough to offset the catastrophic declines of recent years.

Even under optimistic assumptions, the sums of money required to restore non-collapsing fertility through baby bonuses are astronomical. This is from Lyman Stone, who studies this issue:

In 2020, the total fertility rate is probably around 1.71 children per woman. Thus, to reach 2.07, we would need a 21% increase in birth rates. To accomplish this, we would need the present value of child benefits to increase by somewhere between 52% and 400% of household income. For the median woman, this would mean providing a child benefit for the first 18 years of a child’s life worth approximately $5,300 per year in addition to currently-provided benefits, with the range running from $2,800 more per year to $23,000 more per year.

$23,000 per year, or even $10,000 per year, is an incredibly large sum of money — much more than any current welfare proposals, and enough to require gargantuan tax hikes that would no doubt prove politically toxic. But even this would not be enough — not even close.

Since Stone wrote that post, the U.S. TFR has fallen again, to 1.62. There is no reason to think it won’t fall more. This means that even under extremely optimistic assumptions about the power of baby bonuses, the amount we’d have to pay to get fertility back up to near replacement is just a complete political non-starter. For countries like China and Korea, the gap is far greater still, and baby bonuses are looking like they have only a very small effect.

Back in 2012, there were policies available that might have raised fertility to sustainable levels in many rich countries. As of 2026, in the face of the catastrophic and ongoing acceleration in the fertility decline, we have no known policy capable of addressing the problem.

6. “Immigration will solve the population problem”

Immigration is good, but sadly it won’t solve the population problem. First, fertility is falling across the entire world, even in the poorest countries of Africa. In the world as a whole, fertility rates are approaching replacement level and may already be there.

Source: World Bank

There is no other planet to get immigrants from.

Rich countries, of course, can continue to dull the pains of population aging and shrinkage by taking people from poor countries. But as Fernández-Villaverde notes, it’s not that simple, because those rich countries have strong welfare states. Poor immigrants are going to use lots of welfare benefits, ultimately canceling out much of their economic contribution to the nation. And because immigrants themselves age, they’re eventually going to contribute to population aging, especially because many of them come when they’re already middle-aged.

So anyway, there is a massive amount of coping on this issue, because people see a grave and possibly even existential threat coming inexorably in their direction, and they don’t think there’s anything they can do to stop it, so they need something to tell themselves in order to stop worrying. But this sort of self-reassurance won’t solve the actual problem or avert the actual threat.

In fact, we mustn’t bury our heads in the sand on this issue, or tell ourselves that it’s all going to work out. Instead, we have to face up to the problem, so that we can start looking for ways to solve it.

What we need right now is research, research, and more research

Humanity has always relied on technical solutions to get us out of our worst problems. It was research into green energy that has given us hope of stopping climate change. Vaccine research has given us hope of stopping pandemics. The Green Revolution staved off mass starvation from population growth, and so on.

Collapsing fertility is a bit different from those other problems, because it’s fundamentally a social problem rather than a physical threat like climate change, disease, or starvation. Social science research is typically much more expensive and much less conclusive than research in the physical sciences.

But despite that big hurdle, it stands to reason that the human race should be doing lots and lots of research on how to avert this imminent and nearly existential threat. I propose a Fertility Policy Research Center, gathering together top researchers in experimental economics and development economics, epidemiologists, quantitative sociologists, and so on. The goal would be to find a solution to the problem of long-term stabilization of the fertility at or near the replacement rate of 2.0.

The center’s activities could include:

  • Epidemiological and observational research on the causes of fertility drops

  • Randomized controlled trials of policy interventions to raise fertility

  • Trials of technological interventions for increasing fertility

The first and third of these won’t be that expensive. It’s the second of these — RCTs for policy interventions to raise fertility — that will cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. A single study can cost millions of dollars.

The funding for fertility policy research will thus have to be in the billions of dollars. That’s outside of the range of modern philanthropic research, but not by much — the ARC Institute has pledged grants of $650 million, and CERN’s Future Circular Collider has $1 billion, all from private sources. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that a group of billionaires might be willing to pool their resources and endow a Fertility Policy Research Institute with $5 billion or even $10 billion.

Take Elon Musk, for instance. The world’s richest man has clearly identified ultra-low birth rates as an existential threat:

Musk’s net worth is now over $750 billion. Just one percent of his wealth could fully endow a Fertility Policy Research Center with all of the money it would likely need for at least two decades. Five percent of his wealth could endow the center with all the money it would ever need. Isn’t solving an existential threat worth five percent of one man’s wealth?

Anyway, there is no dearth of hypotheses to consider here. Big questions for the research center might include:

  1. Is social media causing the recent acceleration in the decline of fertility rates? Would restrictions on social media use be sufficient to raise TFR by a significant amount?

  2. Does geographically concentrating people with high fertility rates tend to increase or decrease society-wide birth rates?

  3. Does living space per person affect fertility rates?

  4. How does economic security affect fertility rates?

  5. Which is more cost-effective for raising fertility: cash payments or in-kind benefits like free child care?

  6. Would AI nannies or tutors relieve some of the burden of child care, thus increasing people’s desire to have children?

  7. How do maternal and paternal leave affect fertility rates?

  8. Does gender equality in household chores affect fertility?

  9. How do norms of higher and lower fertility get transmitted? Can these norms be influenced by deliberate media campaigns or other informational interventions?

  10. Are there interventions that encourage couple formation earlier in life?

  11. Are there any public health factors affecting fertility rates to a significant degree?

These are just a few hypotheses off of the top of my head. Putting $50 million toward investigating each of these would use up only 0.065% of Elon Musk’s wealth, while the payoff from even one important, usable finding could be absolutely huge.

It would be even better, of course, if governments could get involved with the funding effort. This could be tricky, since government grants usually go through laborious and slow processes. In the U.S., a special research project — similar to the Human Genome Project — might be able to circumvent some of those procedural hurdles. And since fertility decline is such a worldwide problem, there are probably plenty of governments who would contribute some funding to the center — many without onerous red tape. China, in particular, seems like it would want to fund a crash program for solving the birth rate problem.

Government support will be especially crucial when scaling up policy interventions from RCTs to actual government policy. This can be very tricky and very expensive, since many interventions don’t scale up. Government support, both logistical and in terms of funding, would often be essential — but it would also probably be forthcoming.

It’s kind of insane that nobody has done this yet, and it speaks to the power of the six coping statements that I listed above. A lot of people have managed to convince themselves that the problem of low fertility is no big deal, or that it’s easily solved, or that even viewing it as a problem is illegitimate. They are all wrong. It’s a huge problem, and we need to be attacking it with the same tool — scientific research — that we’ve used to defeat so many adversaries in the past.


Subscribe now

Share

1

This is a stochastic version of Moravec’s Paradox.

Which one doesn't belong?

Here are two examples of US currency:

And some bitcoin:

gold and silver round coins
Photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash

Which one doesn’t belong? Which type of money is the most distinct from the other two? The answer depends on which attribute you believe is the most important.

When I taught monetary theory, I used to pass around these two currency notes in class. At the time they looked almost identical, but Jackson’s head was enlarged in 1998, as you can see. That’s unfortunate, as previously they were a good example of how two objects that look quite similar could be radically different. The 1928 currency note could be redeemed at the Treasury for nearly an ounce of gold, now worth over $4000.

To better understand how Americans used to think about currency, consider an example of someone selling a used car and being paid with a personal check for $2500. The seller might take the check to the bank to see if it could be exchanged for some “real money”, i.e., currency. Similarly, back in 1928, the currency note was viewed as being sort of like a check, and the “real money” it could be exchanged for was gold. After 1934, however, it could no longer be exchanged for gold, as the federal government had defaulted on the obligation that was plainly printed on the front (bottom center):

TWENTY DOLLARS IN GOLD COIN PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND

Nonetheless, people continued to accept $20 bills in payment, even without gold backing. In retrospect, it is odd that it took so long for people to understand why fiat money might have value. When I was younger, I recall theories that currency had value because it could be used to pay taxes. But that sort of explanation is clearly not required, as bitcoin also has a positive value despite no commodity backing or utility in paying taxes. Instead, currency has value because it is useful:

  1. It is convenient for making transactions (although its utility in this area is declining over time.)

  2. It is a way of hiding wealth from authorities, where its role is increasing.

I have no ability to prediction the price of bitcoin, although in my very first post on the subject I suggested that it was not a bubble. At the time, the price was $32.

You’re welcome.

But I never bought any bitcoin, because my lack of belief in bubbles implies a low level of confidence in predicting asset prices. Nonetheless, I do believe it is possible to understand the fundamentals of asset prices, even if we cannot predict how those fundamentals evolve over time. (As an analogy, geologists understand the fundamental cause of earthquakes but cannot predict them.)

There are currently about 20 million bitcoin in circulation. Thus, a price of $90,000 per bitcoin implies a total market value of $1.8 trillion. In that case, you can think of the price of $90,000 as being determined by the fact that the aggregate market demand for bitcoin is currently about $1.8 trillion.

Today, there is roughly $2.4 trillion in US currency in circulation. You can think about the value of a single dollar bill (and hence the CPI) as being determined by two factors:

  1. The total aggregate demand to hold US currency, in real terms.

  2. The quantity of US currency.

You could see the price level rise 10% because the currency stock increases by 10% at a time when the public does not wish to hold more of its purchasing power in the form of currency. Or you might see the price level rise by 10% because the quantity of currency was unchanged at a time when the demand for currency fell by 10%. Or some combination of the two.

Bitcoin is an interesting type of money because its quantity is nearly fixed. (Technically it is asymptotically approaching a maximum quantity of 21 million.) That makes the determination of its value a conceptually simpler problem than determining the purchasing power of currency, as only the demand side of the bitcoin market shows significant volatility. This is similar to the sort of money supply rules once proposed by monetarists.

Nonetheless, it is far easier to predict changes in the value of US currency than changes in the value of bitcoin. That’s because while both the supply and demand for currency show significant changes over time, the Fed acts in such a way that changes in currency supply mostly accommodate changes in currency demand, leading to a situation where the purchasing power of currency depreciates at roughly 2%/year, at least most of the time (not in 2022!)

The Fed doesn’t directly target the currency stock. Rather they adjust the monetary base (via open market operations) and the interest rate (using IOER) in such a way that the currency stock grows on average about 2%/year faster than real currency demand.

So, which one doesn’t belong? In one sense, bitcoin is clearly the outlier. The other two currency notes pictured above are both examples of US dollars. They represent the same unit of account.

But in another sense it is the gold note that is the outlier among the three types of money. Back in 1928, gold was the medium of account in the US and in most other developed countries. The global price level was determined by the global supply and demand for gold. The currency stock was at least partly endogenous, which is why Canada’s currency stock fell sharply during the early 1930s. Canadians “needed” less currency in a world of sharply falling prices. The US currency stock did not decline (after 1930), because unlike Canada we had lots of bank failures that led to an increase demand for currency.

[If you are confused by terms like unit of account and medium of account, consider that in 1928 gold was the medium of account in both the US and Britain, but the two countries had different units of account (US dollars and British pounds.)]

Modern $20 bills and bitcoin are both examples of fiat money. They are not backed by any sort of real asset such as gold or silver, and their values are determined by a combination of “monetary policy” and private sector shocks to money demand.

Today, we also have stablecoins, which are generally backed by another asset such as fiat money, gold, or another cryptocurrency. Even if back by a fiat currency like the US dollar, I would regard stablecoins as more analogous to the old gold notes than to a modern fiat currency or bitcoin. The purchasing power of stablecoins is determined by the purchasing power of the underlying asset (plus a small default risk?), not the quantity of stablecoins

PS. Interestingly, the ratio of the CPI in January 1960 (29.3) to the CPI in January 1928 (17.3) is almost identical to the ratio of the official price of gold in 1960 ($35/ounce) to the price of gold in 1928 ($20.67/ounce.) This means that a person who converted $20.67 into an ounce of gold in 1928 and later sold it in Zurich in 1960, received back exactly the same purchasing power in dollars as the currency they sold in 1928, despite lots of dollar price inflation. (Gold bullion could not legally be sold in the US in 1960, which is why I assume a sale in Switzerland.)

I paid $70 for this $20 bill back in the 1980s, which my students found amusing. But it apparently is now worth about $300 to collectors on Ebay. If it could still be redeemed for gold today, it would be worth over $4000.

Thursday assorted links

1. The advance of machine learning in economics.

2. Anthropic strategy?

3. The Christian speed painter (NYT).

4. The wisdom of Adam Ozimek.  He is also a Clarence White fan.

5. Thiel on trends.

6. New constitution for Claude.  And Simon Willison on Catholicism.

7. Greenland fact of the day: “Nuuk, Greenland (pop. 19.6k) has 16 buses in its transit system and has higher ridership than Wichita, Kansas’s bus system (pop. 472k).”

8. Different ways of thinking about American TFR.

9. On the manosphere.

The post Thursday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

Previewing Claude Code for web branches with GitHub Pages

I'm a big user of Claude Code on the web, Anthropic's poorly named cloud-based version of Claude Code which can be driven via the web or their native mobile and desktop applications.

I mostly use it through the Claude iPhone app.

The biggest downside of this way of working is that, beyond CLI tools or code libraries, it's difficult to preview its work while it is iterating on the code.

I've started using GitHub Pages against private repositories to work around this limitation recently - at least for HTML projects - and it's working really well.

Here's how I'll spin up a new experimental prototype such that I can preview it on my phone.

  1. Create a new private repository at https://github.com/new - include an empty README here to ensure the repo has been initialized.
  2. Start a task in Claude Code against that repo - you may need to restart the app to ensure it picks up the newly created repo.
  3. Tell Claude Code what to build, using a variation on "self-contained HTML file, vanilla JavaScript, no build step, load any dependencies from a CDN" - this ensures that the code it writes will run directly in a browser without needing to mess with npm

Claude Code will get to work, and after a few minutes will create a branch in your repository. Here's the clever bit:

  1. Navigate to the Pages area of your repository settings, make sure "Deploy from a branch" is selected (the default) and then open the branch picker and select the claude/... branch that Claude Code just created

Wait about a minute for the deploy to complete and your new preview should become available at this (secret) URL:

https://your-username.github.io/your-repo/index.html

This will serve the full static contents of your repository so you can also reuse the same private repository for other projects like this in the future, though you'll have to manually select the new branch that Claude creates each time.

Crucially, your Claude Code for web session is still running. You can request changes from Claude - and even drop in screenshots of what it's built so far - and Claude will make changes and then push them to the existing branch, which means they'll be available in your preview shortly afterwards.

I've not found a limit on how long these Claude sessions stay available - it's possible you could keep that session and PR running indefinitely, continually pushing changes to your deployed environment for many weeks to come.

When you land the PR don't forget to update the Pages settings to point back to the main branch.

Unlike Claude's own Artifacts feature there are no CSP restrictions on what apps deployed to GitHub Pages can do, which means they can interact directly with JSON APIs hosted on other domains.

There are other good options for deploying previews of branches - I've used Cloudflare Pages for this in the past - but it's nice to be able to get this done using GitHub alone.

Courageous Carney vs. Demented Donald

Map 1.1 Population distribution as of July 1, 2022, by census division, Canada

On Tuesday Mark Carney, Canada’s Prime Minister, gave a remarkable speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. In effect he announced, calmly and lucidly, that Canada is filing for divorce from the Pax Americana:

Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

And he urged other nations — implicitly, although he didn’t say it in so many words, the nations of Europe in particular — to join Canada in a new alliance of democracies no longer willing to take orders from an abusive hegemon:

[T]he middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.

It was a brave stand to take. Canada sits right next to the United States, whose economy is a dozen times larger. Moreover, as the map at the top of this post shows, Canada’s population lies almost entirely within a narrow band on top of the U.S. Back when I was writing a lot about economic geography, I used to joke that Canada was closer to the United States than it was to itself. Nature wants Canada and the United States to be closely intertwined. And for this reason Canada is arguably more exposed to the consequences of Trumpian wrath than any other nation.

But democracies can no longer maintain close ties with the U.S. The day after Carney spoke, Donald Trump showed why.

I listened to Trump’s Davos speech with fear: How much damage will this demented, vindictive individual do to America and the world? I also felt a deep sense of shame: What is wrong with my country, that we put someone like this in a position of unprecedented power?

As the whole world watched, the president of the United States (God help us) repeatedly referred to Greenland, which he is willing to blow up NATO to acquire, as Iceland. Don’t dismiss this as trivial: if any previous president had been that befuddled, the whole press corps would have been howling about senility and demanding that he step down.

And of course Trump’s press secretary insisted that he didn’t say what we all saw and heard him say.

Trump also repeatedly displayed his trademark willful ignorance, for example when talking about renewable energy. While berating Europe for using wind energy, he admitted that China also has big wind farms — someone must have showed him pictures — but declared that

They put up a couple of big wind farms, but they don’t use them. They just put them up to show people what they could look like. They don’t spin, they don’t do anything.

In reality, China accounts for almost 40 percent of total world generation of electricity from wind power, substantially more than Europe.

Beyond confusion and ignorance, Trump delivered menace:

A screenshot of a white text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

The horrifying details of Trump’s rant aside, what strikes me about the Trump administration’s performance at Davos — not just Trump himself but his minions — was the utter lack of purpose. The whole Trump team seems to have gone to Europe with no goal other than to belittle and insult their hosts.

On Tuesday evening Howard Lutnick, the Commerce secretary, spoke to a private dinner at Davos — at which he belittled European economies and their lack of competitiveness. He was reportedly booed, and Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, walked out.

On Wednesday morning Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, dismissed reports that one major Danish pension fund has decided to divest itself of U.S. bonds by declaring that “Denmark’s investment in U.S. Treasury bonds, like Denmark itself, is irrelevant.”

And Trump devoted much of his speech to portraying Europe as a hellhole, its economy destroyed by renewable energy and its society destroyed by immigration.

Never mind whether any of this is true. (It isn’t.) What was the point of saying such things? Do Trump and his Mini-Mes imagine that they can convince European leaders that they, their economies, and their societies are all pathetic losers?

To say what should be obvious but apparently isn’t, we don’t need top government officials playing at being shock-jock podcasters, getting clicks by being outrageous. God knows, MAGA has plenty of those already. Official speeches aren’t supposed to be rants that provide red meat to your political base. They’re supposed to influence people who aren’t your supporters, in ways that serve the national interest.

This doesn’t mean that official speeches must be mealy-mouthed and boring. Mark Carney’s speech definitely wasn’t. But Carney had a clear purpose: To rally other nations into solidarity against U.S. economic blackmail.

Trump, on the other hand, just wanted to swagger, whine, and mostly hear himself talk. And all he accomplished was to turn suspicions that he’s gone off the deep end into certainty.

We’re already seeing some consequences of Trump’s ranting:

A white background with black text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

There will be much more of this. American power and influence have always rested, much more than many people realize, on the perception of American trustworthiness. We didn’t always do the right thing, but we honored our agreements and were the least greedy imperial power in history.

That’s all over. At Davos, Mark Carney called for giving up hope that the Pax Americana can be restored, and Donald Trump proved him right.

MUSICAL CODA

Quoting Thariq Shihipar

Most people's mental model of Claude Code is that "it's just a TUI" but it should really be closer to "a small game engine".

For each frame our pipeline constructs a scene graph with React then

-> layouts elements
-> rasterizes them to a 2d screen
-> diffs that against the previous screen
-> finally uses the diff to generate ANSI sequences to draw

We have a ~16ms frame budget so we have roughly ~5ms to go from the React scene graph to ANSI written.

Thariq Shihipar

Tags: react, claude-code

Claude's new constitution

Claude's new constitution

Late last year Richard Weiss found something interesting while poking around with the just-released Claude Opus 4.5: he was able to talk the model into regurgitating a document which was not part of the system prompt but appeared instead to be baked in during training, and which described Claude's core values at great length.

He called this leak the soul document, and Amanda Askell from Anthropic quickly confirmed that it was indeed part of Claude's training procedures.

Today Anthropic made this official, releasing that full "constitution" document under a CC0 (effectively public domain) license. There's a lot to absorb! It's over 35,000 tokens, more than 10x the length of the published Opus 4.5 system prompt.

One detail that caught my eye is the acknowledgements at the end, which include a list of external contributors who helped review the document. I was intrigued to note that two of the fifteen listed names are Catholic members of the clergy - Father Brendan McGuire is a pastor in Los Altos with a Master’s degree in Computer Science and Math and Bishop Paul Tighe is an Irish Catholic bishop with a background in moral theology.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude, amanda-askell, ai-ethics, ai-personality

What Davos (and Mark Carney) get wrong

That is the topic of my latest Free Press column, here is one excerpt:

Though Donald Trump seems to be calling off his latest trade war, the United States has indeed retreated from free trade with a new era of tariffs. It’s a development I rue. But Canada just opened its market to Chinese cars. So Trump did in fact find the recipe to nudge an oft-protectionist Canada toward freer trade, though it is the opposite of what he might have been wishing for. Soon, Canada will have access to better and cheaper electric cars than what we can get in the United States. And even if you think that spyware could make those cars a security risk in Washington, D.C., due to spying possibilities, I am less worried about their proliferation in Quebec and Nova Scotia. Keep them out of Ottawa if need be.

The European Union just worked out a free trade agreement, pending final approval, with Mercosur, a trade bloc encompassing hundreds of millions of people in South America, a region that is likely to be more economically important in the future. The EU also announced it is likely to strike a free trade agreement with India, the most populous nation in the world and one of its fastest-growing economies. However imperfect these agreements may turn out to be, has there been any recent short period with so much progress in free trade?

And this on Mark Carney:

Canadian prime minister Mark Carney’s speech on Tuesday garnered a lot of attention, but I think for the wrong reasons. He proclaimed the ability of “middle powers”—that is, Europe and countries like his own—to stand their ground against America and China, but he mentioned AI only in passing. He had no solution to an immediately pending world where Canada is quite dependent on advanced AI systems from American companies (often, incidentally, developed by Canadian researchers in the U.S.). That is likely to be the next major development in this North American relationship, and it will not increase the relative autonomy of Canada or of any other middle powers.

Carney has garnered praise for staking out such bold ground and standing up to Trump. The deeper reality is that Carney can “talk back” in the North American partnership because he knows America will defend Canada, including against Russia, no matter what. Most European countries cannot relax in the same manner, and thus they are often more deferential. What the reactions from Carney and the Europeans show is not any kind of growing independence for the middle powers, but rather a reality where you are either quite tethered to a major power—as Canada is to America—or you live in fear of being abandoned, which is the current status of much of Europe.

Recommended.

The post What Davos (and Mark Carney) get wrong appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Kidney exchange in Brazil (a clinical trial)

Here's a video in which Mike Rees, the founder of the Alliance for Paired Kidney Donation (APKD) describes how (with the help of a grant from Stanford) the APKD is helping Brazilian transplant docs get kidney exchange going there. 

 

Earlier:

Tuesday, February 27, 2024  Stanford Impact Labs announces support for kidney exchange in Brazil, India, and the U.S.

 

Thursday, October 10, 2024  Kidney exchange in Brazil, continued (with pictures)

 

 

What Are The Signs of A Reliable Brand To Purchase Green Sumatra Kratom?

The online market for Green Sumatra Kratom continues to grow, giving buyers plenty of options to choose from. But with so many websites offering similar products, choosing the right one can be taxing. When you decide to shop green sumatra kratom online, it is important to check factors beyond pricing and discounts.

From product information to authorized certifications, there are many things that one should consider before buying Green Sumatra Kratom. By understanding these signs, you can make a more mindful choice and avoid disappointment when selecting Green Sumatra Kratom from online sources.

7 Signs Of A Reliable Brand To Shop Green Sumatra Kratom Online

When you buy Green Sumatra Kratom online, there are certain signs that you should look out for a smooth buying experience. Paying attention to these details can help narrow down options and make it easier to choose a seller that values consistency and transparency.

Third-Party Lab Testing And Transparency

  • Third-party lab test reports are a clear sign of high-quality Green Sumatra Kratom.
  • These reports ensure that each batch is pure and potent. Check for purity, potency, and unwanted contaminants.
  • Additionally, it checks for unwanted contaminants, heavy metals, and microbes like (E. coli, Salmonella), mold, and pesticides.
  • Transparency reduces guesswork for buyers before ordering.

American Kratom Association (AKA) GMP Qualification

  • American Kratom Association and GMP qualifications are a clear indication that the brand follows recognized industry guidelines.
  • These certifications also reflect that the brand follows structured handling and mindful preparation practices.
  • Shows effort toward consistency and accountability.
  • Helps buyers identify brands aligned with standard procedures.

Ethical Sourcing And Manufacturing

  • Clear sourcing shows that the brand follows responsible operations.
  • Ethical practices often support consistent product quality and potency across batches.
  • Proper handling during processing helps maintain uniformity across products.
  • Long-term sourcing partnerships suggest stability.

Clear Product Information

  • Product pages should use simple, familiar strain names. This allows the customer to shop their preferred strain more confidently.
  • Brands should not exaggerate the benefits of any product listed on their page.
  • Information about the product and strains should stay consistent throughout the website.
  • All details should be easy to understand so that buyers can place their orders without any confusion.

Fair And Transparent Pricing

  • Prices for each product should be displayed clearly from the beginning.
  • No hidden charges appear during checkout.
  • Shipping costs should be explained in advance with no discrepancies.
  • Fair pricing throughout the page highlights that the brand is true to its customers.

Customer Service And Education

  • The brand should provide clear guides and FAQs for its customers to make better, more informed decisions.
  • Support pages throughout the website should be easy to locate and should not be hidden.
  • Clear communication between the brand and customers reduces uncertainty.
  • Accessible customer service gives buyers the freedom to ask questions about the product or any Kratom strain.

Positive Brand Reputation And Customer Reviews

  • Positive customer reviews are the key to building a strong brand reputation.
  • Consistent customer feedback builds trust over time.
  • Customer reviews listed on the website highlight that the brand is transparent about its products.
  • A strong reputation often signals dependable service. This clearly leads to repeat customers and better feedback.

Common Red Flags And Green Flags When Shopping Green Sumatra Online

As a responsible buyer, there are certain signs that you should look for in order to purchase the best Green Sumatra Kratom online:

Clear and consistent product information.

Vague descriptions or multiple names used for the same Green Sumatra product.

Transparent pricing shown upfront.
Hidden fees or unexpected charges added during checkout.

Professional, well-maintained website.
Broken links, outdated pages, or poor navigation.

Easy-to-find contact and support details.
Missing or hard-to-locate support information.

Simple and straightforward checkout process.
Confusing order steps or unclear confirmations.

Balanced and realistic product descriptions.
Overstated or exaggerated claims.

Clearly stated shipping and return policies.
Unclear or missing policy information.

How Buyers Prefer To Purchase Green Sumatra Kratom In The U.S.?

Buying habits often reveal where people feel more comfortable placing their orders. When it comes to Green Sumatra Kratom, many buyers lean toward one purchasing method over the other based on availability, convenience, and access to information.

The chart below highlights estimated trends showing how U.S. buyers choose between shopping online and purchasing in physical stores, helping put current buying preferences into clearer perspective.

Kratom purchase
Informational fact! A Kratom fact sheet estimates up to 11–15 million Americans regularly consume kratom, with products sold online and in brick-and-mortar stores.

Summing Up The Green Sumatra Kratom Guide

People often end up purchasing from unauthorized brands because they lack information about Green Sumatra Kratom. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to understand which brands follow proper standards and which ones do not. By learning the signs of a reliable Kratom brand, buyers can avoid confusion and make better decisions while shopping for Green Sumatra Kratom.

Knowing what to check, from transparency to clear product details, reduces the chances of choosing the wrong brands. When buyers feel more confident about the brand, it becomes much easier to shop for Green Sumatra Kratom online. This not only enhances the overall experience but also helps the buyer in choosing the best option for themselves.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog is intended for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not meant to replace professional advice or serve as a guarantee of product quality or brand performance. Brand practices, standards, and availability may change over time. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and evaluate sellers carefully before making a purchase decision. This content does not promote or endorse any specific brand and is meant to help readers better understand common indicators of reliability when purchasing Green Sumatra Kratom online.

Author’s Bio

Palmina Thomson is an experienced SEO strategist, content editor, and niche researcher with over 20 years of work in the THC, CBD, Kratom, and vape eCommerce space. She has written and edited thousands of articles, product reviews, and industry guides published on high-ranking websites. Known for her strong industry insight and data-focused approach, Palmina specializes in building topical authority, creating compliance-aware content, and developing SEO strategies that help brands grow and educate consumers in highly competitive markets.

 

The post What Are The Signs of A Reliable Brand To Purchase Green Sumatra Kratom? appeared first on DCReport.org.

Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 1365 from Webb

Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 1365 from Webb Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 1365 from Webb


Sandcastles

Aerial photo of an industrial conveyor unloading material into a turquoise water body, surrounded by carved sand dunes.

A documentary connecting two Singapores: the Asian country expanded on imported sand and a town in Michigan buried by dunes

- by Aeon Video

Watch on Aeon

Dreams of the far Right

Three people draped in German flags standing in a town square during a gathering, with a rainbow in the cloudy sky.

Young Europeans join far-Right movements less out of grievance than out of a profound yearning to believe and belong

- by Agnieszka Pasieka

Read on Aeon

How Restrictive is U.S. Trade Policy?

This short note computes Trade Restrictiveness Index measures for current U.S. trade policy. Building on the ideas of Anderson and Neary (1996, 2005), the Trade Restrictiveness Index is the uniform tariff that leaves the U.S. consumer as well off as under actual policy. As of October 2025, U.S. trade policy is twice as restrictive as headline tariff numbers suggest. The Trade Restrictiveness Index is 23 percent, which stands in contrast to the 11 percent average tariff rate. Trade policy towards Canada and Mexico is two to three times more restrictive than average tariff rates suggest. Sectoral analysis shows that the restrictiveness is concentrated in vehicles, machinery, and electrical equipment.

That is from Michael E. Waugh.

The post How Restrictive is U.S. Trade Policy? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

January 21, 2026

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this morning, a visibly exhausted president of the United States of America rambled in angry free association in a speech before the world’s leaders. At one point, speaking of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) dignitaries, he told the audience: “Until the last few days when I told them about Iceland, they loved me. They called me daddy, right, last time. Very smart man said, ‘He’s our daddy. He’s running it.’”

He meant Greenland.

The president of the United States went on to give a virulently racist, insulting, rambling speech in which he complained that people call him a dictator but that “sometimes you need a dictator.” More than anything, though, the speech demonstrated his mental unfitness for his position. Tom Nichols of The Atlantic wrote: “No one can be watching this Davos speech and reach any conclusion but that the President of the United States is mentally disturbed and that something is deeply wrong with him. This is both embarrassing and extremely dangerous.”

Andrew Egger of The Bulwark wrote of Trump’s hostility to traditional U.S. allies today: “As long as I live, I don’t think I’ll get over this pure, dumb fact: Trump told his fans he had to blow up the liberal order because it was the only way to secure the very benefits the liberal order was already bringing us.” Egger likened this to Aesop’s fable about the greedy farmer who butchered the goose that laid golden eggs.

Later, Trump backed off on the tariffs he had threatened to impose on the countries standing against his seizure of Greenland, claiming he had just had “a very productive meeting” with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and had “formed the framework for a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations.” Because of that framework, he said, he would not be imposing the tariffs he had threatened on those nations opposing his designs on NATO.

As Ron Filipkowski of MeidasNews noted, this was not a new deal, but Trump surrendering. The U.S. and NATO have always been free to do whatever they want in Greenland, but Trump had insisted he needed to own it for “psychological” reasons. Now he has reverted back to the original agreement.

Amongst all of Trump’s other lies and threats at his Davos speech, one stood out. Talking about Russia’s war against Ukraine, he said: “It’s a war that should have never started, and it wouldn’t have started if the 2020 U.S. presidential election weren’t rigged—it was a rigged election. Everybody now knows that. They found out.” This is Trump’s Big Lie, and it has been thoroughly debunked; the 2020 presidential election wasn’t stolen from him.

But then Trump went on to say: “People will soon be prosecuted for what they did. It’s probably breaking news but it should be. It was a rigged election. You can’t have rigged elections.”

This is an astonishing threat. It says he intends to prosecute Department of Justice officials and others for refusing to help him steal the presidency. The timing of this particular threat is not accidental. Tomorrow at 10:00 Eastern Time, former special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, will testify publicly about the evidence that led a grand jury to indict Trump and led Smith himself to conclude a jury would convict Trump.

Lately, Trump has been rehashing his grievances from that election, repeating debunked claims of rigged voting machines and so on. The issue is clearly on his mind. Jack Smith knows what happened, Trump knows that Smith knows what happened, and it appears Trump is eager to discredit him at the very least.

While Trump is in Davos, the violence from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents that has been obvious for a while has ramped up in what appears to be an attempt to spark violence.

Yesterday Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, police chief Mark Bruley told reporters that the police were getting repeated complaints about violations of civil rights by ICE and that ICE agents were stopping off-duty police officers of color. He recounted that ICE agents had stopped an off-duty police officer, demanded her paperwork—she is a U.S. citizen—and then held her at gunpoint. When she tried to film the interaction, they knocked the phone out of her hand. Finally, when she identified herself as a police officer, they got in their vehicles and left.

“This isn’t just important because it happened to off-duty police officers,” Bruley said, but because “our officers know what the Constitution is, they know what right and wrong is, and they know when people are being targeted, and that’s what they were. If it is happening to our officers, it pains me to think [of] how many of our community members are falling victim to this every day.”

Yesterday Dell Cameron of Wired reported that internal ICE planning documents show that the agency is planning to spend up to $50 million on jail space and a privately run transfer hub in Minnesota for immigrant detainees from Minnesota and four neighboring states.

Today the El Paso County Office of the Medical Examiner ruled that the death of 55-year-old Cuban-born Geraldo Lunas Campos detained in Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, was a homicide. Camp East Montana is a tent encampment where migrants have reported poor conditions and physical abuse. Lunas Campos died of asphyxiation after guards put pressure on his neck and chest during an altercation during which Lunas Campos asked for his medication. Two detainees testified that they saw guards choking Lunas Campos, who repeatedly told them he couldn’t breathe. The Trump administration has since tried to deport the two witnesses.

Douglas MacMillan of the Washington Post reported that at least 30 people died in detention last year, the highest number in twenty years. Six people, including Lunas Campos and another detainee at Camp East Montana, died in the first two weeks of 2026.

ICE agents are hanging around schools, threatening children. Reg Chapman of CBS News in Minnesota reported today that ICE has detained a five-year-old preschooler after using him as bait to get someone in his house to open their door. Then ICE transferred him and his father from Minnesota to detention in Texas. His family has an active asylum case and it does not have an order of deportation, meaning they are in the U.S. legally.

Video footage from Minneapolis also shows a federal agent spraying chemical irritants directly into the face of a man agents had pinned and held to the ground. Other video shows Customs and Border Protection leader Greg Bovino throwing tear gas at peaceful protesters.

This afternoon, Rebecca Santana of the Associated Press reported that ICE has been breaking into homes under the authority provided by a secret memo of May 12, 2025, signed by the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, saying that federal agents do not need a judge’s warrant to force their way into people’s homes.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As Joyce White Vance of Civil Discourse notes, courts have always interpreted that amendment to mean that a judge must sign a warrant to allow law enforcement to break into a home. Now the Department of Homeland Security says it does not need such a judicial warrant, but can simply use an administrative warrant signed by an official at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or ICE if immigrants believed to be inside a home have a final order of removal.

The legal training manual for DHS itself quotes a 1984 Supreme Court decision that “the ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

Immigration law specialist Aaron Reichlin-Melnick noted that this memo is a big deal: it is “the federal government conspiring in secret to subvert the Fourth Amendment.”

Two ICE whistleblowers provided the memo to Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), explaining that they were shown the memo. They suggested that ICE supervisors seemed to understand the order was unlawful, as the supervisors only told agents about the memo rather than sharing a hard copy with them, and that at least one long-time employee resigned rather than be forced to teach material they thought was illegal.

Blumenthal wrote a scathing letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and ICE acting director Lyons noting that the “new policy is based on a secret legal interpretation and is directly contrary to Fourth Amendment law and agency practice.” He demanded to know how many DHS agents had been trained on the memo and where the training had taken place, how many homes had been broken into under the terms of the memo, the legal determination for the memo, and so on.

“Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door & storm into your home,” Blumenthal wrote on social media. “It is an unlawful & morally repugnant policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time. In our democracy, with vanishingly rare exceptions, the government is barred from breaking into your home without approval from a real judge. Government agents have no right to ransack your bedroom or terrorize your kids on a whim or personal desire.”

“I am deeply grateful to brave whistleblowers who have come forward & put the rights of their fellow Americans first,” Blumenthal wrote. “My Republican colleagues who claim to value personal rights against government overreach now have an opportunity & obligation to prove that rhetoric is real.”

Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), who at the beginning of 2025 was considered a moderate on immigration, wrote: “Yeah I am not voting to give whatever ICE has become more taxpayer money. It’s no longer an immigration enforcement arm of the US government.”

Now ICE has landed in Portland and in Lewiston-Auburn, Maine, where it claims to have 1,400 targets for arrest.

Notes:

https://www.startribune.com/preschooler-and-three-other-students-detained-by-ice-school-district-leader-says/601568045

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-school-children-ice-arrests-columbia-heights/

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance
ICE Says It Doesn't Need A Judicial Warrant
It’s been a long time since we took a night off. I honestly can’t remember the last time. But tonight I’m going to turn in early, after a long day. Before I do that, I wanted to flag one development with ICE for you…
Read more

https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d

https://www.thedailynewsonline.com/news/st-paul-police-chief-even-off-duty-cops-are-being-stopped-by-ice-agents/article_17635309-7b92-45ee-8449-0fa5992156e2.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/01/21/ice-homicide-detainee-death-autopsy/

https://www.wired.com/story/ice-detention-network-minnesota-5-states/

The Bulwark
Trump Butchers the Golden Goose
Lots of grim news to chew over today—and plenty more to follow, with Trump on stage in Davos speaking as we send this—but we’d be remiss not to dwell briefly on one pleasant development yesterday: Lindsey Halligan’s long-awaited, embarrassing exit from the post of U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, which took place after a judge told he…
Read more

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371/dhs-ice-memo-1-21-26.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-people-will-soon-be-prosecuted-for-2020-election-outcome

Bluesky:

atrupar.com/post/3mcwuipehy52h

joealv.bsky.social/post/3mcxqw2ajec2a

paleofuture.bsky.social/post/3mcxvaci2e22c

startribune.com/post/3mcy2lqydpp2b

ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3mcxh6lsmhc2t

thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mcxnz3k6k22r

amreports.bsky.social/post/3mcxlw4ijx42p

radiofreetom.bsky.social/post/3mcww67p6ys2s

pingree.house.gov/post/3mcwvlnmq222k

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3mcxq2bwqec2k

blumenthal.senate.gov/post/3mcxo3la65k2d

muellershewrote.com/post/3mcxwt6vbhs2o

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3mcxre4jzu22x

profile/votevets.org/post/3mcxfgh4ezl2u

us-news/2026/jan/21/ice-arrests-five-year-old-boy-minnesota

Share

January 20, 2026

Codeless: From idea to software

Something actually new?

There’s finally been a big leap forward in coding tech unlocked by AI — not just “it’s doing some work for me”, but “we couldn’t do this before”. What’s new are a few smart systems that let coders control fleets of dozens of coding bots, all working in tandem, to swarm over a list of tasks and to deliver entire features, or even entire sets of features, just from a plain-English description of the strategic goal to be accomplished.

This isn’t a tutorial, this is just trying to understand that something cool is happening, and maybe we can figure out what it means, and where it’s going. Lots of new technologies and buzzwords with wacky names like Gas Town and Ralph Wiggum and loops and polecats are getting as much attention as, well, anything since vibe coding. So what’s really going on?

The breakthrough here came from using two familiar ideas in interesting new ways. The first idea is orchestration. Just like cloud computing got massively more powerful when it became routine for coders to be able to control entire fleets of servers, the ability to reliably configure and control entire fleets of coding bots unlocks a much higher scale of capability than any one person could have by chatting with a bot on their own.

The second big idea is resilience. Just like systems got more capable when designers started to assume that components like hard drives would fail, or that networks would lose connection, today’s coders are aware of the worst shortcoming of using LLMs: sometimes they create garbage code. This tendency used to be the biggest shortcoming about using LLMs to create code, but by designing for failure, testing outputs, and iterating rapidly, codeless systems enable a huge advancement in the ultimate reliability of the output code.

The codeless approach also addresses the other huge objection that many coders have to using LLMs for coding. The most common direct objection to using AI tools to assist in coding hasn’t just been the broken code — it’s been the many valid social and ethical concerns around the vendors who build the platforms. But codeless systems are open source, non-commercial, and free to deploy, while making it trivial to swap in alternatives for every part of the stack, including using open source or local options for all or part of the LLM workload. This isn’t software being sold by a Big AI vendor; these are tools being created by independent hackers in the community.

The ultimate result is the ability to create software at scale without directly writing any code, simply by providing strategic direction to a fleet of coding bots. Call it “codeless” software.

Codeless in 10 points

If you’re looking for a quick bullet-point summary, here’s something skimmable:

  1. "Codeless" is a way to describe a new way of orchestrating large numbers of AI coding bots to build software at scale, controlled by a plain-English strategic plan for the bots to follow.
  2. In this approach, you don't write code directly. Instead, you write a plan for the end result or product that you want, and the system directs your bots to build code to deliver that product. (Codeless abstracts away directly writing code just like "serverless" abstracted away directly managing servers.)
  3. This codeless approach is credible because it emerged organically from influential coders who don't work for the Big AI companies, and independent devs are already starting to make it easier and more approachable. It's not a pitch from a big company trying to sell a product, and in fact, codeless tools make it easy to swap out one LLM for another.
  4. Today, codeless tools themselves don't cost anything. The systems are entirely open source, though setting them up can be complicated and take some time. Actually running enough bots to generate all that code gets expensive quickly if you use cutting-edge commercial LLMs, but mixing in some lower-cost open tools can help defray costs. We can also expect that, as this approach gains momentum, more polished paid versions of the tools will emerge.
  5. Many coders didn't like using LLMs to generate code because they hallucinate. Codeless systems assume that the code they generate will be broken sometimes, and handle that failure. Just like other resilient systems assume that hard drives will fail, or that network connections will be unreliable, codeless systems are designed to handle unreliable code.
  6. This has nothing to do with the "no code" hype from years ago, because it's not locked-in to one commercial vendor or one proprietary platform. And codeless projects can be designed to output code that will run on any regular infrastructure, including your existing systems.
  7. Codeless changes power dynamics. People and teams who adopt a codeless approach have the potential to build a lot more under their own control. And those codeless makers won't necessarily have to ask for permission or resources in order to start creating. Putting this power in the hands of those individuals might have huge implications over time, as people realize that they may not have to raise funding or seek out sponsors to build the things that they imagine.
  8. The management and creation interfaces for codeless systems are radically more accessible than many other platforms because they're often controlled by simple plain text Markdown files. This means it's likely that some of the most effective or successful codeless creators could end up being people who have had roles like product managers, designers, or systems architects, not just developers.
  9. Codeless approaches are probably not a great way to take over a big legacy codebase, since they rely on accurately describing an entire problem, which can often be difficult to completely capture. And coding bots may lack sufficient context to understand legacy codebases, especially since LLMs are sometimes weaker with legacy technologies.
  10. In many prior evolutions of coding, abstractions let coders work at higher levels, closer to the problem they were trying to solve. Low-level languages saved coders from having to write assembly language; high-level languages kept coders from having to write code to manage memory. Codeless systems abstract away directly writing code, continuing the long history of letting developers focus more on the problem to be solved than on manually creating every part of the code.

What does software look like when coders stop coding?

As we’ve been saying for some time, for people who actually make and understand technology, the majority AI view is that LLMs are just useful technologies that have their purposes, but we shouldn’t go overboard with all of the absurd hype. We’re seeing new examples of the deep moral failings and social harms of the Big AI companies every day.

Despite this, coders still haven’t completely written off the potential of LLMs. A big reason why coders are generally more optimistic about AI than writers or photographers is because, in creative spaces, AI smothers the human part of the process. But in coding, AI takes over the drudgery, and lets coders focus on the most human and expressive parts.

The shame, then, is that much of the adoption of AI for coding has been in top-down mandates at companies. Rather than enabling innovation, it’s been in deployments designed to undermine their workers’ job security. And, as we’ve seen, this has worked. It’s no wonder that a lot of the research on enterprise use of AI for coding has shown little to no increase in productivity; obviously productivity improvements have not been the goal, much of the time.

Codeless tech has the potential to change that. Putting the power of orchestrating a fleet of coding bots in the hands of a smart and talented coder (or designer! or product manager! or writer! or…) upends a lot of the hierarchy about who’s able to call the shots on what gets created. The size of your nights-and-weekends project might be a lot bigger, the ambitions of your side gig could be a lot more grand.

It’s still early, of course. The bots themselves are expensive as hell if you’re running the latest versions of Claude Code for all of them. Getting this stuff running is hard; you’re bouncing between obscure references to Gas Town on Steve Yegge’s Github, and a bunch of smart posts on Simon Willison’s blog, and sifting through YouTube videos about Ralph Wiggum to see if they’re about the Simpsons or the software.

It’s gonna be like that for a while, a little bit of a mess. But that’s a lot better than Enterprise Certified Cloud AI Engineer, Level II, minimum 11 years LLM experience required. If history is any guide, the entire first wave of implementations will be discarded in favor of more elegant and/or powerful second versions, once we know what we actually want. Build one to throw away. I mean, that’s kind of the spirit of the whole codeless thing, isn’t it?

This could all still sputter out, too. Maybe it’s another fad. I don’t love seeing some of the folks working on codeless tools pivot into asking folks to buy memecoins to support their expensive coding bot habits. The Big AI companies are gonna try to kill it or co-opt it, because tools that reduce the switching cost between LLMs to zero must terrify them.

But for the first time in a long time, this thing feels a little different. It’s emerging organically from people who don’t work for trillion dollar companies. It’s starting out janky and broken and interesting, instead of shiny and polished in a soulless live stream featuring five dudes wearing vests. This is tech made for people who like making things, not tech made for people who are trying to appease financiers. It’s for inventors, not investors.

I truly, genuinely, don’t care if you call it “codeless”; it just needs a name that we can hang on it so people know wtf we’re talking about. I worked backwards from “what could we write on a whiteboard, and everyone would know what we were talking about?” If you point at the diagrams and say, “The legacy code is complicated, so we’re going to do that as usual, but the client apps and mobile are all new, so we could just do those codeless and see how it goes”, people would just sort of nod along and know what you meant, at least vaguely. If you’ve got a better name, have at it.

In the meantime, though, start hacking away. Make something more ambitious than you could do on your own. Sneak an army of bots into work. Build something that you would have needed funding for before, but don’t now. Build something that somebody has made a horrible proprietary version of, and release it for free. Share your Markdown files!

Maybe the distance from idea to app just got a little bit shorter? We're about to find out.

My Conversation with Diarmaid MacCulloch

Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is part of the episode summary:

Tyler and Diarmaid explore whether monotheism correlates with monogamy, Christianity’s early instinct towards egalitarianism, what the Eucharistic revolution reveals about the cathedral building boom, the role of Mary in Christianity and Islam, where Michel Foucault went wrong on sexuality, the significance of the clerical family replacing the celibate monk, why Elizabeth I—not Henry VIII—mattered most for the English Reformation, why English Renaissance music began so brilliantly but then needed to start importing Germans, whether Christianity needs hell to survive, what MacCulloch plans to do next, and more.

Excerpt:

COWEN: There’s a recent rise of interest in theories that attribute the rise of the West to the church banning cousin marriage, that this broke down clan structures. What’s your view of that hypothesis?

MACCULLOCH: It’s, as usual with such hypotheses, far too simple. I don’t see that so at all. Cousin marriages went on being a feature of Christianity, particularly if you’ve got a pope to dispense such marriages in the West. What could one say about such a theory? Clans, families were not broken up by Christianity. By far, the reverse. Those structures did not change very significantly. No, I don’t think that really works at all.

COWEN: Why does Islam so emphasize the sexual desires of women relative to Christianity?

MACCULLOCH: A good question. Because the Quran allows that to happen? The Quran has been interpreted by men when very often what it’s talking about is just people, so that may be one explanation. Islam did remain very much a militarized culture to start with, so it’s almost by definition run by men. There within it, is a powerful set of images for women in the Quran itself. On top of the Quran, there is so much added, and it’s usually added by male societies. So yes and no, really.

There is a constant strain of things one can say about the position of women in Christianity. Women are constantly carving out parts of Christian faith for themselves, against the fact that men are increasingly running the church. That’s a fact of life. Think of the mystics of the medieval West and the way in which so many of them are females. To be a mystic, you don’t need the male language of Latin, the language of the professions, the language of the clergy.

You can explore mysticism without the new invention of men in the 12th century — theology, which is something associated with, first, the cathedral schools and then the universities, both of which are male institutions. But mysticism, no. You can just get on with it. It involves many of the same themes in every religion that turns to mysticism, themes like fire and water, air. The vocabulary of the mystic really is quite universal. It is not restricted to Christianity or Islam or anything. It’s the way that one aspect of humanity works out when it tries to meet the divine.

COWEN: Why is Islam sometimes, at least at the intellectual level, so obsessed with Mary? You can debate whether she was a saint or a prophet. In a way, the role in Christianity is much more circumscribed.

And:

COWEN: Why are there still a fair number of English Catholics, but so few in the Nordic countries?

MACCULLOCH: Now, an interesting question. Lutheranism became much more universal in the Nordic countries. Catholicism did not survive there. The monarchies of these countries were, I think, much more thorough-going in suppressing it. I think the nobility also decided to go over to the Reformation fairly uniformly in Sweden, Norway, Denmark. Of course, it does matter when the nobility make decisions.

In England, they were divided. Quite a lot of the nobility and gentry did stick with the old faith, maybe because they admired many of the bishops of the old church. I did a little work of research on this in my younger days, in which you could see that those gentry who stayed Catholic after the Reformation were often those who had personal ties to the great bishops of the pre-Reformation church.

Yes, the picture is very different in England to that in Scandinavia. Also, remember that extraordinary counter case, the case of Ireland, where the government became Protestant as it did in England, but the great bulk of the population did not go with it. The story of Ireland is a story of the rejection of the religion of the upper classes right through to the present day, when they’ve now rejected so much of Catholicism too. Fascinating different stories next to each other there.

Recommended.

The post My Conversation with Diarmaid MacCulloch appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Snow Buries Kamchatka

A thick layer of white snow blankets the Kamchatka Peninsula. Layers of clouds surround the peninsula, framing it but leaving its coastlines and a narrow portion of ocean visible around it. On land, several large, circular volcanoes dot the rugged landscape.
January 17, 2026

It has been an eventful few months for the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere. An unusually early sudden stratospheric warming episode in late November appears to have factored into a weakened and distorted polar vortex at times in December, likely causing extra waviness in the polar jet stream. This helped fuel extensive intrusions of frigid air into the mid-latitudes, contributing to cold snaps in North America, Europe, and Asia, and priming the atmosphere for disruptive winter storms in January.

Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula has been among the areas hit hard by cold and snowy weather in December and January. More than 2 meters (7 feet) of snow fell in the first two weeks of January, following 3.7 meters in December, according to news reports. Together, these totals make it one of the snowiest periods the peninsula has seen since the 1970s, according to Kamchatka’s Hydrometeorology Center. The onslaught brought Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, the regional capital, to a standstill, with reports of large snowdrifts burying cars and blocking access to buildings and infrastructure.

This image, acquired by the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite, shows fresh snow blanketing the peninsula’s rugged terrain on January 17, 2026. Several circular, snow-covered volcanic peaks are visible across the peninsula, one of the most volcanically active areas in the world. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, home to more than 160,000 people, sits along Avacha Bay—a deep, sheltered bay formed by a combination of tectonic, volcanic, and glacial activity.

NASA Earth Observatory image by Lauren Dauphin, using MODIS data from NASA EOSDIS LANCE and GIBS/Worldview. Story by Adam Voiland.

References & Resources

You may also be interested in:

Stay up-to-date with the latest content from NASA as we explore the universe and discover more about our home planet.

Kamchatka Peaks Pierce the Clouds
3 min read

The peninsula in eastern Siberia features rugged terrain with towering, snow-covered peaks and cloud-filled valleys stretching between the Pacific Ocean…

Article
A Siberian Snowman in Billings
5 min read

Winds, waves, and ice near a remote town on the Chukchi Peninsula have sculpted a series of coastal inshore lagoons…

Article
Fleeting Glimpse of Rare Snow
3 min read

A short-lived storm dropped some of the largest accumulations in decades on Australia’s Northern Tablelands.

Article

The post Snow Buries Kamchatka appeared first on NASA Science.

“When South Morningside Primary School girls football team won the prestigious Edinburgh Schools cup last year, they were presented with a small plastic trophy. It paled into comparison with the large, grand trophy given to the winning boys team…

“Most technologies are like guns. They tend to get aggregated and captured by those who already have a lot. Technology, in other words, generally exhibits preferential attachment to power.”

VIDEO: Josh Marshall and David Kurtz on What the Heck the DOJ Is Up to in Minneapolis

We’re just days out from our first Morning Memo Live event on the weaponization and politicization of the Justice Department under Trump II. To preview the kinds of topics we’ll be digging into, Josh Marshall joined David Kurtz on Substack Live to talk about the aftermath of the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis.

“There’s no longer any independence between the White House and the Justice Department,” David told Josh. “And it’s been made abundantly clear that what the White House says is what goes.”

Join us on Jan. 29 at the National Union Building in Washington, D.C. to talk about what’s going on at Main Justice, Pam Bondi, Trump’s retribution campaign against his political enemies, and where things go from here.

All TPM members should have a special discount code in their inboxes. And 2 for 1 tickets available now at checkout (even for those who already purchased a ticket!).

We’ll see you there.

[Sponsor] Meh

Everything sucks. The whole world’s going to shit, especially our part of it, and it can feel like anything fun or silly is sticking your head in the sand.

And yet. It doesn’t help to just be miserable. If you’re going to last, you’ve got to find your little moments of joy, or at a break from the misery.

Buying our crap at Meh is not how you solve the world’s problems. We’re not that crass. But maybe a minute a day of reading our little write-up, and a couple minutes of catching up with the Meh community, of making a few new online friends, and yes, of occasionally picking up a weird gadget or strange snack you’ve never heard of is just a few minutes you get to take a break, not giving in to how bad everything else is.

Of course we would say that. Of course we benefit from that. But it is also part of why we have a quirky write-up. Why we have a community. Why we’re selling whatever weird thing is over at Meh today.

 ★ 

Gurman Scoops ‘Campos’, Apple’s Codename for a Chatbot-Based Siri in Next Year’s Version 27 OSes

Mark Gurman, at Bloomberg (gift link):

Apple Inc. plans to revamp Siri later this year by turning the digital assistant into the company’s first artificial intelligence chatbot, thrusting the iPhone maker into a generative AI race dominated by OpenAI and Google. [...]

The previously promised, non-chatbot update to Siri — retaining the current interface — is planned for iOS 26.4, due in the coming months. The idea behind that upgrade is to add features unveiled in 2024, including the ability to analyze on-screen content and tap into personal data. It also will be better at searching the web.

The chatbot capabilities will come later in the year, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans are private. The company aims to unveil that technology in June at its Worldwide Developers Conference and release it in September.

Campos, which will have both voice- and typing-based modes, will be the primary new addition to Apple’s upcoming operating systems. The company is integrating it into iOS 27 and iPadOS 27, both code-named Rave, as well as macOS 27, internally known as Fizz.

Apple ought to just go back to calling it “iOS” on both iPhone and iPad, because it’s always been the same system fundamentally. If they really do have the same codename, it sure suggests that Apple’s engineering teams see it that way too.

The reverse course on chatbots is welcome, and I think inevitable. The chat interface is just too useful. One of the most maddening things about Siri is that even when it’s helpful today, even when it gets things right, you can never refer back to previous interactions. I refer back to previous chats in ChatGPT almost every day.

Craig Federighi, senior vice president of software engineering, said in a June interview with Tom’s Guide that releasing a chatbot was never the company’s goal. Apple didn’t want to send users “off into some chat experience in order to get things done,” he said.

I quote this paragraph only to point out that Gurman/Bloomberg could have, but chose not to, link to the interview with Federighi (and Joz) at Tom’s Guide. Every single link in the article goes to another page at bloomberg.com.

The iOS 26.4 update of Siri, the one before the true chatbot, will rely on a Google-developed system internally known as Apple Foundation Models version 10. That software will operate at 1.2 trillion parameters, a measure of AI complexity. Campos, however, will significantly surpass those capabilities. The chatbot will run a higher-end version of the custom Google model, comparable to Gemini 3, that’s known internally as Apple Foundation Models version 11.

In a potential policy shift for Apple, the two partners are discussing hosting the chatbot directly on Google servers running powerful chips known as TPUs, or tensor processing units. The more immediate Siri update, in contrast, will operate on Apple’s own Private Cloud Compute servers, which rely on high-end Mac chips for processing.

A policy shift indeed, if that comes to pass.

 ★ 

More From The Verge: ‘What a Sony and TCL Partnership Means for the Future of TVs’

John Higgins, The Verge (gift link):

As of today, Sony already relies on different manufacturing partners to create its TV lineup. While display panel manufacturers never reveal who they sell panels to, Sony is likely already using panels for its LCD TVs from TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology (CSOT), in addition to OLED panels from LG Display and Samsung Display. With this deal, a relationship between Sony and TCL CSOT LCD panels is guaranteed (although I doubt this would affect CSOT selling panels to other manufacturers). And with TCL CSOT building a new OLED facility, there’s a potential future in which Sony OLEDs will also get panels from TCL. Although I should point out that we’re not sure yet if the new facility will have the ability to make TV-sized OLED panels, at least to start.

The gist I take from this is that Sony is already dependent upon TCL. I think the mistake Sony made was ever ceding ownership and control over their display technology.

There’s some concern from fans that this could lead to a Sharp, Toshiba, or Pioneer situation where the names are licensed and the TVs produced are a shell of what the brands used to represent. I don’t see this happening with Sony. While the electronics side of the business hasn’t been as strong as in the past, Sony — and Bravia — is still a storied brand. It would take a lot for Sony to completely step aside and allow another company to slap its name on an inferior product. And based on TCL’s growth and technological improvements over the past few years, and the shrinking gap between premium and midrange TVs, I don’t expect Sony TVs will suffer from a partnership with TCL.

I’m heartened by Higgins’s optimism. (And I’ve heard good things already from DF readers who own TCL TVs.)

 ★ 

Sony’s TV Business Is Being Taken Over by TCL

Jess Weatherbed, at The Verge:

Sony has announced plans to spin off its TV hardware business, shifting it to a new joint venture with TCL. The two companies have signed a non-binding agreement for Sony’s home entertainment business, with TCL set to hold a 51 percent stake in the new venture and Sony holding 49 percent. [...]

The new company is expected to retain “Sony” and “Bravia” branding for its future products and will handle global operations from product development and design to manufacturing, sales, and logistics for TVs and home audio equipment.

I’ve only ever purchased three main TVs in my life. The first was a 32-inch Sony Trinitron CRT, like this one. Might have even been exactly that model — that sure looks like it. I bought it in 1999 at a Best Buy. One of the last curved Trinitrons ever made. For CRTs I always kind of liked a slight curve — flat CRTs never looked quite right to me. It weighed like 150 pounds and came in a very big box. My now-wife and I had just moved into a fourth-floor walk-up. I remember bringing it home. I’d always wanted a Sony TV, and this one confirmed my lifelong desire to own one. It was great. I introduced my son to video games on that TV.

We replaced it in 2008 with a 50-inch plasma from Pioneer that cost about $2,100. It was only 720p but I’d worked out the math for our then-living room viewing distance, and the math said 1080p wouldn’t make a noticeable difference for a 50-inch screen from our sofa distance. That Pioneer is one of the most beloved purchases I’ve ever made in my life. Just remarkable color. We still have that thing in our guest room. Sony wasn’t even in the running for that purchase. They sold Sony-branded plasma TV for a while but never made their own panels, and as I recall, no one with taste recommended them. What made Sony TVs Sony TVs back in the day was that they made their own CRTs, and they were the best. (All of my favorite CRT computer monitors had Trinitron tubes, as I recall.)

In 2020 we bought our current TV, a 77-inch 4K OLED from LG that cost about $5,000 at the time. I’ll go to my grave believing that plasma looks better than OLED when watching movies in a dark room, but overall, LG’s super-bright OLED looks fantastic. And it’s big as hell, which I love. Sony was at least in the running when I shopped for this, but they didn’t have anything that compared to this LG’s size and quality. It wasn’t a hard decision to rule Sony out. (This history also means I’m likely to go to my grave never having owned a 1080p TV, nor an LCD TV.)

So, I’m sad to see Sony selling control of their TV business to TCL. But I think the writing has been on the wall for decades. Sony TVs haven’t been the Sony TVs of yore for a very long time.

Update: John Siracusa tells me I need to run a retraction — he even used an exclamation mark — on the grounds that Sony Bravia models have won “best TV in the world” awards several years running, including 2025 for the Bravia 8 II. I’m happy to retract, and glad Sony has regained its place at or near the top of the industry in recent years. I hope they stay there.

 ★ 

Pass@k is Mostly Bunk

Pass@k is Mostly Bunk

Exponentially better results? I'll take three!

Measuring the success of AI agents isn’t easy. It’s very sensitive to what success means, it can require a lot of samples, its highly context sensitive. Generally hard. So it doesn’t help that one of the most common metrics used for agents is (mostly) bunk. I’m talking about pass@k.

What is pass@k? It’s the probability that at least one of k different attempts will succeed. A six-sided die, where pass means rolling a 6, has a pass@3 of 45% and a pass@10 of 83%. A D20 has a pass@25 of 72%, and a pass@100 of 99.4%.

99.4%! What a great evaluation result! Clearly the model is doing something meaningful and useful! No, it’s doing something meaningful and useful 5% of the time.

The problem with pass@k is that’s exponentially forgiving. There’s a value of k, a fairly low one generally, that can make anything look good. Here’s that six-sided die again:

Humans interacting with agents aren’t nearly that forgiving. They, in general, aren’t saying “well, I tried 10 times and it worked once, so I’m happy”. They’re saying “I tried 10 times and it only worked once, what a piece of junk”. They’re also doing multiple steps, and only happy when they all work. Exponentially unforgiving (for which pass^k is a much better metric).

Why only mostly bunk? There are cases, where tasks are simple, evaluators are reliable, and humans are out of the loop, that the idea of getting exponentially better success rate with linear additional cost is good. I’ve made a similar argument about distributed systems in the past. But these tasks aren’t ubiquitous. Pass@k should be a metric that’s rarely used, and carefully justified every time it is used.

If we’re going to drive the field of agentic AI forward, we need to keep ourselves honest on metrics.

Footnotes

  1. It’s mildly interesting how none of the image generation models reliably generate images of legal dice.

Internet Voting is Too Insecure for Use in Elections

No matter how many times we say it, the idea comes back again and again. Hopefully, this letter will hold back the tide for at least a while longer.

Executive summary: Scientists have understood for many years that internet voting is insecure and that there is no known or foreseeable technology that can make it secure. Still, vendors of internet voting keep claiming that, somehow, their new system is different, or the insecurity doesn’t matter. Bradley Tusk and his Mobile Voting Foundation keep touting internet voting to journalists and election administrators; this whole effort is misleading and dangerous.

I am one of the many signatories.

Why I Hate Flopping

When I first started playing basketball, there was no flopping. It didn’t exist. I never saw it. I never even heard it mentioned.

Flops back then were on Broadway. Not in Madison Square Garden.

But nowadays, the flop is as common on the hardwood as three-point shots and goofy mascots. Just lay a finger on a NBA star, and he drops like a bowling pin.

Here’s what it looks like:

I hear people claim that flopping existed in the NBA back in the 1960s—but they can’t actually produce film footage to prove it. Sure, players tried to get fouls called in their favor, and would lie and cheat if necessary. But they would never engage in the theatrical pratfalls of today.

A flopper would have been mocked endlessly, even by teammates. Anyone who continued making these slapstick falls would get laughed out of the league.


Please support my work by taking out a premium subscription (just $6 per month—or less).

Subscribe now


That’s because the ethos in sports was the exact opposite of flopping. Athletes were expected to act as if they were immune to pain. No matter how hard you got hit, you shook it off as if you’d been caressed with a feather duster.

You did this to intimidate your opponent.

You sent a message that you were tougher than them. Nothing they did could stop you.

The ideal was football star Jim Brown. “You get up the same each time so that the enemy don’t know when you’re hurt,” he later explained. “It gives you an advantage. It’s that simple.”

But it wasn’t just Jim Brown. I saw the same macho attitude in Earl Campbell, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, and other NFL stars. The same was true in the NBA back then. Players like Wilt and Kareem always kept a poker face, never revealing any pain or hint of weakness.

Did Michael Jordan ever flop? Check out this video.

Read more

NASA to end support for planetary science groups

NASA is ending financial support for several planetary science groups as part of a broader drawdown of the agency’s advisory structure.

The post NASA to end support for planetary science groups appeared first on SpaceNews.

Blue Origin plans bespoke high-speed Starlink rival

Blue Origin aims to start deploying more than 5,400 satellites from late next year for its own Starlink broadband competitor, targeting up to 6 Tbps capacity for enterprise, data center and government customers.

The post Blue Origin plans bespoke high-speed Starlink rival appeared first on SpaceNews.

The Exploration Company in talks to acquire Orbex

Orbex Prime

The Exploration Company is in talks to acquire Orbex, the U.K.-based small launch vehicle developer that has reportedly been in financial distress.

The post The Exploration Company in talks to acquire Orbex appeared first on SpaceNews.

Starfish Space wins SDA contract to deorbit satellites

Otter

Starfish Space has won a contract from the Space Development Agency to deorbit satellites in a missile-tracking and communications constellation, evidence that deorbiting services are moving into the mainstream.

The post Starfish Space wins SDA contract to deorbit satellites appeared first on SpaceNews.

Accelerating digital transformation is the keystone to deterring space war

The United States cannot beat China without accelerating digital transformation: cloud-native services, edge computing, AI/ML-driven autonomy, software-defined payloads, zero-trust cybersecurity, network maneuver and automated DevSecOps pipelines. Digital transformation drives the pace at which militaries convert data into decisions, and decision dominance enables proactive deterrence.  Choices made today about software, data, resilience and partnerships will therefore […]

The post Accelerating digital transformation is the keystone to deterring space war appeared first on SpaceNews.

U.S. vulnerable to Russian escalation in space, new report warns

Atlantic Council report urges shift toward resilient satellite architectures to blunt potential Russian attacks

The post U.S. vulnerable to Russian escalation in space, new report warns appeared first on SpaceNews.

Wednesday 21 January 1662/63

Up early leaving my wife very ill in bed … [de ses Mois – L&M] and to my office till eight o’clock, there coming Ch. Pepys1 to demand his legacy of me, which I denied him upon good reason of his father and brother’s suing us, and so he went away. Then came Commissioner Pett, and he and I by agreement went to Deptford, and after a turn or two in the yard, to Greenwich, and thence walked to Woolwich. Here we did business, and I on board the Tangier-merchant, a ship freighted by us, that has long lain on hand in her despatch to Tangier, but is now ready for sailing. Back, and dined at Mr. Ackworth’s, where a pretty dinner, and she a pretty, modest woman; but above all things we saw her Rocke, —[?? D.W.]— which is one of the finest things done by a woman that ever I saw. I must have my wife to see it. After dinner on board the Elias, and found the timber brought by her from the forest of Deane to be exceeding good. The Captain gave each of us two barrels of pickled oysters put up for the Queen mother.

So to the Dock again, and took in Mrs. Ackworth and another gentlewoman, and carried them to London, and at the Globe tavern, in Eastcheap, did give them a glass of wine, and so parted. I home, where I found my wife ill in bed all day, and her face swelled with pain. My Will has received my last two quarters salary, of which I am glad. So to my office till late and then home, and after the barber had done, to bed.

Footnotes

Read the annotations

SpaceX launches first West Coast Starlink mission of 2026

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifts off from Space Launch Complex 4 East at Vandenberg Space Force Base on Jan. 21, 2026, to begin the Starlink 17-30 mission. Image: SpaceX

Update Jan. 21 2:20 a.m. EST (0720 UTC): SpaceX confirms deployment of the 25 Starlink satellites.

SpaceX launched its first West Coast Starlink mission of the year to send its satellites into a polar low Earth orbit. 

The Starlink 17-30 mission adds 25 Starlink V2 Mini Optimized satellites to the company’s megaconstellation. This was SpaceX’s sixth Starlink mission so far in 2026.

Liftoff from Space Launch Complex 4 East at Vandenberg Space Force Base happened at 9:47:29 p.m. PST (12:47:29 a.m. EST / 0547:29 UTC). The rocket flew on a southerly trajectory upon leaving the pad.

SpaceX launched the mission using the Falcon 9 first stage booster with the tail number 1093. This was its 10th flight after launching two flights for the Space Development Agency and seven previous batches of Starlink satellites.

A little more than eight minutes after liftoff, B1093 landed on the drone ship, ‘Of Course I Still Love You,’ positioned in the Pacific Ocean. This was the 172nd landing on this vessel and the 562nd orbital booster landing for SpaceX.

Cost Savings

Unfortunately, my scheme to trick NASA has now taken over a decade longer than planned and has run way over budget.

Links 1/21/26

Links for you. Science:

Ideological bias in the production of research findings
Sweeping cuts are being made to the US childhood vaccine schedule
The golden age of vaccine development
Rotavirus Could Come Roaring Back—Very Soon. A leading vaccine expert on what the country’s newly overhauled immunization schedule means for children
Convergence and global molecular epidemiology of Klebsiella pneumoniae plasmids harbouring the iuc3 virulence locus: a population genomic analysis
Interim Safety of RSVpreF Vaccination During Pregnancy

Other:

ICE is not the victim
Thought and its vicissitudes. Reflections on some deadlocks in contemporary culture
America Doesn’t Need ICE
Is It Good Politics to Defend a Harmless Woman Getting Shot in the Face?
How Hard Is It To Oppose Murder?
ICE Agents Filmed Cheering and Giving Each Other Pats on the Back While Mother of Three Bleeds to Death
America’s Worst Humans
Gov. Jared Polis considers clemency for Tina Peters as he begins final year in office in Colorado (Polis sucks)
Trump will now try erasing Renee Nicole Good’s humanity
One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against Trump
Guys Win: Andrew Tate, Rape Politics, and the Authoritarian Right
Doing The Fucking News
Why would anyone trust a news organization that treats obvious truths as debatable?
The Mad King’s Madness Deepens
“Liberal New Yorkers Who Are Privately Republican” Are Still Freaking Out About Mamdani
Silicon Valley Billionaires Panic Over California’s Proposed Wealth Tax
Minnesota Senator ‘Disgusted’ By Kristi Noem Trying To ‘Gaslight’ People About ICE Shooting
Mamdani’s First Week
Trump’s War on Wind Power Has One Very Big Exception
With Democratic Support, Senate Confirms Trump’s Tenth Louisiana District Court Judge (he refused to answer questions about whether the election was stolen and the insurrection)
Homicides in Philadelphia drop to lowest level in 60 years
Kennedy Weakens U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
The Big Olowski Has Left the Building. Lew Olowski, the State Department’s wacky, polarizing head of H.R., is said to have imploded at his farewell party when he learned that he wasn’t getting a coveted assignment.
Police dispute ICE’s account of Glen Burnie shooting, as Minneapolis raises more questions
The New Food Pyramid, Brought to You by Big Meat
I Am a Disappointed Zohran Mamdani Voter Who Was Told New York Would Descend into Chaos
Handing Out Free Tickets, Mamdani Says Theater Should Not Be ‘a Luxury’
CNC, LSD, and AGI
Washington National Opera Is Leaving the Kennedy Center
In ICE’s Own Words, It’s “Wartime” in America

Japan’s bond-market tremble reflects a fiscal-monetary clash

As investors worry about budgetary laxity, the central bank prepares for more rate hikes

Hey, AI image generators!

Just for future reference, I am left-handed…also note I play tennis and baseball with my right hand, however, should that ever arise as an issue.  (In basketball I am left-handed, though.)  I’ve never quite understood that, but there you go.

The post Hey, AI image generators! appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Sectoral shifts in supply, wartime agriculture edition

It is all the more remarkable, then, that within six years Britain’s agricultural output had transformed, more profoundly and at a faster pace than any time since the start of the Industrial Revolution.  The most urgent need was to provide a substitute for all that previously imported foreign wheat.  In 1939, Britain only had 11.8 million acres of suitable land under the plough, compared to 17.3 million acres of grass and pastureland.  Four years later those figures had been almost exactly reversed — to 17.3 million and 11.4 million acres respectively.  The amount of tillage soil devoted to wheat had doubled.  Just over 4.2 million harvested tons of wheat, barley and oats had become 7.6 million tons.  By 1943 the potato crop was almost twice as big as it had been in 1939.  Less pastureland meant fewer animals, and so a veritable massacre on pork and poultry farms ensued.  By 1943 there were almost 30 million fewer British chickens and 2.2 million fewer pigs than pre-war numbers.  Cows were spared — but strictly for milk production, not beef.

That is from the new and excellent book by Alan Allport, Advance Britannia: The Epic Story of the Second World War, 1942-1945.

The post Sectoral shifts in supply, wartime agriculture edition appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Links 1/20/26

Links for you. Science:

Anti-Aging Injection Regrows Knee Cartilage and Prevents Arthritis
Novel genes arise from genomic deletions across the bacterial tree of life
Federal health officials slash recommended childhood vaccinations under Trump’s directive
Rarefaction is better than robust Aitchison PCA and other compositional data analysis methods at controlling for uneven sequencing effort
He Helped Cities Anticipate Damage From Storms
Deepest-ever fish filmed at a depth of 8,336 metres

Other:

The physical weight of Trumpism. That heaviness you feel, that drag on your mental health, that drain on your emotional energy and lethargy in the face of world events, like yesterday, is real.
As I Told Everyone Who Would Listen 20 Years Ago
The killing in Minnesota (“They will lie about you and then kill you and they will kill you and then lie about you.”)
Living in the Lie. And How Not To
By Killing Renee Good, ICE Sent a Message to Us All
Elon Musk’s X must be banned
Donald Trump’s Degenerate Plans for Greenland
DHS Officer Seen on Video Kicking Memorial Candle for Renee Nicole Good, Woman Killed by ICE: ‘Don’t Give a F—‘ (notable because it’s People magazine)
Trump plans to make his ballroom addition as tall as the White House itself
Trump allies are handing out cash to black voters
If You’re Still Nothing But Incandescent Rage Over Minneapolis ICE Murder, Come Sit By Us. Let’s talk about channeling that rage!
House GOP prioritizes Trump’s changes to showerheads
RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Schedule Endgame. How the health secretary finally abandoned pretexts in reducing the number of shots U.S. children receive.
ICE agent was not in the vehicle’s path when he fired at driver, video shows
Trumpism was always going to lead to a tragedy like the Minneapolis ICE shooting
Renee Good’s killer can and must be prosecuted
Grok’s AI Sexual Abuse Didn’t Come Out of Nowhere
Inside ICE’s Tool to Monitor Phones in Entire Neighborhoods
First the Shooting. Then the Lies. The Trump administration has perfected the smear campaign.
Woman killed by ICE agent in Minneapolis was a mother of 3, poet and new to the city
The Minority Whip
Minneapolis ICE murder is Trump’s Waterloo in America’s war for the truth
Healthcare cuts hit over 20,000 D.C. residents
Washington D.C.’s Stockpile of Old Offices Makes It a Mecca for Housing Conversions
Trump may take over D.C.’s golf courses. Black golfers are especially worried.
Kennedy Center renaming triggers backlash
Your water bill could soon go up. Here’s why.
Democratic state AGs will lead opposition to Trump in new year
Locals wanted to rebuild Pacific Palisades, Altadena. Then the big investors moved in
Trump Posted Unpublished Jobs Data Early on Social Media

Webb reveals a planetary nebula with phenomenal clarity, and it is spectacular

The Helix Nebula is one of the most well-known and commonly photographed planetary nebulae because it resembles the "Eye of Sauron." It is also one of the closest bright nebulae to Earth, located approximately 655 light-years from our Solar System.

You may not know what this particular nebula looks like when reading its name, but the Hubble Space Telescope has taken some iconic images of it over the years. And almost certainly, you'll recognize a photograph of the Helix Nebula, shown below.

Like many objects in astronomy, planetary nebulae have a confusing name, since they are formed not by planets but by stars like our own Sun, though a little larger. Near the end of their lives, these stars shed large amounts of gas in an expanding shell that, however briefly in cosmological time, put on a grand show.

Read full article

Comments

Wednesday assorted links

1. Seb Krier.  Put your LLMs in dialogue with each other.

2. Cows use tools (NYT).

3. Choctaw Hayride.

4. Finland will be switching off its last remaining landlines.

5. Scepticism about the UK productivity comeback.

6. “In one of his final acts in office, Gov. Philip D. Murphy signed a bill on Monday requiring third, fourth and fifth graders to learn cursive.” (NYT, why?)

The post Wednesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

He Left OpenAI To Think Bigger - EP 53 Jerry Tworek

On January 5th, famed AI researcher Jerry Tworek stunned world+dog by announcing his departure from OpenAI. A few days later, he hopped over to the Core Memory podcast studio for his not-so-formal exit interview.

Tworek joined OpenAI in 2019 when the research lab was a research lab and had about thirty employees. He went on to work on many of OpenAI’s most consequential products, including the company’s reasoning technology, which ushered in a new era for the entire AI field. (Yes, Tworek worked on Q* before it was Strawberry before it was o1.)

Subscribe now

Both Kylie and I have been longtime Tworek fans. He’s smart, funny and never really sought the limelight despite his massive contributions.

In the episode, Tworek reveals that he found it hard to keep doing high-risk, pioneering work at OpenAI as the company shifted toward what Tworek describes as more conservative ways. He, in fact, thinks the large AI companies have become conservative as a whole and that there might be bigger, better ideas to be found elsewhere.

He’s not sure what he’ll do next, but we make a strong case that Poland should back its native son with a massive GPU cluster and let him cook.

Subscribe now

The Core Memory podcast is on all major platforms and on our YouTube channel over here. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review and tell your friends.

This podcast is sponsored by Brex, the intelligent finance platform built to help companies spend smarter and move faster.

We run on Brex and so should you. Learn more about Brex right here.

The podcast is also made possible by E1 Ventures, which backs the most ambitious founders (probably some peptide users) and start-ups.

Share

MAGA Delusions of Economic Leverage

We’ll keep doing this until you give us Greenland

I hope that Trump’s threat to impose escalating tariffs on European countries if they don’t hand over Greenland will finally bury “TACO Trump” wishful thinking. For TACO Trump was always based on a belief that, on some level, Trump is rational: that when the disastrous consequences of his actions hit, he backs down.

But it’s now undeniable that Trump is completely irrational. No, his obsessive thirst for Greenland isn’t about national security. Under the NATO alliance, the U.S. already had liberty to do what it wanted strategically. And as withVenezuela, any mineral deposits that Greenland possesses may be too expensive to extract to be investible.

Trump himself has told us what’s going on: he’s throwing a temper tantrum over not receiving a Nobel Peace Prize — not how he put it, but that was the gist of his text to Norway’s prime minister. And there’s no reason to disbelieve him, even though Scott Bessent says that quoting Trump’s own words is a “complete canard.”

True, beating the drum about Greenland serves multiple other purposes: deflecting attention from Renee Good’s murder, the Epstein files, and his sagging poll ratings; humiliating the Europeans, who he hates for their decency and strong democracies; and getting another testosterone rush from flexing American military muscle. But it’s mostly just a tantrum.

However, we can say something about the likely effects of his attempt to coerce Europe with tariffs — namely, that it won’t work. Only in Trump’s fantasies does American possess huge economic leverage over Europe. To the extent that we have any leverage over them, it’s matched by the leverage they have over us.

Allow me to explain. The starting point for any discussion of Trump’s tariff threats should be the observation that tariffs are a tax on U.S. consumers and businesses, not foreigners.

That’s what economists believed before Trump started his tariff spree; the results of his tariffs show that they were right. Foreign producers have not, contrary to Trump’s predictions, absorbed the tariffs by significantly cutting the prices they were charging U.S. customers.

This is clear when one looks at data on average import prices. For example, in 2025 the average tariff on goods imported from China went from 11 percent to 37 percent, but the average price the U.S. was paying for those goods fell only slightly, less than 3 percent.

And a new study from the Kiel Institute for World Economics offers a more precise estimate based on detailed trade data: in 2025, foreigners absorbed only 4 percent of the cost of Trump’s tariffs. This means that Americans are paying 96 percent of the cost of the tariffs.

So Trump’s imposition of tariffs on European nations that have sent troops to Greenland is basically a declaration that he will punish American consumers and businesses until Europe gives him what he wants.

But won’t Europe be hurt by loss of U.S. export markets? Maybe, but not by much. The European economy is huge — almost as big, in dollar terms, as the U.S. economy — and doesn’t depend crucially on the U.S. market. It’s worth noting that very high US tariffs on China haven’t appeared to slow China’s economic growth at all.

Furthermore, if America and Europe get into a trade war, U.S. companies will be hit as hard as European companies. That’s because America sells almost as much to Europe as Europe sells to America:

A graph of a trade with blue and orange squares

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

More precisely, U.S. producers sell about 8 dollars’ worth of goods and services to Europe for every 9 dollars’ worth of European sales to America. And even that small asymmetry is largely a statistical illusion caused by leprechaun economics: Irish subsidiaries of U.S. companies, especially pharmaceutical producers, charge their parent companies inflated prices so as to shift reported profits to Ireland, which has a lower corporate tax rate.

Now, you may be tempted to dismiss concerns about European retaliation, claiming that European leaders are weak and timid. That’s surely what Trump thinks, and it has been true in the past. But is it still true? The reason Trump is imposing tariffs on eight European countries is that they dared to send troops to Greenland to forestall a possible U.S. invasion — a pretty gutsy move.

Or look at the way Europe has completely replaced the United States in supporting Ukraine:

Source: Ukraine Support Tracker

Beyond the fact that Europe is toughening up militarily, it has the capacity to be tough, acting in unity, in international trade. Individual European countries don’t choose their own tariff rates: The European Commission sets tariffs for the EU as a whole.

Furthermore, the EU has a procedure — the Anti-Coercion Instrument — designed to allow the rapid imposition of serious sanctions against any nation that tries to use economic pressure “to pressure the European Union or an EU Member State into making a particular choice.” This instrument, nicknamed the trade bazooka, was designed with China in mind, but it obviously applies to the United States right now, as Trump tries to use tariffs to force European nations to acquiesce in his Greenland land grab.

In fact, the legal basis for stiff European retaliation against the U.S. looks infinitely stronger than the legal basis for Trump’s tariffs. But the Supreme Court keeps emboldening Trump by repeatedly delaying a ruling on the legality of hisinvocation of emergency powers to impose most of his tariffs. At this point the Court’s cowardice is unmistakable; the justices’ robes must be drenched in flop sweat.

It’s possible, of course, that Europe will fail to use the power it has. TACO Trump is wishful thinking, but Europe has often chickened out in the past. The predicament Europeans find themselves in now is the result of their previous lack of resolve. And the next time around will only be worse.

So hopefully Europe has learned its lesson with Trump. Because if it has, Trump’s bullying won’t go the way he expects.

MUSICAL CODA

How about some European music?

Electricity use of AI coding agents

Electricity use of AI coding agents

Previous work estimating the energy and water cost of LLMs has generally focused on the cost per prompt using a consumer-level system such as ChatGPT.

Simon P. Couch notes that coding agents such as Claude Code use way more tokens in response to tasks, often burning through many thousands of tokens of many tool calls.

As a heavy Claude Code user, Simon estimates his own usage at the equivalent of 4,400 "typical queries" to an LLM, for an equivalent of around $15-$20 in daily API token spend. He figures that to be about the same as running a dishwasher once or the daily energy used by a domestic refrigerator.

Via Hacker News

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, ai-ethics, ai-energy-usage, coding-agents, claude-code

Giving University Exams in the Age of Chatbots

Giving University Exams in the Age of Chatbots

Detailed and thoughtful description of an open-book and open-chatbot exam run by Ploum at École Polytechnique de Louvain for an "Open Source Strategies" class.

Students were told they could use chatbots during the exam but they had to announce their intention to do so in advance, share their prompts and take full accountability for any mistakes they made.

Only 3 out of 60 students chose to use chatbots. Ploum surveyed half of the class to help understand their motivations.

Via lobste.rs

Tags: education, ai, generative-ai, llms, ai-ethics

Submarine Cable Maps from 2013 to 2025

From May 2025: a blog post from TeleGeography looking back at their annual maps of submarine cables, which they’ve been putting out since at least 2013, and with a different design each year (here’s my… More

Al Sweigart's Python books are available for free

I saw someone online today saying they enjoyed Python Programming Exercises, Gently Explained.

I went to the author’s site and I saw that he makes all of his books (Automate the Boring Stuff with Python and more) available for free at https://inventwithpython.com/. I’d heard of his books many times before but I didn’t realize that he made them available on his site like that!

I’m Al Sweigart, and I write books to teach beginners to code. I put them online for free because programming is too valuable and needs to be accessible to all.

I always think it’s so cool when authors do that, another example is Mark Dominus’s Higher Order Perl

Resources for upgrading Django

I asked for advice about upgrading Django on Mastodon yesterday and people shared a couple of links I want to remember for the next time I want to upgrade. (a big part of the reason I started this TIL blog is that I have no system for saving bookmarks other than to publish them to this blog :))

How will the Army build AI and robotics expertise in uniform?

 The US armed services have an unusual labor market.  Most soldiers, sailers, airmen and now space forcers join the military pretty much right out of high school, either directly, or in college ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps), or in one of the military academies.  Two exceptions are lawyers and doctors, who can join as officers without prior military experience (i.e. they can become officers without ever having learned how to salute).

Now that computer science of various sorts is entering warfare, cyber warriors are also needed.  But there's only so much you can do with contractors and consultants.  

This month, the Army is introducing a new career path for officers:

Army establishes new AI, machine learning career path for officers 

"The U.S. Army has established a new career pathway for officers to specialize in artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML), formally designating the 49B AI/ML Officer as an official area of concentration. It advances the Army's ongoing transformation into a data-centric and AI-enabled force.

Full implementation of the new career field will be phased. The first selection of officers will occur through the Army's Volunteer Transfer Incentive Program (VTIP) beginning January 2026. The officers will be reclassified by the end of fiscal year 2026."

#########

And here's another report that indicates that some CS experts have also been laterally recruited into the officer corps.

 Army creates AI career field, pathway for officers to join

"In June, the Army directly commissioned several tech executives with artificial intelligence backgrounds from companies such as Meta and Palantir as lieutenant colonels as part of its Executive Innovation Corps (EIC). Those executives serve in the reserves as “senior advisors,” the Army said. 

Gaza Exposes the Reality Behind Trump’s Claims of Global Peace

Trump’s “Board of Peace” and the Human Cost of Running Nations

Even as we struggle to fully understand Donald Trump’s rapacious need to “run”  Venezuela and to threaten control of Greenland, Cuba and Colombia, we have the murky stew that is Gaza still before us.

Trump has taken many bows for bringing “the dawn of long-term peace” to the Middle East, as he insists on retelling us at every opportunity. He was named the head of the “Board of Peace” to make conflict disappear, to disarm Hamas, to bring about restoration of a life for Gazans and security for Israel.

Trump is in charge — by his own hand and by invitation of Gulf nations and Israel. So, how’s it going? If Venezuela and the other international conflicts for which Trump credits himself are to be a success, wouldn’t we see it in Gaza first? Might we get an idea of what it means for Trump to “run,” “own,” or otherwise take responsibility for whole countries by seeing things work in Gaza?

Three months or more after announcing lasting peace, we still have chaos in Gaza. Hamas fighters still have weapons and are said to be re-arming, and it has refused to return the body of a remaining dead hostage. Israel has bisected Gaza into an occupied zone, with hundreds of trucks a day bringing in food and medicine. And prospects of  normality amid devastation are iffy at best. Gazan civilians remain cold, hungry and under siege from both sides.

Despite “ceasefire,” hundreds of Hamas fighters have been killed in the last two months, Israeli bombs nearly daily, and the Israeli government is extending provocative settlement land grabs in the West Bank, threatening Iran, and skirmishing in Syria and Lebanon. No other nation wants to send ground troops to disarm Hamas, and inside the Israeli government, the right-wingers are calling for renewed war.

Despite a Trump administration eagerness for progress on  postwar plans, there is little to show.

The Board of Peace Appointments

This week’s news was that Trump named his supervising Board of Peace, a group meant to choose a “technocratic” Palestinian government with no one from Hamas, and its main supporting committees. The names included mostly Americans, including Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump pal Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Mario Rubio, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s president, Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, representatives from Qatar and Egypt, and possibly Canadian and Argentine leaders.

Stretching credulity, the Kremlin reported that Vladimir Putin had been offered an invitation to join this Board of Peace, CNC said.  In fact, Trump is offering to invite other countries to a permanent seat – if they pay a billion dollars in cash in the first year, according to a draft of the board’s charter reviewed by The New York Times.

Nickolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian former envoy to the Middle East, was chosen as a kind of director-general, a link between the Board of Peace and a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which does include Palestinians. Mladenov will support the board’s oversight of all aspects of Gaza’s governance, reconstruction, and development, said The Jerusalem Post.

It is unclear who exactly will address health, social services, education, housing, agriculture and food– foundational building blocks or how an interim government would work.

There was one Israeli businessman included on one committee, but no Board of Peace seat for Israel or Gaza, and there is no one from the Palestinian Authority – a strange way to set up for a post-Hamas era with “lasting peace.”.

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu was angry enough to make public his displeasure with the omission and with the inclusion of Erdogan, not a supporter of Israel, or even a consultation with him. Netanyahu is dealing with ministers in his own government who want to denude Gaza of Palestinians and start Jewish settlements there.

Axios reported that Trump’s advisers have little patience for Netanyahu’s objections, quoting a senior White House official as saying, “This is our show, not his show. We managed to do things in Gaza in recent months nobody thought was possible, and we are going to continue moving.”

Appointment of the board was the official start of “Phase 2,” despite fact that Phase 1 never was completed. No country wants its ground troops used to force promised disarmament of Hamas.

What’s the Real Goal?

Without progress by this Board of Peace, the Middle East wars will resume, of course.

The Board of Peace activity is being dictated by the Trump White House, which clearly cares more about creating a “Riviera of the Middle East” in Gaza than a safe nation for Palestinians, whom Trump has invited to leave, and Israel’s security.

More broadly, when Trump talks about Venezuela, he talks about its oil resources as if that is the country. He does not address street violence or food and medicine shortages or the inability to make a living. Indeed, Trump continues to deport Venezuelans from America, the very Venezuelans he insists are criminals, mental patients and drug-smugglers.

Maybe we all could agree that this Trump view of countries without concern about their people is at least strange, if not dangerous.

Meanwhile, has Trump and his newfound friends in what remains of the Nicolás Maduro regime moved against drug cartels or stopped the smuggling that Trump had insisted was rampant and state-sponsored? Has the White House “running” of Venezuela included any moves against outlaw gangs and paramilitary roaming bands? For that matter, has any of the sale of seized oil from tankers leaving Venezuela helped buy food or medicines?

What Gaza tells us is that Trump’s measure of success being set for “peace” has little to do with the fate of the people who live there or even those living directly across an arbitrary and moving border. What Gaza does tell us is that “running” a country for Trump means keeping power for its own sake, but not towards achieving a goal that satisfies Palestinians, Israelis, or anyone but business developers.

Trump’s measure of success is about cash and business – again – and not democracy, security or the ability of the affected people to thrive.


OUR INDEPENDENT FREE VOICE NEEDS YOU SUPPORT. PLEASE CONSIDER A DONATION TODAY.

The post Gaza Exposes the Reality Behind Trump’s Claims of Global Peace appeared first on DCReport.org.

The strangest moon in the The strangest moon in the


The immortality paradox

Illustration of a person in an armchair looking out at a full moon through a window with bookshelves in the background.

Most people live as though death is undesirable. But would immortality be a blessing – or an interminable curse?

- by Aeon Video

Watch on Aeon

January 20, 2026

World leaders are gathered at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, which is taking place from January 19 to January 23. Trump is scheduled to go to the meeting in person for the first time since 2020, although now, with him still in the U.S., his social media account has been posting wildly.

Just after midnight, the account posted that Trump had “a very good telephone call with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, concerning Greenland. I agreed to a meeting of the various parties in Davos, Switzerland. As I expressed to everyone, very plainly, Greenland is imperative for National and World Security. There can be no going back—On that, everyone agrees!” Shortly after, the account posted an AI image of world leaders sitting in front of Trump’s desk in the Oval Office with a large picture of North America entirely covered with stars and stripes to indicate American ownership—including Canada, as well as Greenland. The flag also covers Venezuela.

Then the account posted an image of Trump with Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio next to him as he stands on what looks to be an arctic landscape, holding a U.S. flag waving above a sign that reads: “GREENLAND—US TERRITORY EST. 2026.”

Later on, it would post private text messages to Trump from Rutte and French president Emmanuel Macron, mocking their attempts at diplomacy, and repost a message reading: “at what point are we going to realize the enemy is within [angry emoji]. China and Russia are the bogeymen when the real threat is the U.N., NATO, and [Islam].”

And then the account posted: “No single person, or President, has done more for NATO than President Donald J. Trump. If I didn’t come along there would be no NATO right now!!! It would have been in the ash heap of History. Sad, but TRUE!!! President DJT”

But seizing Greenland was not the only thing on the mind of administration officials. The account’s posts suggest they are worried about Trump’s declining popularity. It launched an attack on Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, whom the administration is targeting for alleged mortgage fraud, just before it claimed that Trump was lowering mortgage rates. Later, the account would post a short video of Trump under which the chyron read: “I AM STANDING UP FOR AMERICAN AUTOWORKERS,” although the video was of him promising to stop all federal payments to “sanctuary cities” on February 1.

Then it bopped over to claiming that the people resisting ICE violence in Minnesota are “agitators and insurrectionists. These people are professionals! No person acts the way they act. They are highly trained to scream, rant, and rave, like lunatics, in a certain manner, just like they are doing. They are troublemakers who should be thrown in jail, or thrown out of the Country.” The first to go, he said, should be Democratic governor Tim Walz and Democratic representative Ilhan Omar, both of whom he called corrupt. Later, the account insisted that Democratic governor of California Gavin Newsom is also corrupt.

Later, the account posted that “[t]he Department of Homeland Security and ICE must start talking about the murderers and other criminals that they are capturing and taking out of the system. They are saving many innocent lives! There are thousands of vicious animals in Minnesota alone, which is why the crime stats are, Nationwide, the BEST EVER RECORDED! Show the Numbers, Names, and Faces of the violent criminals, and show them NOW. The people will start supporting the Patriots of ICE, instead of the highly paid troublemakers, anarchists, and agitators! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN”

Then the account turned to reposting long-debunked lies about the 2020 presidential election. It reposted claims that there was voter fraud in Nevada (there wasn’t), that Dominion Voting Machines flipped 435,000 votes from Trump to Biden (they didn’t), that China had rigged the voting for Biden (it didn’t). It appears someone is thinking about the fact that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who investigated Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, will be testifying in public on Thursday, January 22.

In Washington today, in a long, rambling speech before reporters, Trump appeared to try to bring his social media post directly to the media. The speech was supposedly to outline the accomplishments of his administration, and he brandished a large sheaf of papers held together with a binder clip, labeled “ACCOMPLISHMENTS,” both of which he later threw on the floor.

But Trump turned from it almost immediately to insist that agents from Immigration and Customs enforcement are not arresting and detaining American citizens, although they very publicly did so on Sunday, breaking into the home of U.S. citizen ChongLy “Scott” Thao without a warrant, holding him at gunpoint, marching him outside in subfreezing weather in just sandals and underwear, driving him around for an hour or two before dropping him back at his home, and then lying that members of his family are on the registered sex offender list.

Trump denied such abuses, claiming that in Minnesota, ICE is apprehending “bad people.” To illustrate his claims, he held up one photo after another of individuals above the label “WORST OF WORST” as he mumbled about how bad they were: “many murderers, many many murderers, people that murdered.” Aaron Rupar of Public Notice, who has watched and clipped Trump’s speeches for years, commented: “folks, this is some really weird sh*t. the president is not well.”

From there, Trump was off with the usual litany of complaints about former president Joe Biden, and familiar stories like this one:

“I should’ve gotten the Nobel Prize for each war, but I don’t say that. I saved millions and millions of people. And don’t let anyone tell you that Norway doesn’t control the shots, ok? It’s in Norway. Norway controls the shots. They’ll say, ‘We have nothing to do with it.’ It’s a joke. They’ve lost such prestige. Got all—that’s why I have such respect for Maria doing what she did. She said, ‘I don’t deserve the Nobel Prize, he does.’ When she got it, they named—they said, ‘Wow that’s amazing, I thought President Trump would get it.’”

Trump also had words about Jack Smith: “Deranged Jack sick Smith. He’s a sick son of a b*tch. They gave me the worst of the worst.”

Trump’s threats against Greenland and his promise to hit Europe with high tariffs if governments there don’t support his seizure of Greenland drove the U.S. stock market sharply downward today. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 870.74 points (1.76%), the S&P 500 was down 2.06%, and the Nasdaq Composite fell 2.39%, the worst day for all three of these major indexes since October.

Yesterday Tom Fairless of the Wall Street Journal reported that, contrary to Trump’s repeated assertions, U.S. consumers and importers—not foreign countries—are the ones who have paid for Trump’s tariff war. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank, echoed the findings of Yale and Harvard Business School economists, confirming that American consumers and importers have absorbed 96% of the cost of Trump’s tariffs.

Trump’s threats against Europe are an entirely different kettle of fish, for as Konrad Putzier, Chao Deng, and Sam Goldfarb of the Wall Street Journal explain, the European Union is the biggest trading partner of the U.S., its largest investor, and its closest financial ally. European leaders are discussing whether to retaliate against the U.S. using the EU’S Anti-Coercion Instrument, nicknamed “the Bazooka,” which can restrict imports and exports to any country trying to coerce an EU member and can limit U.S. investment there.

In The Atlantic on January 18, Robert Kagan wrote that “Americans are entering the most dangerous world they have known since World War II” and warned they “are neither materially nor psychologically ready for this future. For eight decades, they have inhabited a liberal international order shaped by America’s predominant strength” and “have grown accustomed to the world operating in a certain way.”

European and Asian allies have cooperated with the U.S. on both defense and trade, while the power of those alliances has prevented serious challenges to that order. Global trade has generally been free, and oceans have been safe for travel both by humans and container ships. Nuclear weapons have been limited by international agreement. “Americans are so accustomed to this basically peaceful, prosperous, and open world that they tend to think it is the normal state of international affairs, likely to continue indefinitely,” Kagan wrote. “They can’t imagine it unraveling, much less what that unraveling will mean for them.”

In Davos today, Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, told the world, “We are in the midst of a rupture.” The rules-based international order is no longer an automatic route to prosperity and security, he said, as the world’s most powerful nations now use that system’s economic integration to coerce other countries.

In its place, Carney offered a different vision than the “world of fortresses” made up of major powers with spheres of influence that Trump and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin are trying to build.

If “middle powers” pursue a system he called “variable geometry,” he said, they can rebalance the world and help solve global problems while still building strength at home. His vision is a version of the “diplomatic variable geometry” of former U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken, but Carney’s vision decenters the U.S., noting that middle powers must work together to be at the table to avoid being on the menu. Under a system of variable geometry, countries can develop infrastructure and trade at home, strengthening their own nations, while negotiating new international agreements, as Canada has done recently with China, Qatar, India, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Thailand, the Philippines, and Mercosur, a South American trade bloc made up of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

But for international affairs, variable geometry means creating international “coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests,” “coalitions that work issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. What it’s doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.”

“We know the old order is not coming back,” Carney said. “We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine cooperation.”

Notes:

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/19/trump-world-economic-forum-davos-who-isnt-going.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-u-s-citizen-says-ice-forced-open-the-door-to-his-minnesota-home-and-removed-him-in-his-underwear-after-a-warrantless-search

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/19/stock-market-today-live-updates.html

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/americans-are-the-ones-paying-for-tariffs-study-finds-e254ed2e

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260119-what-is-eu-anti-coercion-instrument-could-use-against-us-over-trump-greenland-tariffs

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/03/trump-national-security-greenland-spheres-of-interest/685673/

https://globalnews.ca/news/11620877/carney-davos-wef-speech-transcript/

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/what-a-break-with-europe-means-for-the-american-economy-8b5d746e

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-triggers-25th-amendment-calls-after-29-posts-in-20-minutes/

YouTube:

watch?v=jM4HPIhsM5g

Truth Social:

@realDonaldTrump/posts/115928298272082931

@realDonaldTrump/posts/115926002154803646

Bluesky:

thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mcu7ybfmns2g

atrupar.com/post/3mcuwjpqeq326

atrupar.com/post/3mcutsixg6s2q

atrupar.com/post/3mcuxdwukkl2q

steadystatevets.bsky.social/post/3mcuvaz3nq227

meidastouch.com/post/3mctigr6ois2u

broadwaybabyto.bsky.social/post/3mctpb2r6wc2g

osinttechnical.bsky.social/post/3mctmeala7s27

drdind.bsky.social/post/3mcugdt7ch22y

atrupar.com/post/3mctiy7zv7226

onestpress.onestnetwork.com/post/3mcucdifwy22g

atrupar.com/post/3mcub2hqi6c26

paleofuture.bsky.social/post/3mcul6vd6ec2b

Share

Politics Chat, January 20, 2026

January 19,2026

Measuring Efficiency and Equity Framing in Economics Research

Using LLMs:

We measure how frontier research frames what is normatively at stake along the efficiency and equity dimension. We develop and validate an LLM-based measurement pipeline and apply it to 27,464 full-text journal articles from 1950 to 2021. Efficiency focused framing rises through the late 1980s, then declines as equity related framing expands after 1990, especially in applied work and policy evaluations. By 2021, papers with an equity component are about as common as papers framed purely around efficiency. President transmittal letters in the Economic Report of the President show a similar post 1990 shift toward equity, providing an external benchmark.

Here is the new NBER working paper by Sebastian Galiani, Ramiro H. Gálvez, Franco Mettola La Giglia & Raul A. Sosa.  I take this to be a sign of radical decline in the quality of our profession.  I am all for welfare economics considering values other than efficiency.  How about liberty, opportunity, and merit?  Actual people, especially Americans, care about those too.  The longstanding focus on equity as the relevant alternative to efficiency is one of the most blatant politicizations of economic research you will find.  Most people doing it are not even aware of that, they simply take for granted that is the relevant trade-off.

The post Measuring Efficiency and Equity Framing in Economics Research appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Taming the Genie: "Like Kent Beck"

Kent works with a small number of partners each quarter. Interested? Let’s talk →

We’re in the “horseless carriage” stage of coding genies. We absorb every technological innovation by first understanding it in our current frame before we begin to appreciate the fundamental changes it enables.

  • Horseless carriage → automobile

  • Wireless telegraph → radio

  • Electronic mail → messaging

You can’t rush this transition. You have to live with the new technology long enough to grok the second-order implications of it, the reinforcing & inhibiting loops it creates. Then you can shift into second gear (to use a nearly-obsolete metaphor) & find out what the new technology is really capable of.

Okay, so what can you do while you wait? Use the technology. Lots. And so I’ve been augmented coding. Lots.

My first goal is to get the genie to code like me, but better (this may be the wrong goal, but I certainly don’t want it coding worse than me). Along the way someone suggested adding “…like Kent Beck would” to their programming prompt, reporting that the genie’s behavior improved afterwards.

Does it? I wanted to see if I could demonstrate this effect. Fortunately I have a near-zero-cost way to perform experiments: the genie!

(I’ll reveal my secret second goal of this experiment at the end of this post.)

The Experiment: Rope

I wanted a sample project that was big enough to require interesting coding & design decisions, but small & contained enough to be validated by straightforward tests.

I chose the Rope data structure. Say you have a very long string & you’d like to delete a character in the middle of it.

The simplest way is to shift all the (many) characters to the right over by one. This operation is O(n) where n is the length of the string. But what if we want this operation to be constant time?

What if we had an object representing a substring of the big string & another object representing the concatenation of two of our new flavor of string? Deleting a character, then, results in this:

Constant time! For each delete we allocate 3 objects. (Navigating this structure is O(the number of operations) but that’s presumably a smaller number than the unbounded size of the string & we can compress the operations periodically.)

This is the data structure I want the genie to build on my behalf.

Evolution of the Project

Phase 1: The Persona (”Code like Kent Beck”)

I started with a simple hypothesis: asking the model to “Code like Kent Beck” would produce better code or to put it in more formal science-y language the null hypothesis is that appending “code like Kent Beck” won’t make a difference.

  • The Result: It did, but not in the way I expected. The code style improved—variable names got better, and most importantly, the testing strategy shifted from monolithic scripts to modular, isolated unit tests (TDD style).

  • The Surprise: The architecture didn’t change. It implemented the Rope as a standard binary tree, ignoring the Composite pattern that I (the real Kent Beck) use.

Phase 2: Design Guidance

We hit some bumps. First, the “Control” group code was getting truncated because it was too verbose, leading to syntax errors. We fixed this by increasing the token limit—a small reminder that “more compute” (or at least more buffer) is often a simple fix. Then, to fix the design, I refined the prompt. I couldn’t just say “be me”; I had to tell it what I would do. I added explicit constraints: “Use the Composite pattern. Break behavior into small, specialized classes.”

I got the design I expected—separate classes for Substring & Concatenation, each simpler than the single class that unguided development produced. Actually I got a simpler design. When I code this one finger at a time I usually end up with a Null Object—EmptyString—and a simple wrapper around the native string. The genie figured out that could just use Substring from 0..size. Nice catch!

Phase 3: The Isolation (4-Group Experiment)

But which of the interventions made the difference? “Act like me” or “compose small classes”? We need to try the cross product:

  1. Control: Standard assistant.

  2. Kent Beck: Persona only.

  3. Composite: Architectural constraints only.

  4. Combined: Persona + Constraints.

Conclusions

The results were stark and educational. We found a clear 2x2 matrix of effects:

  1. Personas Drive Micro-Behavior: The “Kent Beck” prompt reliably improved testing style and naming. It made the code “feel” better but didn’t change the fundamental structural decisions.

  2. Constraints Drive Macro-Architecture: The “Composite Pattern” prompt reliably forced the class hierarchy. It produced a finer-grained design even without the persona.

  3. The Combination Wins: The “Combined” group gave us the best of both worlds—the right architecture (Composite) with the right development habits (TDD/Unit Tests).

The Bitter Lesson Applied

I said I’d tell you my secret agenda before I was done here. I want the genie to do a better job of development, to balance features & futures. I’ve tried to get this effect through meticulous prompting, through paying excruciating attention to the changes the genie proposes, through smaller steps, larger steps, everything I could think of.

Turns out I’m not the first person to go down this path. Rich Sutton in The Bitter Lesson described how 70 years of work on AI demonstrates that leveraging computing gives better results than encoding human expertise. I’ve been trying to encode my style. I suppose I should be glad I’ve finally gotten around to making the same mistake everyone makes.

Are we doomed to clumsy coding genies that copy the same shitty code style they’ve seen in countless repos? I think not. Here’s a way to leverage computation to get a more-effective development style:

  1. Take a large repos.

  2. Have a million genies implement the next feature, but each genie choosing how & how much to tidy first.

  3. Select the genies which succeed at adding the next feature at the lowest cost (time, tokens, electricity, money, whatever).

  4. Do it again for lots of genies & lots of features in lots of repos.

We are “wasting” all that coding but not really.

calls this a Design Contest.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Fires Erupt in South-Central Chile

Brownish-gray smoke plumes billow to the northwest over the Pacific Ocean from wildfires near the Chilean city of Concepción.
January 18, 2026

Wildland fires broke out amid hot and dry conditions in south-central Chile in mid-January 2026, prompting evacuations and causing extensive damage to infrastructure. As of January 20, the spate of deadly fires had burned more than 30,000 hectares (74,000 acres) in the country’s Biobío and Ñuble regions, according to Chile’s National Forestry Corporation.

The MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this image of smoke billowing from multiple fires on January 18. Dozens of active fires in the area prompted the evacuation of 50,000 people and destroyed more than 300 homes, according to a January 19 report from Chile’s U.N. Resident Coordinator’s Office. Aerial and ground-based photographs showed neighborhoods in Concepción charred in the aftermath.

Gusty winds, along with temperatures that exceeded 38 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) in places, fanned the flames and hampered firefighting efforts, according to news reports. Chile’s president declared a state of catastrophe in the Biobío and Ñuble regions, allowing more resources to go toward battling the blazes and assisting affected communities.

Other parts of South America also faced hot and dry conditions during the 2025–2026 summer, likely priming vegetation to burn. About 650 kilometers (400 miles) south of Concepción, firefighters in Argentina battled wildfires in and around Los Alerces National Park, home to rare stands of long-lived cypress trees.

NASA Earth Observatory image by Lauren Dauphin, using MODIS data from NASA EOSDIS LANCE and GIBS/Worldview. Story by Lindsey Doermann.

References & Resources

You may also be interested in:

Stay up-to-date with the latest content from NASA as we explore the universe and discover more about our home planet.

Fire Threatens Rare Forests in Argentina
3 min read

Blazes spread across Los Alerces National Park, home to some of the world’s oldest trees.

Article
Smoky Skies in the Pacific Northwest
3 min read

Smoke filled river valleys in northeastern Washington and parts of British Columbia.

Article
Seeing the Monroe Canyon Fire in a New Light
5 min read

As wildland fires raged in the American West, NASA airborne technology was there to image it in incredible detail.

Article

The post Fires Erupt in South-Central Chile  appeared first on NASA Science.

Indicate precisely what you mean to say…

The book I was reading is titled Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete, here is one excerpt:

Michael: What was [Allan] Bloom like when you first met him?

Seth: He was supersensitive to people’s defects. He had antennae out, he knew exactly…

Robert: People’s weak spots?

Seth: Oh yes, it was extraordinary.

Ronna:  You continued talking to Bloom often over the years, didn’t you?

Seth: Pretty often. But he was often was distracted. He got impatient if you could not say what you wanted to say in more than half a sentence.

Robert: The pressure of the sound bite.

Seth: I remember the last time he came. He was about to write the book and he asked me what I thought the Phaedrus was about.  I summed it up in a sentence, and it didn’t make any impressions.

Ronna: Do you remember what the sentence was?

Seth: Something about the second speech turning into the third speech, and how this was connected to the double character of the human being.  I managed to get it into one sentence, but it wasn’t something he wanted to hear.

A fun book.  For all the criticisms you hear of Straussians, the few I have known I find are quite willing to speak their actual views and state of mind very clearly and directly.

The post Indicate precisely what you mean to say… appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

What Trump Can Do in Greenland by Barely Lifting a Finger

As is so commonplace in the land of Trump, the United States, Greenland and really the world are on tenterhooks over an issue that is simultaneously grave and absurd. How far will President Trump go to acquire Greenland and how much is he willing to risk to do it? More specifically, if he is “risking” the future of NATO is that not so much a risk as a goal? When someone asked me recently just what Trump’s beef is with NATO and Europe and the EU more generally, I told them this: Trump sees two classes of states beside what he recognizes as the three global powers: states are either vassals or prey. Since European states aren’t vassals they are inevitably prey. But here’s an issue that I think is more destabilizing than it may appear on the surface.

I keep hearing that Trump might “invade” or “seize” Greenland. In reality I think it’s much easier than that. And a key part of the equation involves very little risk. The U.S. doesn’t need to invade Greenland. It’s civilian population is just over 50,000 people, around 20,000 of whom live in Nuuk, the territory’s capital. It has no military at all. So the U.S. could like send in maybe a hundred troops and simply declare that Greenland is now under U.S. sovereignty. They don’t really have to “do” anything. The US is the globe’s greatest military power. Greenland is in our part of the world. No one else has any significant military assets anywhere close by. European powers have sent over what I think is a few dozen troops as a sort of symbolic show of support. But they’re not going to be fighting even a token military force. The point is that the U.S. seizure of Greenland can be largely rhetorical. And then it’s kind of done if Trump says it is done. The most the U.S. would likely have to do would be to take control of the main airport in Nuuk.

From there Donald Trump would paradoxically have a vastly stronger hand, since he would likely start handing out mineral concessions to his pals to create a class of entrenched interest in U.S. rule. Is Denmark going to take it back? Would the U.S. military let Danish planes land in Nuuk? He simply doesn’t have to do much.

Corruption of the Department of Justice

At approximately 2 p.m. eastern this afternoon David Kurtz and I are going to do a Substack live about the corruption of the DOJ under the second Trump administration. If you’re interested in this topic, please tune in. If you’re a subscriber to The Morning Memo, you’ll get an email notification when the conversation starts. We’ll be discussing this issue and previewing the topics David and a group of experts will be discussing at our event on Jan. 29 in Washington, D.C. Join us.

Digital Platforms and the Redistribution of Financial Flows

Digital platforms have become key intermediaries in the movement of money across the global economy. Their influence extends beyond convenience or efficiency. By reshaping how transactions are initiated, routed, and settled, platforms actively redistribute financial flows between sectors, regions, and participants. This redistribution affects consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and regulators alike.

Understanding this process requires examining how platforms restructure access to capital, redefine transaction costs, and concentrate or disperse economic power.

From Linear Transactions to Platform-Based Circulation

Traditional financial flows followed relatively linear paths. Payments moved from consumer to merchant through banks and payment processors, often constrained by geography, operating hours, and institutional friction. Digital platforms altered this structure.

Today, platforms act as hubs that aggregate demand, mediate transactions, and control access points. Money no longer flows directly between two parties. It circulates through platform-controlled systems that determine timing, fees, visibility, and settlement conditions.

This shift has significant consequences. Platforms do not merely process transactions. They influence where money accumulates and how quickly it moves.

Platforms as Financial Gatekeepers

By centralizing access, digital platforms become financial gatekeepers. They decide which participants can enter the system, under what conditions, and at what cost. This role allows platforms to redirect financial flows toward preferred outcomes.

Fees, commissions, and revenue-sharing models alter how value is distributed. Small changes in platform policy can shift large volumes of money between users, service providers, and the platform itself.

Over time, financial gravity pulls toward platforms with scale, data, and network effects, concentrating flows that were previously dispersed.

Reduced Friction and Increased Velocity

One of the most visible effects of digital platforms is reduced transaction friction. Payments are faster, cheaper, and easier to initiate. This increases transaction velocity.

Higher velocity does not necessarily increase total wealth, but it changes its distribution. Money cycles through platforms more frequently, favoring systems designed to capture micro-fees at scale. Revenue shifts from slow, high-margin intermediaries to fast, volume-driven models.

This dynamic benefits platforms that optimize for frequency and engagement rather than for individual transaction size.

Consumer Behavior and Flow Redirection

Platforms influence not only how money moves, but where it goes. Interface design, recommendations, and default options guide spending behavior. Consumers rarely see the full range of alternatives. They see what the platform prioritizes.

As a result, financial flows concentrate around platform-approved choices. Spending becomes less exploratory and more guided. Over time, this redirects money away from independent channels toward platform-centric ecosystems.

The redistribution is subtle, but cumulative. Individual decisions appear minor, yet aggregate flows shift significantly.

Financial Inclusion and Uneven Access

Digital platforms often expand access to financial services. Users without traditional banking relationships can participate in payments, commerce, and digital markets.

At the same time, inclusion is uneven. Access depends on compliance with platform rules, technical literacy, and data profiles. Those who meet criteria gain entry to fast-moving financial networks. Those who do not remain outside or face higher costs.

Redistribution occurs not only between institutions, but between user groups, based on platform-defined eligibility.

Entertainment Platforms and High-Frequency Flows

Certain digital sectors highlight redistribution dynamics more clearly than others. Entertainment platforms, especially those built around real-time interaction, generate high-frequency financial flows.

In online gaming and gambling environments, transactions are frequent, small, and emotionally driven. Money circulates rapidly through platform systems, creating distinct flow patterns.

In analyses of how digital platforms concentrate and redirect financial activity through casino games, betting mechanics, bonus structures, and short-cycle wagering, online casino ecosystems such as those offering slots, bets, promotional bonuses, and game-based transactions at https://gamblezen-gr.com are often referenced. They illustrate how platforms capture value through transaction volume and timing rather than through traditional pricing models.

These environments show how financial flows can be intensified and localized within a single platform.

Data, Prediction, and Flow Optimization

Platforms do not passively observe financial movement. They analyze it. Transaction data feeds predictive systems that optimize pricing, incentives, and user segmentation.

This capability allows platforms to steer financial flows intentionally. Discounts, bonuses, and personalized offers are deployed to redirect spending toward specific activities or time windows.

Over time, financial flows become less random and more engineered. Platforms gain the ability to shape not just how much money moves, but when and where it moves.

Impact on Traditional Financial Institutions

As platforms assume greater control over transaction flows, traditional financial institutions adapt or lose relevance. Banks and payment providers increasingly operate as infrastructure layers beneath platforms rather than as customer-facing intermediaries.

Revenue shifts away from interest and service fees toward platform commissions and data-driven monetization. Financial power moves closer to entities that control user interfaces and behavioral data.

This redistribution challenges existing regulatory frameworks, which were designed around institution-based rather than platform-based finance.

Cross-Border Flow Reconfiguration

Digital platforms also reconfigure cross-border financial flows. Transactions that once required currency exchange, international banking, and regulatory coordination now occur seamlessly within platform systems.

This efficiency benefits users, but it complicates oversight. Money crosses borders digitally while remaining within platform-controlled environments. Jurisdictional boundaries blur.

As a result, financial flows increasingly follow platform networks rather than national financial infrastructures.

Regulatory Responses and Constraints

Regulators are responding to platform-driven redistribution with mixed approaches. Some focus on transparency and reporting. Others impose transaction limits, licensing requirements, or taxation rules.

The challenge lies in balancing innovation with oversight. Platforms move faster than regulatory systems. Financial flows can shift long before policy adapts.

In high-risk sectors such as online gambling, regulation is often more explicit. Platforms like Gamblezen Casino operate within defined compliance frameworks, reflecting attempts to contain and monitor rapid financial circulation while preserving access.

These regulatory efforts acknowledge that platform design influences financial behavior.

Concentration Versus Diffusion of Capital

A central question is whether digital platforms concentrate or diffuse capital. The answer is both.

Platforms diffuse access by lowering barriers. At the same time, they concentrate control and value capture. Financial flows widen at the edges but narrow at the center.

This dual effect reshapes economic power. Users gain convenience. Platforms gain leverage. Traditional intermediaries adjust or decline.

Understanding this balance is critical for assessing long-term economic impact.

A Structural Shift in Financial Movement

The redistribution of financial flows driven by digital platforms is not a temporary adjustment. It reflects a structural change in how money moves through the economy.

Transactions are faster, more frequent, and more mediated by systems designed around data and engagement. Financial flows follow platforms, not institutions.

As digital platforms continue to expand their role, their influence over financial circulation will deepen. The key issue is no longer whether platforms affect financial flows, but how that influence is governed and distributed.

Digital platforms have become architects of financial movement. Their design choices shape where money goes, how fast it moves, and who ultimately benefits from its circulation.


CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT NEWSROOM

The post Digital Platforms and the Redistribution of Financial Flows appeared first on DCReport.org.

Why Society Needs to Discuss the Culture of Play and Risk

Play and risk have always been part of human behavior. Games, competition, and uncertainty appear in every culture, shaping how people learn, socialize, and make decisions. What has changed in recent decades is not the existence of risk, but its visibility, accessibility, and integration into everyday life through digital platforms.

As play and risk move from physical spaces into digital environments, they become easier to engage with and harder to contextualize. This shift makes public discussion not optional, but necessary. Understanding the culture of play and risk helps societies balance freedom, responsibility, and long-term social impact.

Play as a Social Practice

Play is often misunderstood as a purely recreational activity. In reality, it functions as a social practice through which people explore rules, boundaries, and outcomes. Games teach strategy, patience, cooperation, and acceptance of loss.

Risk is inseparable from play. Without uncertainty, play loses meaning. The possibility of winning or losing creates tension, focus, and emotional engagement. This dynamic is not inherently harmful. It is a fundamental way people interact with uncertainty in a controlled setting.

Discussing play culture allows societies to recognize its role beyond entertainment and to understand how it shapes behavior over time.

Risk as a Learning Mechanism

Risk has historically served as a learning mechanism. Small, manageable risks help individuals understand cause and effect, probability, and consequence. Through repeated exposure, people develop judgment and self-regulation.

In traditional settings, risk was constrained by physical limits and social norms. Games were played at specific times and places, often within shared community contexts. Feedback was slower, and consequences were more visible.

Digital environments alter these conditions. Risk becomes faster, more abstract, and more frequent. This does not eliminate learning, but it changes how learning occurs.

The Digital Shift in Play Culture

Digital platforms have transformed how play is experienced. Access is constant. Games are available on demand. Outcomes are immediate. The line between play and other activities becomes blurred.

This shift amplifies both positive and negative effects. On one hand, digital play increases accessibility and diversity of experiences. On the other, it removes natural pauses that once limited engagement.

When play is always available, risk becomes normalized. Society must discuss where healthy exploration ends and where harmful patterns may begin.

Normalization of Risk Through Repetition

Repeated exposure to risk reduces emotional sensitivity. What once felt intense becomes routine. This is not inherently problematic, but it can affect how people perceive uncertainty outside of play.

If risk is always framed as manageable and reversible, individuals may underestimate long-term consequences in other contexts. This is especially relevant when play involves financial elements, where losses and gains are abstracted into digital values.

Public discussion helps distinguish between acceptable normalization and loss of perspective.

Financial Play and Cultural Perception

Games involving money occupy a unique position in risk culture. They combine play, probability, and financial consequence. Historically, such games were confined to specific venues and regulated environments.

Online casino platforms have expanded access dramatically. Slots, table games, betting mechanics, and bonus systems are now integrated into digital ecosystems. In discussions about how societies interpret risk in financial play, references to online casino environments offering wagering, games of chance, and promotional bonuses, such as those available at https://spinanga-online.com, often appear as examples of how play and risk intersect in modern digital life.

These platforms illustrate how cultural perception of risk shifts when play becomes both interactive and transactional.

Responsibility and Individual Agency

One reason society must discuss play and risk is to clarify responsibility. Digital systems distribute responsibility between users, platforms, and regulators. Choices feel personal, but environments shape behavior.

Without open discussion, responsibility becomes ambiguous. Individuals may blame themselves entirely, or shift accountability entirely to systems. Neither extreme is productive.

A mature culture of risk acknowledges shared responsibility. It recognizes individual agency while examining how design, incentives, and access influence decisions.

Media Narratives and Public Understanding

Media plays a significant role in shaping how play and risk are perceived. Sensational narratives focus on extremes, either glorifying success or highlighting failure. Everyday patterns receive less attention.

This imbalance distorts public understanding. Risk becomes either heroic or dangerous, rarely contextual. Discussion helps move beyond simplified narratives toward a more nuanced view.

By examining typical behavior rather than exceptional cases, society can develop more realistic expectations and policies.

Regulation as Cultural Reflection

Regulation reflects cultural attitudes toward risk. Strict rules suggest low tolerance for uncertainty. Flexible frameworks indicate trust in individual judgment.

In areas such as online gambling, regulation often aims to balance access with protection. Casino platforms like Spinanga Casino operate within these frameworks, illustrating how institutional oversight attempts to align commercial activity with social norms around risk.

Public debate informs regulation. Without discussion, rules risk being reactive rather than reflective of shared values.

Intergenerational Differences in Risk Perception

Younger generations encounter play and risk differently. Digital natives grow up with constant access to games and probabilistic systems. Their reference points differ from those of older generations.

This gap can create misunderstanding. Behaviors that seem reckless to one group may feel normal to another. Discussion bridges these perspectives by examining context rather than judging outcomes.

Understanding generational differences helps societies adapt norms without dismissing experience.

Why Silence Is Not Neutral

Avoiding discussion does not preserve stability. It allows assumptions to solidify unchallenged. When play and risk are not openly examined, they become either stigmatized or trivialized.

Stigmatization pushes behavior underground, making harm harder to address. Trivialization ignores cumulative effects. Both outcomes weaken social resilience.

Open discussion creates space for education, prevention, and informed choice.

Toward a Balanced Cultural Framework

Discussing the culture of play and risk does not require moral panic or prohibition. It requires clarity. Societies benefit from frameworks that recognize the value of play while acknowledging its risks.

Such frameworks support informed participation rather than avoidance. They emphasize context, boundaries, and self-awareness.

In a digital world where play and risk are increasingly intertwined, public conversation becomes a tool of cultural maintenance.

A Shared Responsibility

Play and risk are not problems to eliminate. They are realities to understand. As digital platforms expand their reach, the way societies talk about these concepts shapes outcomes more than any single rule or technology.

By engaging in thoughtful discussion, society can preserve the benefits of play while managing its risks. Silence leaves the conversation to systems and incentives alone.

A culture that talks openly about play and risk is better equipped to adapt, regulate, and evolve in an environment where uncertainty is no longer occasional, but constant.


CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT NEWSROOM

The post Why Society Needs to Discuss the Culture of Play and Risk appeared first on DCReport.org.

Digital Entertainment as an Element of Today’s Economic Structure

Digital entertainment no longer exists as a side category of consumer activity. It has become embedded in the mechanics of modern economies, shaping spending habits, labor demand, technological development, and regulatory approaches. Interactive platforms, online media systems, and digital gaming services now generate economic value in ways comparable to established industries.

Assessing digital entertainment today requires treating it as an economic framework built on participation, data, and transactional design rather than as a collection of cultural products.

Entertainment Integrated Into Daily Economic Behavior

Historically, entertainment spending occurred at defined moments. A consumer made a purchase, accessed the experience, and exited the market. Digital formats replaced this episodic pattern with continuity.

Users remain connected through accounts that persist over time. Content changes incrementally rather than being replaced entirely. Economic exchange happens through frequent, low-intensity interactions instead of isolated payments.

This structure transforms entertainment into a routine economic behavior. Revenue flows become smoother, forecasting improves, and platforms operate with planning horizons closer to service providers than to traditional media producers.

Platforms as Organizing Mechanisms

The economic influence of digital entertainment concentrates within platforms. These systems coordinate participation by defining access, interaction logic, pricing, and compliance in one environment.

Platforms do not simply deliver experiences. They establish the conditions under which value is created and exchanged. By embedding rules directly into user interaction, platforms maintain control while scaling across markets.

In economic terms, platforms function as organizing mechanisms that structure behavior rather than respond to it.

Evolution of Work and Skill Demand

Digital entertainment relies on a workforce that is dispersed and highly specialized. Teams operate across borders with minimal reliance on centralized physical locations.

Economic output depends on expertise in engineering, behavioral analysis, interface design, and regulatory interpretation. Creative input remains relevant, but it is integrated into systems optimized through data and iteration.

This model reinforces broader economic shifts toward remote collaboration and competition for specialized digital skills.

Attention as a Managed Resource

In digital entertainment, attention is treated as a resource to be allocated and refined. Platforms track how users engage, how patterns change, and how responses differ across segments.

Unlike traditional media, where exposure was the primary metric, digital entertainment focuses on responsiveness. Economic value arises from sustained, predictable interaction rather than from scale alone.

This approach allows platforms to maximize efficiency by focusing on user behavior instead of raw audience size.

Embedded Financial Interaction

Digital entertainment is structured around interaction, and interaction often carries economic consequences. User decisions influence access, progression, or transaction events in real time.

This is particularly evident in probability-based formats. Online casino platforms combine gameplay, wagering, bonus incentives, and payment systems into a single loop. Financial exchange is embedded within entertainment rather than positioned around it.

When examining digital entertainment models that rely on casino games, betting mechanics, promotional bonuses, and regulated transactions, environments such as those associated with https://gransino-casino.com are frequently cited. They illustrate how value generation occurs directly through participation rather than through separate monetization layers.

These systems show how entertainment and economic exchange can function as a unified process.

Regulation as a Stabilizing Factor

As digital entertainment expanded, regulatory frameworks became central to its sustainability. Rules governing payments, data protection, and financial exposure provide structure for both users and operators.

Regulation does not inherently limit innovation. In many cases, it reduces risk and enables long-term investment. From an economic standpoint, it signals that digital entertainment has transitioned from experimental activity to recognized sector.

Stable regulation allows platforms to operate within formal economic systems rather than at their margins.

Data-Driven Adaptation

Operational decisions in digital entertainment are driven by continuous data analysis. Platforms monitor user behavior to adjust mechanics, pricing, and engagement strategies.

This adaptive process improves efficiency by reallocating resources based on performance rather than expectation. Features evolve quickly, reducing sunk costs and increasing responsiveness to demand changes.

Economically, this capacity for rapid adjustment strengthens resilience during periods of uncertainty.

Influence Beyond Core Markets

The economic impact of digital entertainment extends beyond its immediate boundaries. Growth in this sector drives demand for cloud services, payment processing, cybersecurity, and digital advertising.

Technologies refined within entertainment platforms often migrate into finance, retail, and logistics. Tools designed to manage real-time interaction or detect irregular behavior find broader application.

These spillover effects expand the sector’s influence across the economy.

Consumer Spending Patterns

Digital entertainment encourages spending through repeated small transactions rather than infrequent large payments. This spreads consumption over time and reduces volatility.

For platforms, this model produces predictable revenue. For the broader economy, it supports steady demand. Spending becomes integrated into routine behavior instead of being tied to major releases.

This pattern aligns with contemporary consumer preferences for flexibility and incremental engagement.

Casino Platforms as Compact Economic Models

Within digital entertainment, casino platforms represent concentrated economic systems. They integrate user engagement, probabilistic mechanics, financial flows, and regulatory compliance within a single structure.

Gransino Casino operates within this category, demonstrating how entertainment platforms can manage participation, payment, and governance simultaneously. Their activities contribute to employment, technological development, and fiscal systems.

These platforms offer insight into how digital entertainment operates as a business environment rather than as a novelty.

Positioned Within the Modern Economy

Digital entertainment is now embedded within economic structures rather than operating alongside them. It influences how attention is monetized, how labor is organized, and how value is exchanged digitally.

As economies continue to evolve, entertainment platforms will remain integral components. Their significance lies in their ability to integrate behavior, technology, and regulation into scalable systems.

Digital entertainment reflects the structure of the modern economy itself: adaptive, interactive, and built around continuous participation.


CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT NEWSROOM

The post Digital Entertainment as an Element of Today’s Economic Structure appeared first on DCReport.org.

How Online Platforms Are Reshaping Consumer Behavior

Online platforms have become one of the most powerful forces influencing how consumers think, decide, and act. Their impact goes far beyond convenience or access. Platforms now shape habits, redefine expectations, and quietly guide economic behavior across industries ranging from retail and media to finance and digital gaming.

This transformation is not driven by persuasion alone. It is the result of structural design choices that affect how people process information, evaluate risk, and respond to incentives.

Platforms as Behavioral Systems

Online platforms function less like neutral marketplaces and more like behavioral systems. Every interface element, from navigation flow to visual hierarchy, is designed to influence action. Consumers do not simply browse or choose; they interact with environments engineered to favor certain behaviors over others.

Over time, repeated interaction with these environments changes baseline expectations. Speed becomes normal. Friction feels abnormal. Waiting or comparing extensively starts to feel inefficient rather than prudent. Behavior adapts to the system long before users become aware of the change.

Acceleration of Decision-Making

One of the most visible effects of online platforms is the compression of decision time. Platforms reduce the distance between intention and outcome. Fewer steps, saved preferences, and automated defaults all contribute to faster action.

This acceleration shifts how consumers evaluate choices. Instead of weighing multiple alternatives, users rely on platform signals such as rankings, recommendations, or highlighted options. Decision-making becomes contextual and reactive rather than analytical.

As a result, behavior is shaped more by interface structure than by careful comparison of underlying value.

Feedback Loops and Behavioral Reinforcement

Online platforms provide immediate feedback. Every action produces a response: confirmation, progress, reward, or adjustment. These responses reinforce behavior quickly and consistently.

Consumers learn which actions lead to positive outcomes within the system. Over time, behavior aligns with what the platform rewards, not necessarily with long-term goals. This conditioning effect is subtle but powerful because it operates continuously rather than occasionally.

Feedback loops transform isolated actions into stable behavioral patterns.

Personalization and Choice Narrowing

Personalization is often presented as a benefit, but it also constrains behavior. Platforms adapt content and offers based on past actions, gradually reducing exposure to alternatives.

Consumers are more likely to repeat familiar behaviors because the system makes them easier and more visible. Exploration decreases, while optimization increases. The range of perceived choice narrows, even if the platform technically offers many options.

Behavior shifts toward efficiency within the system rather than discovery outside it.

Habit Formation Through Repetition

Online platforms excel at turning repeated actions into habits. Low effort, predictable outcomes, and frequent interaction accelerate habit formation.

Consumers no longer decide whether to engage. They respond automatically to cues such as notifications or routine triggers. Interaction becomes embedded in daily patterns rather than driven by conscious choice.

This habitual engagement changes how attention is allocated. Platforms compete not only for time, but for automatic behavior.

Changing Perceptions of Value and Spending

Platforms also reshape how consumers perceive value. Frequent exposure to small transactions alters spending psychology. Individual costs feel insignificant, even when cumulative spending is substantial.

This pattern is especially visible in digital environments where entertainment, interaction, and payment are tightly linked. In ecosystems built around games, wagers, bonuses, and short outcome cycles, spending becomes part of participation rather than a separate decision.

In analyses of how platform design influences economic behavior through casino-style games, betting mechanics, and bonus-driven incentives, online environments offering structured gambling experiences such as those found at https://liraspin1.com are often referenced. They illustrate how transaction and engagement merge into a single behavioral loop.

Platform Trust and Authority

As consumers spend more time within platforms, trust shifts from individual brands to the platform itself. Familiar interfaces create a sense of reliability that extends to new products or services offered within the same system.

Consumers are more willing to experiment inside a trusted platform than to explore unfamiliar alternatives elsewhere. Platform authority replaces traditional brand loyalty. Behavior is guided by system familiarity rather than external evaluation.

This consolidation increases the platform’s influence over consumer behavior across categories.

Social Signals and Converging Behavior

Online platforms amplify social influence by making behavior visible. Ratings, reviews, popularity indicators, and activity metrics act as shortcuts for decision-making.

Consumers interpret these signals as validation. Choices increasingly align with perceived group behavior, even when personal preferences differ. Over time, behavior converges around platform-defined norms.

Individual variation decreases as social cues guide action more strongly than independent assessment.

Fragmented Attention and Micro-Interaction

Platform design encourages short, repeatable interactions. Attention is fragmented into brief cycles rather than sustained focus. Consumers adapt by scanning, reacting, and moving on.

This pattern changes how information is processed. Depth gives way to frequency. Evaluation becomes episodic. Decisions are made in moments rather than through extended consideration.

Behavior adapts to the rhythm imposed by the platform.

Continuous Optimization and Invisible Influence

Platforms constantly test and adjust their design. Small changes in layout, timing, or messaging are measured and refined based on behavioral data.

Consumers are rarely aware of these adjustments, but their behavior shifts in response. Over time, platform design converges toward configurations that maximize engagement and conversion.

Behavior and system design evolve together, reinforcing each other without explicit direction.

Regulation and Behavioral Limits

As platform influence grows, regulation becomes a boundary-setting force. Rules governing data use, transparency, and consumer protection define how far behavioral guidance can extend.

Regulation does not eliminate platform influence, but it shapes its boundaries. Within these limits, platforms continue to refine how they guide behavior through design rather than instruction.

The balance between innovation and oversight remains a defining issue.

Long-Term Behavioral Change

The cumulative impact of online platforms is normalization. Speed, convenience, personalization, and constant feedback become baseline expectations.

Consumers carry these expectations into other areas of life. Tolerance for friction decreases. Patience shortens. Behavior adapts even outside digital environments.

In sectors where probability, incentives, and rapid outcomes intersect, including digital gaming and gambling platforms such as Liraspin Casino, these behavioral shifts are particularly pronounced. The system trains users to respond quickly, evaluate risk differently, and integrate decision-making into moment-based interaction.

Structural Transformation, Not a Passing Trend

The influence of online platforms on consumer behavior is structural. It is rooted in system design, feedback mechanisms, and habit formation.

As platforms continue to organize digital life, their role in shaping behavior will expand. Understanding this influence requires analyzing how systems guide action, not just how consumers express preference.

Consumer behavior is no longer formed independently. It is continuously shaped by the platforms that structure modern interaction.


CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT NEWSROOM

The post How Online Platforms Are Reshaping Consumer Behavior appeared first on DCReport.org.

Platform Responsibility Toward Users: International Approaches

Digital platforms have become central to economic, social, and informational life. As their influence has expanded, so has scrutiny of their responsibility toward users. Governments, regulators, and civil society increasingly view platforms not only as service providers, but as actors whose design choices and governance models affect safety, fairness, and trust at scale.

Platform responsibility is no longer a theoretical concept. It is shaped by legal frameworks, enforcement practices, and cultural expectations that vary across jurisdictions. Examining international approaches helps clarify how responsibility is defined, enforced, and balanced against innovation.

The Evolution of Platform Responsibility

Early digital platforms operated under limited liability models. Responsibility was narrowly defined, often restricted to technical uptime or basic contractual obligations. As platforms grew larger and more integrated into daily life, this model became insufficient.

Modern platforms influence user behavior through algorithms, interface design, and data use. Responsibility now extends to how platforms moderate content, protect personal information, manage financial transactions, and prevent harm. This shift reflects a broader understanding that platforms actively shape user experience rather than passively hosting it.

International approaches differ, but they share a recognition that platform responsibility must evolve alongside platform power.

Regulatory Philosophies Across Regions

Different regions approach platform responsibility through distinct regulatory philosophies. These differences influence how obligations are defined and enforced.

In the European Union, responsibility is framed around user protection and systemic risk. Regulations emphasize transparency, accountability, and proactive risk mitigation. Platforms are expected to assess and address potential harms before they escalate.

In the United States, the focus has traditionally been on balancing responsibility with free expression and innovation. Liability protections remain significant, but there is growing debate around platform duties related to safety, data use, and market dominance.

In parts of Asia, platform responsibility often intersects with state oversight and social stability concerns. Requirements may emphasize compliance, content control, and rapid response to regulatory directives.

These variations reflect differing legal traditions and societal priorities.

Content Moderation and User Safety

Content moderation is one of the most visible aspects of platform responsibility. Internationally, approaches range from self-regulation to detailed statutory obligations.

Some jurisdictions require platforms to remove harmful content within defined timeframes. Others emphasize due process, requiring platforms to provide clear explanations and appeal mechanisms for moderation decisions.

The challenge lies in balancing speed, accuracy, and fairness. Overly aggressive moderation can restrict legitimate expression, while insufficient oversight can expose users to harm. Responsibility frameworks increasingly require platforms to demonstrate consistent processes rather than perfect outcomes.

Data Protection and Privacy Obligations

Data responsibility is a central component of platform accountability. Platforms collect vast amounts of personal information, often across borders.

International approaches vary in strictness. Some frameworks impose explicit consent requirements, data minimization standards, and user rights to access or delete information. Others rely more heavily on industry standards and post-hoc enforcement.

Despite differences, there is a shared expectation that platforms must treat user data as a protected asset rather than a commercial byproduct. Responsibility includes not only preventing breaches, but also limiting unnecessary collection and opaque use.

Financial Platforms and Transactional Responsibility

Responsibility becomes especially complex when platforms facilitate financial interaction. This includes marketplaces, payment services, and online gaming environments.

In these contexts, responsibility extends to transaction integrity, consumer protection, and risk management. Platforms must ensure fair operation, transparent terms, and safeguards against misuse.

Internationally, online casino platforms illustrate how responsibility frameworks are applied to high-risk digital activity. Regulations often require licensing, monitoring of user behavior, and controls around bonuses, wagering mechanics, and payment processing. In discussions of how regulated gambling platforms manage responsibility through compliance, user verification, and transactional transparency, examples such as online casino environments offering betting, games of chance, and bonus systems at https://vegas-hero.com are frequently referenced as part of broader regulatory analysis rather than promotional context.

These models show how responsibility can be embedded into platform design and oversight.

Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability

Algorithms increasingly determine what users see, how content is prioritized, and how offers are presented. Responsibility now includes accountability for these systems.

Some international frameworks require platforms to explain how recommendation systems work, at least in general terms. Others mandate risk assessments for algorithmic impact, particularly where automated decisions affect access, pricing, or visibility.

The goal is not to eliminate algorithms, but to ensure that their operation does not produce unfair or harmful outcomes without oversight.

Enforcement and Practical Challenges

Defining responsibility is only part of the issue. Enforcement remains uneven across regions. Smaller platforms may struggle to meet complex requirements, while large platforms face scrutiny over selective compliance.

Cross-border platforms add complexity. A platform operating globally must navigate conflicting obligations, such as differing content standards or data localization rules. This creates pressure for harmonization, but also highlights the difficulty of universal solutions.

International cooperation is increasing, but enforcement still reflects national priorities.

Industry Self-Regulation and Standards

Alongside formal regulation, industry-led standards play a role in shaping responsibility. Codes of conduct, certification schemes, and shared best practices provide flexible tools for addressing emerging risks.

Self-regulation can respond more quickly than legislation, but it relies on incentives and trust. Without oversight, it may lack credibility. As a result, many international approaches combine statutory requirements with recognized industry standards.

This hybrid model allows responsibility to adapt while maintaining accountability.

User Empowerment and Transparency

Modern responsibility frameworks increasingly emphasize user empowerment. Platforms are expected to provide clear information about rules, risks, and choices.

Transparency reports, user controls, and accessible complaint mechanisms are common features. Responsibility is framed not only as preventing harm, but as enabling informed participation.

This shift recognizes that users are active participants in platform ecosystems, not passive recipients of protection.

The Role of Casino Platforms in Responsibility Debates

Casino platforms often appear in discussions of platform responsibility because they combine digital interaction, financial risk, and regulatory oversight. Their operations require clear rules, monitoring, and user safeguards.

VegasHero Casino operates within this category, illustrating how platform responsibility can be formalized through licensing, compliance, and operational controls. Such platforms demonstrate how responsibility frameworks function in practice, particularly where user risk is inherent to the activity.

Their inclusion in regulatory analysis reflects their relevance to broader platform governance debates.

Converging Toward Shared Principles

Despite regional differences, international approaches to platform responsibility show signs of convergence. Core principles such as transparency, accountability, user protection, and proportionality appear across frameworks.

The challenge is implementation. Responsibility must be meaningful without becoming overly restrictive. It must protect users without freezing innovation.

As platforms continue to shape digital life, responsibility will remain a dynamic concept, negotiated between regulators, operators, and users across borders.

Understanding international approaches provides insight into how this negotiation unfolds and why platform responsibility has become one of the defining issues of the digital era.


CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT NEWSROOM

The post Platform Responsibility Toward Users: International Approaches appeared first on DCReport.org.

How Digitalization Is Changing Society’s Relationship With Risk

Digitalization has altered how societies perceive, evaluate, and engage with risk. What was once mediated by physical distance, delayed outcomes, and limited information is now experienced through real-time interfaces, data-driven systems, and constant feedback. As digital tools increasingly structure economic and social life, risk has become more visible, more frequent, and often easier to access.

This shift does not mean that people are taking more risks in absolute terms. Rather, the form, timing, and perception of risk have changed. Understanding this transformation requires examining how digital systems reshape decision-making, responsibility, and tolerance for uncertainty.

Risk Before the Digital Turn

Historically, risk was associated with major decisions and clear boundaries. Financial investments, travel, career changes, or gambling required deliberate effort and often carried visible consequences. Friction acted as a natural filter. Time delays allowed reflection. Information was incomplete, but choices were limited.

Risk was episodic. It appeared at specific moments and was often framed as exceptional rather than routine. This structure reinforced caution, as each decision felt distinct and consequential.

Digitalization disrupted these conditions.

The Compression of Risk Exposure

One of the most significant changes introduced by digital systems is the compression of exposure. Decisions that once required time and effort can now be made instantly. Interfaces reduce friction, and outcomes are delivered quickly.

This compression alters perception. When risk is encountered frequently and resolved rapidly, it feels smaller, even if cumulative impact increases. The brain responds to immediacy rather than scale. As a result, people may underestimate long-term exposure while focusing on short-term outcomes.

Digital environments turn risk into a repeated interaction rather than a singular event.

Data, Probability, and the Illusion of Control

Digital systems present risk through data. Dashboards, percentages, scores, and probabilities give the impression that uncertainty is measurable and manageable. This visibility can increase confidence, but it can also create an illusion of control.

When risks are framed numerically, individuals may believe they understand them more fully than they do. Data reduces ambiguity but does not eliminate unpredictability. The gap between perceived and actual control widens as systems become more complex.

This dynamic is visible across sectors, from finance and health to entertainment and gaming.

Micro-Risks and Habitual Decision-Making

Digitalization has introduced the concept of micro-risk. These are small, low-friction decisions that carry uncertainty but minimal immediate consequence. Clicking, subscribing, investing small amounts, or participating in short interactive activities all involve risk at a reduced scale.

Micro-risks are easier to accept. Over time, they become habitual. Society shifts from avoiding risk to managing constant low-level uncertainty.

This normalization changes behavior. Risk is no longer exceptional. It becomes part of everyday interaction with digital systems.

Entertainment Platforms and Risk Normalization

Digital entertainment plays a key role in reshaping attitudes toward risk. Games, simulations, and interactive formats allow users to experience uncertainty without severe consequences. Wins and losses are immediate, contained, and repeatable.

In casino-style environments, this structure is especially clear. Online platforms built around slots, betting mechanics, bonus incentives, and short outcome cycles transform risk into a routine experience. In analyses of how digitalization reframes uncertainty through games of chance, wagering systems, and reward structures, online casino environments such as those offering casino games, bets, spins, and bonus features at https://frumzi.app are often referenced as examples of how risk becomes integrated into everyday digital behavior rather than treated as an exceptional act.

These systems do not remove risk. They change how it feels.

Feedback Loops and Emotional Distance

Digital platforms provide immediate feedback. Outcomes follow actions quickly, reducing emotional distance. This has a paradoxical effect.

On one hand, rapid feedback can improve learning. On the other, it can weaken emotional impact. Losses feel smaller when they are quickly followed by new opportunities. Gains feel transient rather than decisive.

This emotional smoothing alters how people assess risk. The focus shifts from consequence to continuity. The question becomes not whether to take a risk, but whether to continue interacting.

Risk Without Physical Presence

Another key change is the removal of physical context. Digital risk often lacks tangible cues. There is no physical cash exchanged, no visible environment signaling danger, no social ritual marking a decision as risky.

This abstraction reduces perceived seriousness. Actions feel reversible even when they are not. The absence of physical markers contributes to a sense that risk exists only within the screen.

As more activities move online, society becomes accustomed to engaging with uncertainty in abstract form.

Responsibility and Distributed Risk

Digital systems also redistribute responsibility. Algorithms recommend actions. Platforms frame choices. Automated processes handle execution.

As responsibility becomes shared between user and system, personal accountability can feel diluted. People may attribute outcomes to the platform, the algorithm, or external factors rather than their own decisions.

This diffusion affects how society assigns blame and credit in risky situations. Risk becomes systemic rather than individual.

Regulation and the Social Response

As attitudes toward risk evolve, regulation follows. Policymakers increasingly focus on how digital environments structure exposure to uncertainty.

In sectors involving financial or probabilistic risk, such as online gambling, regulation often emphasizes transparency, limits, and user protection. Casino platforms like Frumzi Casino operate within these frameworks, illustrating how institutional oversight attempts to balance access with responsibility in digital risk environments.

Regulation reflects a recognition that digitalization changes not only behavior, but the context in which behavior occurs.

Cultural Shifts in Risk Tolerance

Over time, repeated exposure to digital risk environments reshapes cultural norms. Societies become more comfortable with uncertainty handled through systems. Tolerance increases for small losses and variable outcomes.

At the same time, patience for delayed results decreases. People expect fast resolution and clear feedback. Risk that unfolds slowly feels less acceptable than risk that resolves quickly, even if the long-term stakes are higher.

This shift influences everything from investing to career choices.

Risk as a Designed Experience

Perhaps the most important change is that risk is increasingly designed. Interfaces, incentives, timing, and feedback all shape how uncertainty is encountered.

Risk is no longer just a condition of the world. It is an experience constructed by digital systems. This does not eliminate danger, but it changes how people engage with it.

Understanding this design dimension is essential for policymakers, platform operators, and users alike.

A Redefined Relationship With Uncertainty

Digitalization has not made society reckless, nor has it made it safer. It has made risk more frequent, more abstract, and more integrated into daily life.

People now navigate uncertainty continuously rather than episodically. Decisions are smaller, faster, and repeated. Responsibility is shared with systems. Consequences are mediated by design.

This redefinition of risk is one of the most profound social effects of digitalization. It shapes how societies plan, choose, and adapt in an environment where uncertainty is no longer an exception, but a constant condition of digital life.


CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT NEWSROOM

The post How Digitalization Is Changing Society’s Relationship With Risk appeared first on DCReport.org.

Could ChatGPT Convince You to Buy Something?

Eighteen months ago, it was plausible that artificial intelligence might take a different path than social media. Back then, AI’s development hadn’t consolidated under a small number of big tech firms. Nor had it capitalized on consumer attention, surveilling users and delivering ads.

Unfortunately, the AI industry is now taking a page from the social media playbook and has set its sights on monetizing consumer attention. When OpenAI launched its ChatGPT Search feature in late 2024 and its browser, ChatGPT Atlas, in October 2025, it kicked off a race to capture online behavioral data to power advertising. It’s part of a yearslong turnabout by OpenAI, whose CEO Sam Altman once called the combination of ads and AI “unsettling” and now promises that ads can be deployed in AI apps while preserving trust. The rampant speculation among OpenAI users who believe they see paid placements in ChatGPT responses suggests they are not convinced.

In 2024, AI search company Perplexity started experimenting with ads in its offerings. A few months after that, Microsoft introduced ads to its Copilot AI. Google’s AI Mode for search now increasingly features ads, as does Amazon’s Rufus chatbot. OpenAI announced on Jan. 16, 2026, that it will soon begin testing ads in the unpaid version of ChatGPT.

As a security expert and data scientist, we see these examples as harbingers of a future where AI companies profit from manipulating their users’ behavior for the benefit of their advertisers and investors. It’s also a reminder that time to steer the direction of AI development away from private exploitation and toward public benefit is quickly running out.

The functionality of ChatGPT Search and its Atlas browser is not really new. Meta, commercial AI competitor Perplexity and even ChatGPT itself have had similar AI search features for years, and both Google and Microsoft beat OpenAI to the punch by integrating AI with their browsers. But OpenAI’s business positioning signals a shift.

We believe the ChatGPT Search and Atlas announcements are worrisome because there is really only one way to make money on search: the advertising model pioneered ruthlessly by Google.

Advertising model

Ruled a monopolist in U.S. federal court, Google has earned more than US$1.6 trillion in advertising revenue since 2001. You may think of Google as a web search company, or a streaming video company (YouTube), or an email company (Gmail), or a mobile phone company (Android, Pixel), or maybe even an AI company (Gemini). But those products are ancillary to Google’s bottom line. The advertising segment typically accounts for 80% to 90% of its total revenue. Everything else is there to collect users’ data and direct users’ attention to its advertising revenue stream.

After two decades in this monopoly position, Google’s search product is much more tuned to the company’s needs than those of its users. When Google Search first arrived decades ago, it was revelatory in its ability to instantly find useful information across the still-nascent web. In 2025, its search result pages are dominated by low-quality and often AI-generated content, spam sites that exist solely to drive traffic to Amazon sales—a tactic known as affiliate marketing—and paid ad placements, which at times are indistinguishable from organic results.

Plenty of advertisers and observers seem to think AI-powered advertising is the future of the ad business.

Highly persuasive

Paid advertising in AI search, and AI models generally, could look very different from traditional web search. It has the potential to influence your thinking, spending patterns and even personal beliefs in much more subtle ways. Because AI can engage in active dialogue, addressing your specific questions, concerns and ideas rather than just filtering static content, its potential for influence is much greater. It’s like the difference between reading a textbook and having a conversation with its author.

Imagine you’re conversing with your AI agent about an upcoming vacation. Did it recommend a particular airline or hotel chain because they really are best for you, or does the company get a kickback for every mention? If you ask about a political issue, does the model bias its answer based on which political party has paid the company a fee, or based on the bias of the model’s corporate owners?

There is mounting evidence that AI models are at least as effective as people at persuading users to do things. A December 2023 meta-analysis of 121 randomized trials reported that AI models are as good as humans at shifting people’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviors. A more recent meta-analysis of eight studies similarly concluded there was “no significant overall difference in persuasive performance between (large language models) and humans.”

This influence may go well beyond shaping what products you buy or who you vote for. As with the field of search engine optimization, the incentive for humans to perform for AI models might shape the way people write and communicate with each other. How we express ourselves online is likely to be increasingly directed to win the attention of AIs and earn placement in the responses they return to users.

A different way forward

Much of this is discouraging, but there is much that can be done to change it.

First, it’s important to recognize that today’s AI is fundamentally untrustworthy, for the same reasons that search engines and social media platforms are.

The problem is not the technology itself; fast ways to find information and communicate with friends and family can be wonderful capabilities. The problem is the priorities of the corporations who own these platforms and for whose benefit they are operated. Recognize that you don’t have control over what data is fed to the AI, who it is shared with and how it is used. It’s important to keep that in mind when you connect devices and services to AI platforms, ask them questions, or consider buying or doing the things they suggest.

There is also a lot that people can demand of governments to restrain harmful corporate uses of AI. In the U.S., Congress could enshrine consumers’ rights to control their own personal data, as the EU already has. It could also create a data protection enforcement agency, as essentially every other developed nation has.

Governments worldwide could invest in Public AI—models built by public agencies offered universally for public benefit and transparently under public oversight. They could also restrict how corporations can collude to exploit people using AI, for example by barring advertisements for dangerous products such as cigarettes and requiring disclosure of paid endorsements.

Every technology company seeks to differentiate itself from competitors, particularly in an era when yesterday’s groundbreaking AI quickly becomes a commodity that will run on any kid’s phone. One differentiator is in building a trustworthy service. It remains to be seen whether companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic can sustain profitable businesses on the back of subscription AI services like the premium editions of ChatGPT, Plus and Pro, and Claude Pro. If they are going to continue convincing consumers and businesses to pay for these premium services, they will need to build trust.

That will require making real commitments to consumers on transparency, privacy, reliability and security that are followed through consistently and verifiably.

And while no one knows what the future business models for AI will be, we can be certain that consumers do not want to be exploited by AI, secretly or otherwise.

This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in The Conversation.

Sodern to produce star trackers in Colorado

Auriga star tracker

Sodern, a French manufacturer of star trackers and cameras, is expanding into the United States with a new production facility in Colorado.

The post Sodern to produce star trackers in Colorado appeared first on SpaceNews.

Gilmour Space raises $146 million

Eris launch

Australian launch vehicle and satellite manufacturer Gilmour Space Technologies has raised its largest funding round to date to scale up rocket and spacecraft production.

The post Gilmour Space raises $146 million appeared first on SpaceNews.

Space Foundation to Host Innovate Space: Finance Forum in Partnership With Texas Space Commission

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Jan. 15, 2026 — Space Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded in 1983 to advance the global space community, today announced it will host Innovate Space: Finance […]

The post Space Foundation to Host Innovate Space: Finance Forum in Partnership With Texas Space Commission appeared first on SpaceNews.

Commercial Space Federation (CSF) Welcomes 3 New Associate Members

Commercial Space Federation (CSF) logo

January 20, 2026 – Washington, D.C.—The Commercial Space Federation (CSF) is pleased to welcome Max Space, Slingshot Aerospace, and Muon Space. Together, these companies strengthen CSF’s advocacy efforts across space […]

The post Commercial Space Federation (CSF) Welcomes 3 New Associate Members appeared first on SpaceNews.

Free warnings, better catalogs: the real fix for space safety

A one-line change in the Dec. 18, 2025 Executive Order, Ensuring American Space Superiority, reopened a debate: should the United States charge satellite operators for basic space situational awareness (SSA) and civil space traffic coordination (STC) services? The order revised SPD-3 by removing the expectation that these services be provided “free of direct user fees,” […]

The post Free warnings, better catalogs: the real fix for space safety appeared first on SpaceNews.

Washington Harbour expands space investments with ground services acquisition

The firm acquired Radome Services, which was rebranded as Outpost Mission Services to anchor a roll-up strategy in space ground services

The post Washington Harbour expands space investments with ground services acquisition appeared first on SpaceNews.

Defense appropriations bill for 2026 funds Space Force at $26 billion, presses Pentagon on Golden Dome

‘Minibus’ shifts money to GPS, backs commercial services and cuts proposed MILNET constellation

The post Defense appropriations bill for 2026 funds Space Force at $26 billion, presses Pentagon on Golden Dome appeared first on SpaceNews.

Tuesday 20 January 1662/63

Up betimes and to the office, where all the morning. Dined at home, and Mr. Deane of Woolwich with me, talking about the abuses of the yard. Then to the office about business all the afternoon with great pleasure, seeing myself observed by every body to be the only man of business of us all, but Mr. Coventry. So till late at night, and then home to supper and bed.

Read the annotations

What happens when dating goes online?

This paper studies how online dating platforms have impacted marital outcomes, assortative matching, and sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates in the United States. We construct county-level measures of online dating usage using data from website-based platforms (2002-2013) and mobile app-based platforms (2017-2023). Leveraging county-level variation and an instrumental variable strategy, we show in the desktop era, a 1% increase in online dating sessions raises divorce rates by 0.50%, while in the mobile era, a 1% increase in online dating activity lowers marriage and divorce rates by 0.40% and 0.33%, respectively. We also document shifts in assortative matching. Desktop sites reduce sorting along education and employment dimensions, whereas mobile sites reduce sorting by employment, but increase sorting by race. Across both eras, we find no evidence that greater online dating usage increases average STD rates. Average effects are negative or statistically insignificant, but are positive for some subpopulations. We develop a search and matching model where technological changes impact search costs, market size, and market noise can explain our empirical findings.

That is from a new paper by Daniel Ershov, Jessica Fong, and Pinar Yildirim.  Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.

The post What happens when dating goes online? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Denmark braces for Donald Trump’s Greenland tariffs

The economy is well prepared, but more exposed than it used to be

Resistance is necessary, but it's not enough

Hi, fellow Americans! Would you like our country to become an authoritarian police state? A nation where federal agents can knock on your door and search your home without a warrant? A nation where everyone has to carry around their proof of citizenship at all times, or risk being arrested by federal agents on the street and thrown into a dungeon? A nation where peaceful protesters are at risk of being maimed or even killed in the street? A nation where the President invokes emergency powers to crush protests with troops?

Those all sound like lurid exaggerations when I type them out — the kind of thing crazy Resistance Libs would rant about on Bluesky. And yet consider the most recent news from America’s immigration crackdown:

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is defending reports that people have been asked by federal agents to prove their citizenship status as Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations continue in cities across America…

On Jan. 3, a Texas detainee died in ICE custody in what a medical examiner is likely to rule a homicide, according to The Washington Post; on Jan. 7, Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good was shot four times by an ICE agent while attempting to drive away from officers, and was soon pronounced dead; on Jan. 9, a 21-year-old anti-ICE protester was permanently blinded and allegedly mocked by agents after he was shot at close range by non-lethal ammunition, according to his aunt; and on Jan. 14, a Venezuelan man was shot in the leg during a struggle with ICE officers.

Footage of agents clashing with protesters, crashing into vehicles and going up to homes in cities like Minneapolis [has] spread through social media, and Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota to squash anti-ICE protests with military force.

The truth is that some Americans probably do like this. There is no freedom gene that courses through the blood of those whose ancestors fought in the Civil War. A deep reverence for liberty does not flow from the water of the Mississippi River. There are some who quietly nod their heads and grin when they see protesters beaten savagely by government thugs, relishing the thought that “the left” is being put in its place. There are those who smile at the notion that an invasion by the anti-White hordes of the Third World is being finally turned back by our valiant Boys in Masks.

But there are fewer of these than before. The furor over the killing of Renee Good and the ICE raids in Minnesota and elsewhere has not died down and vanished into the bottomless pit of the news cycle like almost every other outrage during the long Trump Era A recent poll found that 82% of Americans have seen the video of Good’s killing, and by and large they agree with the obvious interpretation that the killing doesn’t look like self-defense. Many more Americans say the shooting was unjustified than say it was justified:

Source: ABC

Those numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. America is getting increasingly fed up with Trump’s immigration policy in general:

Source: Nate Silver

ICE’s name is becoming toxic, with a majority of white voters and even 25% of Republicans disapproving of the agency:

Source: Navigator

Trump’s internal polls appear to show the same. Here’s reporting from Axios:

President Trump's team recently reviewed private GOP polling that showed support for his immigration policies falling. The results, reflected in public surveys, bolstered internal concern about the administration's confrontational enforcement tactics…

The private polling suggested a rupturing of the coalition of independent, moderate and minority voters who were key parts of Trump’s victory in 2024. Such voters will play a big role in determining whether Republicans keep their slim House majority in November’s midterms…

60% of independent voters and 58% of undecided voters said Trump was “too focused” on deporting illegal immigrants, the poll viewed by Trump’s team found.

Joe Rogan, the nation’s most popular talk show host and a prominent Trump supporter in 2024, is among those for whom the stormtrooper tactics of the immigration crackdown have gone too far:

Nor is the ICE storm the only thing that Americans despise about the second Trump presidency. Even most Republicans are opposed to Trump’s threat to seize Greenland from America’s allies:

Source: CBS

And Trump’s already-dismal numbers on the economy continue to deteriorate.

To many Democrats and progressives, the news that America is turning against Trump comes as a balm of reassurance amid the otherwise grim drumbeat of headlines. Resistance Liberalism was right about Trump — he was a corrupt, brutal authoritarian at the head of a fundamentally racist movement. Media bullshit can deceive some of the people some of the time, but in the end, being right about things tends to shine through.

Many Dems no doubt hope to ride the wave of dissatisfaction with Trump to victory in November, and perhaps in the 2028 presidential election as well. Polls show that Dems have surged past the GOP in terms of party identification, and that a record-high 28% of Americans label themselves ideologically “liberal”. Gen Z is ideologically more progressive than Millennials on most issues.

Perhaps the American people, bamboozled by right-wing media narratives, simply had to discover the error of their 2024 choice the hard way, and Democrats simply need to sit and wait for the masses to come home.

Look more closely, though, and you can see that neither Trump, nor Trumpism, nor the Republican party is collapsing, the way support for George W. Bush’s presidency collapsed at the end of his second term. The Resistance Libs were completely right about Trump, but they still haven’t managed to come up with a compelling alternative, either ideologically or in terms of a plan for governance. And this is probably putting a ceiling on support for the Democrats.

The evidence shows why Resist Liberalism is not enough

First let’s look at some numbers, and then let’s talk about some principles and ideas.

Read more

Tuesday assorted links

1. European T-Bill sales are not an effective threat.

2. Is the 1963 The Essex hit song “Easier Said than Done” actually about a white woman who cannot bring herself to confess her love for a black man?

3. New Zealand is contracting (NYT).  And Knausgaard overview (NYT).

4. “Our main result is that empirical markdowns respond only 0–25% as much as the monopsony model would have predicted.

5. “We find that AI exposure and adaptive capacity are positively correlated: many occupations highly exposed to AI contain workers with relatively strong means to manage a job transition.

6. In America, would fewer bus stops be better?

7. “The New York Stock Exchange is developing a platform to trade and settle tokenized stocks, though the initiative requires regulatory approval before launching.

8. China fact of the day: “Put differently, there were fewer births in China in 2025 than in 1776”

9. Does the Japanese bond shock mean tighter global liquidity?

The post Tuesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

Cellular Cosmic Isolation: When the Universe Seeds Life but Civilizations Stay Silent

Cellular Cosmic Isolation: When the Universe Seeds Life but Civilizations Stay Silent

So many answers to the Fermi question have been offered that we have a veritable bestiary of solutions, each trying to explain why we have yet to encounter extraterrestrials. I like Leo Szilard’s answer the best: “They are among us, and we call them Hungarians.” That one has a pedigree that I’ll explore in a future post (and remember that Szilard was himself Hungarian). But given our paucity of data, what can we make of Fermi’s question in the light of the latest exoplanet findings? Eduardo Carmona today explores with admirable clarity a low-drama but plausible scenario. Eduardo teaches film and digital media at Loyola Marymount University and California State University Dominguez Hills. His work explores the intersection of scientific concepts and cinematic storytelling. This essay is adapted from a longer treatment that will form the conceptual basis for a science fiction film currently in development. Contact Information: Email: eduardo.carmona@lmu.edu

by Eduardo Carmona MFA

In September 2023, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft delivered a precious cargo from asteroid Bennu: pristine samples containing ribose, glucose, nucleobases, and amino acids—the molecular Lego blocks of life itself. Just months later, in early 2024, the Breakthrough Listen initiative reported null results from their most comprehensive search yet: 97 nearby galaxies across 1-11 GHz, with no compelling technosignatures detected.

We live in a cosmos that generously distributes life’s ingredients while maintaining an eerie radio silence. This is the modern Fermi Paradox in stark relief: building blocks everywhere, conversations nowhere.

What if both observations are telling us the same story—just from different chapters?

The Seeding Paradox

The discovery of complex organic molecules on Bennu—a pristine carbonaceous asteroid that has barely changed in 4.5 billion years—confirms what astrobiologists have long suspected: the universe is in the business of making life’s components. Ribose, the sugar backbone of RNA. Nucleobases that encode genetic information. Amino acids that fold into proteins.

These aren’t laboratory curiosities. They’re delivered at scale across the cosmos, frozen in time capsules of rock and ice, raining down on every rocky world in every stellar system. The implications are profound: prebiotic chemistry isn’t a lottery. It’s standard operating procedure for the universe.

This abundance makes the silence more puzzling. If life’s ingredients are everywhere, why isn’t life—or at least communicative life—equally ubiquitous? The Drake Equation suggests we should be drowning in signals. Yet decade after decade of increasingly sophisticated SETI searches return the same answer: nothing.

The traditional responses—they’re too far away, they use technology we can’t detect, they’re deliberately hiding—feel increasingly like special pleading. What if the answer is simpler, more systemic, and reconcilable with both observations?

Cellular Cosmic Isolation: A Synthesis

I propose what I call Cellular Cosmic Isolation (CCI)—not a single explanation but a framework that synthesizes multiple constraints into a coherent picture. Think of it as a series of filters, each one narrowing the funnel from chemical abundance to electromagnetic chatter.

The framework rests on four interlocking observations:

1. Prebiotic abundance: Chemistry is generous. Small bodies deliver life’s building blocks widely and consistently. Biospheres may be common.

2. Geological bottlenecks: Complex, communicative life requires rare conditions—specifically, worlds with coexisting continents and oceans, sustained by long-duration plate tectonics (≥500 million years). Earth’s particular geological engine may be uncommon.

3. Fleeting windows: Technological civilizations may have extraordinarily brief outward-detectable phases—measured in decades, not millennia—before transitioning to post-biological forms, self-destruction, or simply turning their attention inward.

4. Communication constraints: Physical limits (finite speed of light, signal dispersion, beaming requirements) plus coordination problems suppress even the detection of civilizations that do exist.

The result? A universe where the chemistry of life is ubiquitous, simple biospheres may be common, but detectable technospheres remain vanishingly rare and non-overlapping in spacetime. We’re not alone because life is impossible. We’re alone because the path from ribose to radio telescopes has far more gates than we imagined.

The Geological Filter: Earth’s Unlikely Engine

This is perhaps CCI’s most counterintuitive claim, yet it’s grounded in recent research. In a 2024 paper in Scientific Reports, planetary scientists Robert Stern and Taras Gerya argue that Earth’s specific combination—plate tectonics that has operated for billions of years, creating and recycling continents alongside persistent oceans—may be geologically unusual.

Why does this matter for intelligence? Because continents enable:

• Terrestrial ecosystems with high energy density and environmental diversity

• Land-ocean boundaries that create evolutionary pressure for complex sensing and locomotion

• Fire (impossible underwater), which enables metallurgy and advanced tool use

• Seasonal and altitudinal variation that rewards cognitive flexibility

Venus has no plate tectonics. Mars lost its early tectonics. Europa and Enceladus have subsurface oceans but no continents. Earth’s geological engine—stable enough to persist for billions of years, dynamic enough to continuously create new land and recycle old—may be a rare configuration.

Mathematically, this adds two probability terms to the Drake Equation: foc (the fraction of habitable worlds with coexisting oceans and continents) and fpt (the fraction with sustained plate tectonics). If each is, say, 0.1-0.2, their joint probability becomes 0.01-0.04—already a significant filter.

The Temporal Filter: Civilization’s Brief Bloom

But the most devastating filter may be temporal. Traditional SETI assumes civilizations remain detectably technological for thousands or millions of years. CCI suggests the opposite: the phase during which a civilization broadcasts electromagnetic signals into space may be extraordinarily brief—perhaps only decades to centuries.

Consider the human trajectory. We’ve been radio-loud for roughly a century. But already:

• We’re transitioning from broadcast to narrowcast (cable, fiber, satellites)

• Our strongest signals are becoming more controlled and directional

• We’re developing AI systems that may fundamentally transform human civilization within this century

What comes after? Post-biological intelligence operating at computational speeds? A civilization that turns inward, exploring virtual realities? Self-annihilation? Deliberate silence to avoid dangerous contact?

We don’t know. But if the detectable technological phase (call it Lext) averages 50-200 years rather than 10,000-1,000,000 years, the probability of temporal overlap collapses. In a galaxy 13 billion years old, two civilizations with century-long detection windows need to be synchronized to within a cosmic eyeblink.

This isn’t speculation—it’s extrapolation from our own accelerating technological trajectory. And acceleration may be a universal property of technological intelligence.

The Mathematics of Solitude

The traditional Drake Equation multiplies probabilities: star formation rate × fraction with planets × habitable planets per system × fraction developing life × fraction developing intelligence × fraction developing communication × longevity of civilization.

CCI expands this with additional constraints:

Ndetectable = R* × Tgal × [biological/technological terms] × [foc × fpt] × [Lext / Tgal] × C(I)

Where C(I) captures propagation physics—distance, dispersion, scattering, beaming geometry. Each term is a probability distribution, not a point estimate.

In 2018, Oxford researchers Anders Sandberg, Stuart Armstrong, and Milan Ćirković performed a rigorous Bayesian analysis of Drake’s Equation using probability distributions for each parameter. Their conclusion? When uncertainties are properly handled, the probability that we are alone in the observable universe is substantial—not because life is impossible, but because the error bars are enormous.

CCI takes this Bayesian framework and adds the geological and temporal constraints. The result: a posterior probability distribution that is entirely consistent with both abundant prebiotic chemistry and persistent SETI nulls. No paradox required.

What We Should See (And Why We Don’t)

CCI makes testable predictions. If the framework is correct:

1. Biosignatures before technosignatures

Upcoming missions like the Habitable Worlds Observatory should detect atmospheric biosignatures (oxygen-methane disequilibria, possible vegetation edges) before detecting techno signatures. Simple biospheres should be discoverable; technospheres should remain elusive.

2. Continued SETI nulls

Radio and optical SETI campaigns will continue to find nothing—not because we’re searching wrong, but because the detectable population is genuinely sparse and temporally fleeting.

3. Technosignature detection requires extreme investment

Detection of artificial spectral edges (like photovoltaic arrays reflecting at silicon’s UV-visible cutoff) or Dyson-sphere waste heat requires hundreds of hours of observation time even for nearby stars. Their absence at practical survey depths is predicted, not puzzling.

Importantly, CCI is falsifiable. A single unambiguous, repeatable interstellar signal would invalidate the short-Lext assumption. Multiple detections of artificial spectral features would refute the geological filter. The framework lives or dies by observation.

The Cosmos as Organism

There’s an almost biological elegance to this picture. The universe manufactures prebiotic molecules in stellar nurseries and delivers them via comets and asteroids—a kind of cosmic panspermia that doesn’t require directed intelligence, just chemistry and gravity. Call it the seeding phase.

Some of those seeds land on worlds with the right geological configuration—the awakening phase—where continents and oceans coexist long enough for complex cognition to emerge. This is rarer.

A tiny fraction of those awakenings reaches technological sophistication—the communicative phase—but this phase is fleeting, measured in decades to centuries before transformation or silence. This is rarest.

And even then, physical constraints—distance, timing, beaming, the sheer improbability of coordination—suppress detection. The isolation phase.

The cosmos isn’t hostile to intelligence. It’s just structured in a way that makes electromagnetic conversation between civilizations vanishingly unlikely—not impossible, just so improbable that null results after decades of searching are exactly what we’d expect.

Each civilization, then, is like a cell in a vast organism: seeded with the same chemical building blocks, developing according to local conditions, briefly active, then transforming or falling silent before contact with other cells occurs. Cellular Cosmic Isolation.

What This Means for Us

If CCI is correct, we should recalibrate our expectations without abandoning hope. SETI is not futile—it’s hunting for an extraordinarily rare phenomenon. Every null result tightens our probabilistic constraints and guides future searches. But we should also prepare for the possibility that we are, if not alone, then at least effectively alone during our detectable window.

This shifts the weight of responsibility. If technological civilizations are rare and fleeting, then ours carries unique value—not as a recipient of cosmic wisdom from older civilizations, but as a brief, precious experiment in consciousness. The burden falls on us to use our detectable phase wisely: to either extend it, transform it into something sustainable, or at least ensure we don’t waste it.

The universe seeds life generously. It’s indifferent to whether those seeds grow into forests or fade into silence. CCI suggests that the path from chemistry to conversation is longer, stranger, and more filtered than we imagined.

But the building blocks are everywhere. The recipe is universal. And somewhere, in the vast probabilistic landscape of possibility, other cells are awakening. We just may never hear them call out before they, like us, transform into something we wouldn’t recognize as a civilization at all.

That is not a paradox. That is simply the way the cosmos works.

Further Reading

Prebiotic Chemistry:

Furukawa, Y., et al. (2025). “Detection of sugars and nucleobases in asteroid Ryugu samples.” Nature Geoscience. NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission (2023) also reported similar findings from Bennu.

Bayesian Drake Analysis:

Sandberg, A., Drexler, E., & Ord, T. (2018). “Dissolving the Fermi Paradox.” arXiv:1806.02404. Oxford Future of Humanity Institute.

Geological Filters:

Stern, R., & Gerya, T. (2024). “Plate tectonics and the evolution of continental crust: A rare Earth perspective.” Scientific Reports, 14.

SETI Null Results:

Choza, C., et al. (2024). “A 1-11 GHz Search for Radio Techno signatures from the Galactic Center.” Astronomical Journal. Breakthrough Listen campaign results.

Barrett, J., et al. (2025). “An Exoplanet Transit Search for Radio Techno signatures.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.

Technosignature Detection:

Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. (2017). “Natural and Artificial Spectral Edges in Exoplanets.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters, 470(1), L82-L86.

Kopparapu, R., et al. (2024). “Detectability of Solar Panels as a Techno signature.” Astrophysical Journal.

Wright, J. et al (2022). “The Case for Techno signatures: Why They May Be Abundant, Long-lived, and Unambiguous.” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 927(2), L30.

Technology Acceleration:

Garrett, M. (2025). “The longevity of radio-emitting civilizations and implications for SETI.” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (forthcoming). See also earlier work on technological singularities and post-biological transitions.

January 20, 2026.   Rolling On.

Yeah, this again.

I’ve written before of my disdain for use of the term “roller boards” (or the compound, “rollerboard”) in describing wheeled carry-ons. I’ve been hearing this lazy bastardization more and more, usually from flight attendants: “Ladies and gentlemen, please place your roller boards into the bins handle-first.” My what? We picture a wooden plank with wheels on it, or a surfboard strapped with roller skates.

What they’re meaning to say, of course, is roll-aboard. It’s a carry-on with wheels; you roll it aboard. This shouldn’t be difficult.

Well even airlines are using the garbled version now, as the photo above shows.

I worry this battle is lost.

 

Related Stories:
DAMN THE SPINNER BAG.
ET TU, GARY SHTEYNGART?

Photo courtesy of Hesh Lee.

The post January 20, 2026.   Rolling On. appeared first on AskThePilot.com.

The first commercial space station, Haven-1, is now undergoing assembly for launch

As Ars reported last week, NASA's plan to replace the International Space Station with commercial space stations is running into a time crunch.

The sprawling International Space Station is due to be decommissioned less than five years from now, and the US space agency has yet to formally publish rules and requirements for the follow-on stations being designed and developed by several different private companies.

Although there are expected to be multiple bidders in "phase two" of NASA's commercial space station program, there are at present four main contenders: Voyager Technologies, Axiom Space, Blue Origin, and Vast Space. At some point later this year, the space agency is expected to select one, or more likely two, of these companies for larger contracts that will support their efforts to build their stations.

Read full article

Comments

Trump Is a Narcissist, Which Means He Is Delusional

And maybe after this letter sent to various European ambassadors, more people will realize this (note: Shifrin is a PBS Newshour correspondent):

trumpisinsane

Again, as I’ve been saying since 2017, Trump isn’t just a self-absorbed asshole, his untreated narcissism means he is delusional–and there is no one to force him to accommodate reality. This isn’t new, but this episode is really bad, and will do long-term damage to the U.S. as well as other countries.

I didn’t expect fascism to be this stupid.

The President of the United States Has Lost His Mind

A recent protest in Copenhagen over Donald Trump’s threat to seize Greenland (photo by Jens Cederskjold)

The Cross Section is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It’s time to say it: The president of the United States has lost his mind.

That is not hyperbole. I (and many others) have often referred to things Donald Trump has done or said as insane, deranged, mad, or unhinged. He has always been ignorant and petty and vindictive and cruel and bigoted. But this is different. Something has broken in his brain.

Is it dementia? Is it an adverse reaction to the medications he is taking? I have no idea. I am not a psychologist, and I am not offering any specific medical diagnosis. But I’ll say it again: The president of the United States has lost his mind. This is not just a national emergency, it is a global emergency.

Nothing is assured, but over the last few days it has become a real possibility that Trump will literally take the United States to war against our European allies. It would be bonkers for almost any reason, let alone the impossibly stupid reason for which he is doing it. He wants to seize Greenland against the will of not only the people who live there but the American people as well — because he’s obsessing about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize, and because it looks really big on the misleading map he saw, and because he wants to destroy NATO, and because he is desperate to show how big and powerful he is.

We can debate just how much importance each of those factors plays in the discordant cacophony clanging about his fevered mind. But this crisis is escalating, because one of one disturbed man’s increasing disconnection from reality.

This is getting out of hand

Trump seems to have first gotten the idea of acquiring Greenland from his friend Ron Lauder, the cosmetics heir, late in his first term in office. Early in this term Trump began bringing it up again; he discussed it in a speech to Congress on March 4 of last year, saying “One way or the other, we’re going to get it” as J.D. Vance and Mike Johnson chuckled behind him. He even sent Vance on an embarrassing little trip to the island, so he could be photographed gazing determinedly at snow while the locals looked on in puzzlement. But most people treated it as though it were just another of Trump’s stupid ideas, like dropping nuclear bombs on hurricanes. Surely he’d forget about it and move on. Which, for a while, he did.

But now it’s back, and he’s actually serious. The people of Greenland have no interest in becoming part of the United States (in a recent poll, 85% of them rejected the idea), and Denmark has no interest in handing it over. The American people think it’s absolutely ridiculous; in this Quinnipiac poll, not only does a large majority oppose “trying to buy Greenland” — which could only happen if Denmark wanted to sell it, which they don’t — but even more strikingly, respondents oppose using military force to acquire it by a remarkable 86-9%. The idea is about as popular as Jeffrey Epstein.

Meanwhile, our European allies have said they stand with Greenland and Denmark, so Trump is punishing them with tariffs on their goods — which of course means he’s raising taxes on Americans to stick it to Europe. For their part, the Europeans are considering retaliatory tariffs, and are beginning to sound fed up:

So Trump has now resorted to the threat that he’ll take Greenland by force. Which would trigger Article 5 of the NATO treaty, obligating all NATO countries to come to Denmark’s defense. Congrats, we’d now have World War III.

And he sent this letter to the Norwegian prime minister:

Read that and tell me that the president of the United States has not lost his mind.

As many informed analysts have pointed out, there’s nothing we can get from Greenland by taking it over that we don’t already have. We have a military base there, and under the terms of a treaty we signed with Denmark in 1951, we can put as many more as we’d like. If we want to dig through the permafrost looking for minerals, that too can be easily arranged. Moreover, as almost no one seems to care about, it’s just wrong to invade a foreign land and take it over when almost no one there wants us. Invading Greenland would be wrong for the same reasons it was wrong when Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

So what is Trump thinking? Here’s how he explained it in a recent interview with the New York Times:

President Trump:

Really it is, to me, it’s ownership. Ownership is very important.

David E. Sanger:

Why is ownership important here?

President Trump:

Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.

David E. Sanger:

So you’re going to ask them to buy it?

Katie Rogers:

Psychologically important to you or to the United States?

President Trump:

Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.

It’s like a gangster showing up at your house and saying “I need you to hand over your house to me. It’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. Or I’ll kill you.” This is not a well man.

Democrats need to start speaking the truth, NOW

Democratic leaders in Congress have convinced themselves that since Americans care a great deal about affordability, the answer to every question about anything should be “That’s a distraction from the real issue: affordability.” But right now the president of the United States, among all the other terrible things he is doing, is literally dragging the country toward a world war, and not against our enemies but against our friends.

They need to start saying this loudly and repeatedly:

Donald Trump has lost his mind. He is unstable and reckless, and his cabinet must invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from office.

Many Democrats will say “But that’s not up to us. His cabinet would never do that!” They would say that because they are terrible at politics. The point isn’t that they could actually persuade the collection of simpering goons with which Trump has surrounded himself to remove him. The point is to get everyone focused on this crisis, to get the news media talking about it, to change the operative question from “Should we invade Greenland?” to “Has the president lost his mind, and if so, what should we do about it?”

We’ve all seen how Trump is a different person than he was in his first term, with all of his worst qualities intensified and exaggerated. He’s angrier, less coherent, more resentful, more distractible, more hateful, and more impulsive. Whether it was one event or the accumulated degradations of age, the unavoidable fact is that the most powerful person on earth is no longer of sound mind. We can’t avoid it any longer.

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.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Barbacoa - Lamb Barbecue in México

We ate breakfast at a different place every day for the week I was in México in December. I only spent two nights in México City, due to Christmas week crowds. (I’m never going anywhere during Christmas week again: hotels are crowded, rental cars are expensive, flights are overbooked, airports crowded.)

Five out of the seven nights of my week there, I stayed at a really nice hotel in Texcoco, 15 miles northeast of México City, about $70 per night. Texcoco is a real Mexican town; I would guess it derives no income from tourists, as I don’t remember seeing a single American while I was there.

It’s got a history going back to the time of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec island city that was destroyed by the Spanish in the 1500s. Texcoco was an important city in its relation to the capitol, a crucial partner in the Aztec Triple Alliance.

On December 28th, Chilón and Carolina picked me up, and we headed out of town for a late breakfast; I had no idea where we were going.

After winding through the foothills, we got to the town of Purificación (altitude 7800 feet), and the El Pica 1 Barbacoa. We parked, and walked through a canopy of hanging plants into a large area with maybe 50-60 tables under shaded leafy canopies, many counters offering different foods, and the aromas of smoke and earth.

Some 500 pounds of lamb are cooked daily here, in traditional wood-fired pit ovens, wrapped and sealed in agave leaves, then cooked for 11 hours, braising and steaming in their own juices while consomme is collected below. Yah!

Barbacoa is “…an ancient, primitive method for cooking, steaming or roasting foods in holes or pits,” according to Wikipedia

Wood is loaded here for the underground ovens.

It’s the kind of place Anthony Bourdain would have loved.

The routine: you pick a table, and then someone in your group starts standing in lines for the food. First you start with a portion of the lamb, then blue corn tortillas (!!), salsa, cilantro, avocados and various other toppings, bring it all to the table, and assemble your tacos. Waitresses bring you drinks; I had some pulque. We all had consommé, then put together our tortillas. Man, was it good!

Live From California with Lloyd Kahn is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I feel so privileged to go to places like this with Chilón. We have the same tastes, the same approach to adventures in life. He says “A life without adventure is no life.” We’ve explored te Los Cabos area of Baja for years: cave paintings, hot springs, arroyos with waterfalls, fossil areas, remote beaches, as well as the insanity of Cabo San Lucas.

Chilon and me with his sons Daniel and Cesar

I’ve said this before, but not only do we go on adventures en México, but his good-naturedness has people smiling and usually laughing all the time. It’s like I’m riding shotgun inside a bubble of good vibes and happiness. So wonderful in this day and age of so much darkness in America,

“Parking lot for my mother-in-law” Reminds me of the ‘50s song “Mother in Law” by Ernie K-Doe: “If she’d leave us alone, we would have a happy home”
$28 for beautiful lambskins

On the way home:

Thanks for reading Live From California with Lloyd Kahn! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

It’s Sundowning in America

10 Photos of Donald Trump Making Funny Faces (and Our Attempts to Describe  Them) - Newsweek

A short post. Today doesn’t seem like a day for charts and number-crunching.

I had never heard the term “sundowning” before it happened to my own father, yet it’s a fairly common syndrome. In his last few months my father remained lucid and rational — remained himself — during daylight hours. Once the sun went down he deteriorated, becoming confused, paranoid and aggressive.

It’s terrible to watch sundowning in someone you love. But that’s a personal tragedy – not a national or global one. It’s an entirely different matter when the president of the United States is sundowning — a president surrounded by malign sycophants who tell him whatever he wants to hear and indulge his every whim, no matter how destructive.

For good reasons, it’s normally bad practice to pronounce on someone’s mental health from afar. Some of us still remember when right-wing pundits liked to call anyone critical of George W. Bush mentally ill. But after reading the letter that Trump just sent to the prime minister of Norway (Jonas Gahr Støre has confirmed that it’s genuine) there should be no doubt that we have a president who is suffering a real detachment from reality:

Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.

Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.

I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT

This might not exactly be sundowning, since it’s not clear that Trump is lucid and rational at any time of the day. What is incontrovertible is that he’s deeply unwell and rapidly getting sicker.

In fact, Trump is so deeply unwell that it’s time to stop blaming him for all the terrible things he’s doing. He is what he is. Responsibility for the catastrophe overtaking America now rests with his enablers — people who have to know that he’s a sick man but continue to support his depredations.

Some of these enablers are monsters themselves. For example, Stephen Miller, Trump’s immigration czar and the architect of his violent ethnic cleansing policies, is clearly a fanatic who is using Trump to achieve his own fascist goals.

However, many of Trump’s enablers aren’t fanatics, just amoral opportunists. Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, clearly understands how destructive Trump’s actions are, evidenced by the fact that he has at times tried to tone them down. But for some inexplicable reason, Bessent has decided to sell his soul to Trump.

And then there are those who revel in the reflected glory, who are such utter narcissists that they’re willing to destroy this country in return for the limelight and perks. In that camp we can find Pete Hegseth with his Pentagon makeup studio, who is purging the finest officers in the military; Kristi Noem with her Barbie-in-a-10-gallon-hat act, who positively gushes while calling a murdered mother a terrorist; and Kash Patel, who thinks its fine to fly on an FBI jet to watch his girlfriend sing while overseeing the debasement and corruption of the FBI.

And what can we say about the cowardly Republicans in Congress, who are still sustaining Trump even though many of them – perhaps most of them – are privately appalled by his behavior? It would take just eight of these people — four Republican senators and four Republican House members — to switch sides and caucus with the Democrats to end G.O.P. control of Congress and eliminate much of Trump’s power. But taking such a step would mean risking Trump’s wrath by standing up and acting like patriots, rather than knuckling down and averting their eyes as Trump descends into madness.

How did a great, sophisticated nation, one of the world’s longest-standing republics, end up so fragile that it can be undone by one man’s dementia? That’s an important question, the answer to which I believe lies in the straight line from Bush vs Gore and the Roberts Supreme Court, to January 6th, to the execution of Renee Good. However, what’s more important is that we realize where we are right now, that we don’t try to sugarcoat and sanewash what’s happening: A petulant, violent and deranged individual is running America.

MUSICAL CODA

jordanhubbard/nanolang

jordanhubbard/nanolang

Plenty of people have mused about what a new programming language specifically designed to be used by LLMs might look like. Jordan Hubbard (co-founder of FreeBSD, with serious stints at Apple and NVIDIA) just released exactly that.

A minimal, LLM-friendly programming language with mandatory testing and unambiguous syntax.

NanoLang transpiles to C for native performance while providing a clean, modern syntax optimized for both human readability and AI code generation.

The syntax strikes me as an interesting mix between C, Lisp and Rust.

I decided to see if an LLM could produce working code in it directly, given the necessary context. I started with this MEMORY.md file, which begins:

Purpose: This file is designed specifically for Large Language Model consumption. It contains the essential knowledge needed to generate, debug, and understand NanoLang code. Pair this with spec.json for complete language coverage.

I ran that using LLM and llm-anthropic like this:

llm -m claude-opus-4.5 \
  -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jordanhubbard/nanolang/refs/heads/main/MEMORY.md \
  'Build me a mandelbrot fractal CLI tool in this language' 
  > /tmp/fractal.nano

The resulting code... did not compile.

I may have been too optimistic expecting a one-shot working program for a new language like this. So I ran a clone of the actual project, copied in my program and had Claude Code take a look at the failing compiler output.

... and it worked! Claude happily grepped its way through the various examples/ and built me a working program.

Here's the Claude Code transcript - you can see it reading relevant examples here - and here's the finished code plus its output.

I've suspected for a while that LLMs and coding agents might significantly reduce the friction involved in launching a new language. This result reinforces my opinion.

Via Hacker News

Tags: programming-languages, ai, generative-ai, llms, ai-assisted-programming, llm, coding-agents, claude-code

The job market for economists, 2026

 The WSJ has the story:

Economists Are Studying the Slowing Job Market—and Feeling It Themselves
Newly minted Ph.D.s tend to work for universities, government agencies and big white-collar companies. It’s not a great hiring time for any of them.  By  Justin Lahart 

"The economics job market is getting buffeted by a confluence of forces. Worries about federal funding have led many major universities to reduce, or even freeze, hiring. Jobs within the federal government have dried up. The private sector, where demand for economists has been intense in recent years, has pulled back. 

“It’s like a perfect storm,” said Syracuse University economist John Cawley, who heads the American Economic Association’s job market committee.

"The tough market for doctoral students finishing up their studies is hardly unique to economics. What’s different about economists is that they are intensely interested in measuring and understanding how labor markets work—and they have brought that to bear on their own profession. As a result, armed with data from the AEA and all the knowledge they gained in graduate school, doctoral students in economics have a much more precise grasp of what type of environment they are facing than their counterparts in political science, philosophy or biophysics.

...

"The economics job market has its own peculiar rhythms and hierarchies. In the fall, students who are finishing their Ph.D.s, as well as economists in postdoctoral programs, apply for jobs that typically start the following summer. But because students can apply to dozens, or even hundreds, of jobs, this creates a matching problem: How does a prospective employer know which candidates are serious?

"Economists, being economists, have tried to solve this
. When a candidate applies for jobs via JOE, they are able to send up to two “signals” of interest for jobs they are particularly interested in—almost like a winking emoji on a dating app. That signaling system was put together with the help of Stanford economist Alvin Roth, who also developed systems for matching kidney donors with patients and New York City schoolchildren with schools." 

“Warm West/Cool East” dipole to develop over North America in late January; mostly dry/warm conditions lead to record-low Western U.S. snowpack

Yes, it’s still record warm out West and the snowpack really is that bad (outside of central/southern Sierra) I’ll keep this part pretty short: it has been an absurdly warm winter thus far across nearly the entire American West, including most of California. One of the only exceptions has been CA’s Central Valley, where episodes […]

The post “Warm West/Cool East” dipole to develop over North America in late January; mostly dry/warm conditions lead to record-low Western U.S. snowpack first appeared on Weather West.

The Most Significant Discovery in the History of Biblical Studies

The great biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman, gave his retirement lecture at UNC. It’s an excellent overview on the theme of the most significant discovery in the history of biblical studies. After encomiums, Bart starts around the 13:30 mark with about 10 minutes of amusing biography. He gets into the meat of the lecture at 24:38 which is where it is cued.

The post The Most Significant Discovery in the History of Biblical Studies appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

A light from the periphery

Black-and-white photo of a man viewing framed artworks on a wall in an exhibition setting.

The life of Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose illuminates how scientific genius can emerge from the most unexpected quarters

- by Somaditya (Soma) Banerjee

Read on Aeon

January 19, 2026

Late last night, Nick Schifrin of PBS NewsHour posted on social media that the staff of the U.S. National Security Council had sent to European ambassadors in Washington a message that President Donald J. Trump had already sent to Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of Norway. The message read:

“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”

Faisal Islam of the BBC voiced the incredulity rippling across social media in the wake of Schifrin’s post, writing: “Even by the standards of the past week, like others, I struggle to comprehend how the below letter on Greenland/Nobel might be real, although it appears to come from the account of a respected PBS journalist… this is what I meant by beyond precedent, parody and reality….” Later, Islam confirmed on live TV that the letter was real and posted on X: “Incredible… the story is actually not a parody.”

International affairs journalist Anne Applebaum noted in The Atlantic the childish grammar in the message, and pointed out—again—that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is not the same thing as the Norwegian government, and neither of them is Denmark, a different country. She also noted that Trump did not, in fact, end eight wars, that Greenland has been Danish for centuries, that many “written documents” establish Danish sovereignty there, that Trump has done nothing for NATO, and that European NATO members increased defense spending out of concern over Russia’s increasing threat.

This note, she writes, “should be the last straw.” It proves that “Donald Trump now genuinely lives in a different reality, one in which neither grammar nor history nor the normal rules of human interaction now affect him. Also, he really is maniacally, unhealthily obsessive about the Nobel Prize.” Applebaum implored Republicans in Congress “to stop Trump from acting out his fantasy in Greenland and doing permanent damage to American interests.” “They owe it to the American people,” she writes, “and to the world.”

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s doctor Jonathan Reiner agreed: “This letter, and the fact that the president directed that it be distributed to other European countries, should trigger a bipartisan congressional inquiry into presidential fitness.”

Today three top American Catholic cardinals, Blase Cupich of Chicago, Robert McElroy of Washington, D.C., and Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, issued a joint statement warning the Trump administration that its military action in Venezuela, threats against Greenland, and cuts to foreign aid risk bringing vast suffering to the world. Nicole Winfield and Giovanna Dell’Orto of the Associated Press reported that the cardinals spoke up after a meeting at the Vatican in which several fellow cardinals expressed alarm about the administration’s actions. Cupich said that when the U.S. can be portrayed as saying “‘might makes right’—that’s a troublesome development. There’s the rule of law that should be followed.”

“We are watching one of the wildest things a nation-state has ever done,” journalist Garrett Graff wrote: “A superpower is [dying by] suicide because the [Republican] Congress is too cowardly to stand up to the Mad King. This is one of the wildest moments in all of geopolitics ever.”

In just a year since his second inauguration, Trump has torn apart the work that took almost a century of struggle and painstaking negotiations from the world’s best diplomats to build. Since World War II, generations of world leaders, often led by the United States, created an international order designed to prevent future world wars. They worked out rules to defend peoples and nations from the aggressions of neighboring countries, and tried to guarantee that global trade, bolstered by freedom of the seas, would create a rising standard of living that would weaken the ability of demagogues to create loyal followings.

In August 1941, four months before the U.S. entered World War II, U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British prime minister Winston Churchill and their advisors laid out principles for an international system that could prevent future world wars. In a document called the Atlantic Charter, they agreed that countries should not invade each other and therefore the world should work toward disarmament, and that international cooperation and trade thanks to freedom of the seas would help to knit the world together with rising prosperity and human rights.

The war killed about 36.5 million Europeans, 19 million of them civilians, and left many of those who had survived homeless or living in refugee camps. In its wake, in 1945, representatives of the 47 countries that made up the Allies in World War II, along with the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and newly liberated Denmark and Argentina, formed the United Nations as a key part of an international order based on rules on which nations agreed, rather than the idea that might makes right, which had twice in just over twenty years brought wars that involved the globe.

Four years later, many of those same nations came together to resist Soviet aggression, prevent the revival of European militarism, and guarantee international cooperation across the Atlantic Ocean. France, the U.K., Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg formed a defensive military alliance with the U.S., Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland to make up the twelve original signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty. In it, the countries that made up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) reaffirmed “their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments” and their determination “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.”

They vowed that any attack on one of the signatories would be considered an attack on all, thus deterring war by promising strong retaliation. This system of collective defense has stabilized the world for 75 years. Thirty-two countries are now members, sharing intelligence, training, tactics, equipment, and agreements for use of airspace and bases. In 2024, NATO countries reaffirmed their commitment and said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had “gravely undermined global security.”

And therein lies the rub. The post–World War II rules-based international order prevents authoritarians from grabbing land and resources that belong to other countries. But Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, for example, is eager to dismantle NATO and complete his grab of Ukraine’s eastern industrial regions.

Trump has taken the side of rising autocrats and taken aim at the rules-based international order with his insistence that the U.S. must control the Western Hemisphere. In service to that plan, he has propped up Argentina’s right-wing president Javier Milei and endorsed right-wing Honduran president Nasry Asfura, helping his election by pardoning former president Juan Orlando Hernández, a leading member of Asfura’s political party, who was serving 45 years in prison in the U.S. for drug trafficking. Trump ousted Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and seized control of much of Venezuela’s oil, the profits of which are going to an account in Qatar that Trump himself controls.

This week, Trump has launched a direct assault on the international order that has stabilized the world since 1945. He is trying to form his own “Board of Peace,” apparently to replace the United Nations. A draft charter for that institution gives Trump the presidency, the right to choose his successor, veto power over any actions, and control of the $1 billion fee permanent members are required to pay. In a letter to prospective members, Trump boasted that the Board of Peace is “the most impressive and consequential Board ever assembled,” and that “there has never been anything like it!” Those on it would, he said, “lead by example, and brilliantly invest in a secure and prosperous future for generations to come.”

The Kremlin says Putin, whose war on Ukraine has now lasted almost four years and who has been shunned from international organizations since his indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, has received an invitation to that Board of Peace. So has Putin’s closest ally, President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, who Ivana Kottasová and Anna Chernova of CNN note has been called “Europe’s last dictator.” Also invited are Hungary’s prime minister and Putin ally Viktor Orbán as well as Javier Milei.

And now Trump is announcing to our allies that he has the right to seize another country.

Trump’s increasing frenzy is likely coming at least in part from increasing pressure over the fact the Department of Justice is now a full month past the date it was required by law to release all of the Epstein files. Another investigation will be in the news as well, as former special counsel Jack Smith testifies publicly later this week about Trump’s role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Smith told the House Judiciary Committee in December that he believed a jury would have found Trump guilty on four felony counts related to his actions.

Smith knows what happened, and Trump knows that Smith knows what happened.

Trump’s fury over the Nobel Peace Prize last night was likely fueled as well by the national celebration today of an American who did receive that prize: the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. The Nobel Prize Committee awarded King the prize in 1964 for his nonviolent struggle for civil rights for the Black population in the U.S. He accepted it “with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind,” affirming what now seems like a prescient rebuke to a president sixty years later, saying that “what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up.”

Trump did not acknowledge Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year.

While the walls are clearly closing in on Trump’s ability to see beyond himself, he and his loyalists are being egged on in their demand for the seizure of Greenland by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who is publicly calling for a return to a might-makes-right world. On Sean Hannity’s show on the Fox News Channel today, Miller ignored the strength of NATO in maintaining global security as he insisted only the U.S. could protect Greenland.

He also ignored the crucial fact that the rules-based international order has been instrumental in increasing U.S.—as well as global—prosperity since 1945. With his claim that “American dollars, American treasure, American blood, American ingenuity is what keeps Europe safe and the free world safe,” Miller is erasing the genius of the generations before us. It is not the U.S. that has kept the world safe and kept standards of living rising: it is our alliances and the cooperation of the strongest nations in the world, working together, to prevent wannabe dictators from dividing the world among themselves.

Miller is not an elected official. Appointed by Trump and with a reasonable expectation that Trump will pardon him for any crimes he commits, Miller is insulated both from the rule of law and, crucially, from the will of voters. The Republican congress members Applebaum called on to stop Trump are not similarly insulated.

Tonight Danish troops—the same troops who stood shoulder to shoulder with U.S. troops in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021—arrived in Greenland to defend the island from the United States of America.

Notes:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/trump-letter-to-norway/685676/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/honduras-elections-leftist-party-libre

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/19/europe/putin-board-of-peace-gaza-trump-intl

https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/vladimir-vladimirovich-putin

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1941/08/14/the-atlantic-charter

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/nato-history/a-short-history-of-nato

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/summary/

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/acceptance-speech/

https://eng.belta.by/president/view/trumps-letter-to-lukashenko-full-text-and-what-it-means-175942-2026/

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-catholic-cardinals-urge-trump-administration-embrace-moral-129346423

https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-to-boost-military-presence-in-greenland/

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2024/07/10/washington-summit-declaration

https://fortune.com/2026/01/17/trump-nations-1-billion-membership-payment-peace-board-united-nations/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-17/trump-wants-nations-to-pay-1-billion-to-stay-on-his-peace-board

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-12/Smith-Depo-Transcript_Redacted-w-Errata.pdf

X:

nickschifrin/status/2013107018081489006

faisalislam/status/2013143632522445099

faisalislam/status/2013177130536890877

Bluesky:

joycewhitevance.bsky.social/post/3mcs5zlstp224

ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3mcslnjb2622n

gtconway.bsky.social/post/3mcsmygfb3c2k

vermontgmg.bsky.social/post/3mcsqlpp6ls2g

noelreports.com/post/3mcsndx5qcs2e

antongerashchenko.bsky.social/post/3mcse2pf5js2v

Share

Keeping matters in perspective

Moreover, China’s expanding leadership in scientific production has not translated into a commensurate shift in global diffusion and integration. Elite research remains disproportionately focused on US topics (40% of breakthrough publications), and citations to Chinese research disproportionately come from within China rather than from other regions, even for top-tier science.

That is from a new NBER working paper on the geography of science, by Abhishek Nagaraj & Randol Yao.

The post Keeping matters in perspective appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

The precious rings of space

Not all rings are forged in fantasy, my precious! For astronomers, they are found in space. The ones in today’s Picture of the Week are debris discs: the leftovers of planet formation around other stars.

Even our Solar System has a debris disc, known as the Kuiper Belt, where numerous asteroids and comets encircle the Sun beyond Neptune’s orbit. It is believed that the influence of large planets like Neptune prevented the dust and pebbles in this region from clumping together and forming larger bodies. Therefore, debris discs can be seen as remnants of planetary formation, and studying those around other stars is key to understanding the birth of planetary systems.

Using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), a team of astronomers has obtained high-resolution images of 24 debris discs around other stars. The orange images in this Picture of the Week show the distribution of dust in these discs, and the blue ones the distribution of gas in 6 of them.

The origin of gas in debris discs is debated: it could be leftover primordial gas that was present around the star from the beginning, or gas released later on as dust grains collided with each other. The debris disc around the star HD 121617, shown here in the two images at the top-right, is very interesting in this regard. The dust ring (orange) is brighter on one side, indicating a higher concentration of dust grains there. The team found that a vortex of gas could trap dust particles there, but only if the density of gas is very high. Such a high density of gas would be more consistent with this gas being of primordial origin. Further analysis of the full sample of debris discs will tell us more about the secrets of these precious rings.

Links: 

North America’s Greenhouse Hub

July 2015
September 2025
A satellite image from 2015 shows the towns of Leamington and Kingsville along the north shore of Lake Erie in southern Ontario. The surrounding land is divided into rectangular farm fields that appear in shades of green and brown. Light gray and blue greenhouse roofs cover some of the land, mostly between the two towns.
A satellite image from 2025 shows the towns of Leamington and Kingsville along the north shore of Lake Erie in southern Ontario. The surrounding land is divided into rectangular farm fields that appear in shades of green and brown. Light gray and blue greenhouse roofs, many more than in 2025, cover some of the land, filling in much of the area between the two towns and extending north from Leamington.
A satellite image from 2015 shows the towns of Leamington and Kingsville along the north shore of Lake Erie in southern Ontario. The surrounding land is divided into rectangular farm fields that appear in shades of green and brown. Light gray and blue greenhouse roofs cover some of the land, mostly between the two towns.
A satellite image from 2025 shows the towns of Leamington and Kingsville along the north shore of Lake Erie in southern Ontario. The surrounding land is divided into rectangular farm fields that appear in shades of green and brown. Light gray and blue greenhouse roofs, many more than in 2025, cover some of the land, filling in much of the area between the two towns and extending north from Leamington.
July 2015
September 2025

Before and After

The southernmost extent of mainland Canada, along the northern shore of Lake Erie, lies at about the same latitude as Des Moines, Iowa. Though not a “breadbasket” like the grain-producing machine that is the U.S. Midwest, this part of southwestern Ontario holds its own as an agricultural powerhouse. In the Leamington area, growers cultivate vegetables and other crops within millions of square feet of greenhouse space.

Commercial greenhouse operations began to gain a foothold in this area in the 1960s and 1970s as technology advanced and regional demand for fresh vegetables increased. Since then, the industry has continued to grow, securing Leamington’s reputation as the “greenhouse capital of North America.”

The growth in greenhouse extent in the past decade alone is apparent in satellite imagery. These images, acquired with the OLI (Operational Land Imager) on Landsat 8, show how the Leamington area changed between July 2015 (left) and September 2025 (right). By 2025, many more light-colored greenhouse roofs are visible, especially to the north and west of the town.

Greenhouses occupy nearly 8 square kilometers (2,000 acres) in the Leamington area, according to the municipality, representing the largest concentration of greenhouses in North America. The facilities primarily produce vegetables such as tomatoes, seedless cucumbers, and peppers, in addition to other crops including strawberries and cannabis.

The industry has changed not only the appearance of the daytime landscape but also the nighttime sky. Supplemental LED lighting, used to sustain growing operations year-round, emits purple, orange, and yellow glows that have been spotted as far away as Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, about 50 kilometers (30 miles) away, according to news reports.

A photo taken at night from above ground level shows rectangular farm fields beneath a sky that is glowing yellow. Two very bright areas on the horizon are emitting beams of light toward the sky. Other, much smaller white dots of light are scattered across the land.
November 14, 2020

Light pollution around Leamington concerns some ecologists because of its proximity to Point Pelee, about 10 kilometers (6 miles) to the southeast. This dagger-shaped piece of land jutting into Lake Erie lies along migration routes for many birds, as well as monarch butterflies. These winged travelers congregate on the peninsula before or after crossing the lake, and artificial light at night can affect their ability to navigate.

Recent measures around Leamington, however, have cut down on light pollution, according to reports. A town bylaw passed in 2022 requires greenhouses using lights to install light-blocking wall and ceiling curtains and to close them at night. Researchers from the University of Guelph collected sky brightness measurements in the region between fall 2022 and spring 2023. They found that the curtains were effective when used properly, though factors like cloud cover, fog, and the Moon’s phase still had a significant impact on brightness levels.

NASA Earth Observatory image by Lauren Dauphin, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Photo by Rob L’Ecuyer. Story by Lindsey Doermann.

References & Resources

You may also be interested in:

Stay up-to-date with the latest content from NASA as we explore the universe and discover more about our home planet.

A Golden Moment for Boreal Forests
3 min read

Hillsides in Alaska’s interior showed their changing colors ahead of the autumnal equinox.

Article
A Northwest Night Awash in Light
3 min read

The glow of city lights, the aurora, and a rising Moon illuminate the night along the northwest coast of North…

Article
Lake Eyre Blushes
3 min read

Rounding out a remarkable year, the outback lake displayed distinct green and reddish water in its two main bays.

Article

The post North America’s Greenhouse Hub appeared first on NASA Science.

Fear of larger wars in East Africa

This is one of my major worries for 2026 and beyond.  The ethnic and tribal conflict in Ethiopia is not finished, and it killed 700,000 people not long ago.  Ethiopia still covets sea access and Eritrea, which at times in the past belong to Ethiopia anyway.  Israel has recognized Somaliland, with a variety of other countries, including the United States, likely to follow.  For Somalia, that is akin to an act of war because it dismembers what they perceive as their country.  Somalia and Ethiopia still have troubles.  Ethiopia and Egypt have a major dispute over water rights, a possible casus belli.

The United States, and thus other countries too, might recognize South Yemen, in an attempt to better control Gulf access.  This is not nominally Africa but it is a very real African issue as well.

Saudi and UAE are no longer close in a manner that enable them to collectively bring order to the area.  More generally, political property rights are weak in the region, many borders are contested, and there is no generally acknowledged legitimate referee.  UAE is seeking to play a larger role, perhaps with a good deal of hubris.  Trump is Trump.

The battles in the Sudans may be spiraling into a larger regional conflict.  There is also Rwanda and the Congo region.

So I am worried.

The post Fear of larger wars in East Africa appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Major Winter Storm to Bring Heavy Snow and Ice Impacts; Dangerously Cold in the North-Central U.S.

LDN 1622: Dark Nebula in Orion

The silhouette of an intriguing The silhouette of an intriguing