Taryn Palumbo’s final stretch

Taryn Palumbo

I had the chance to throw a few questions at Taryn Palumbo, one of four Democrats scratching and clawing for a spot on the Huntington Beach City Council. I’ve become a huge Taryn admirer these past bunch o’ months, and hope Surf City voters make a wise decision. Stay tuned …

TRUTH OC: What are your emotions as this crazy experience winds down?

TARYN PALUMBO: I am grateful! And exhausted. This has felt like far more of an intense experience than “just a city council race” but I am so lucky to have gone through it with an incredible team of supporters. So many community supporters who have been all-in since day 1, plus I have three amazing people on my slate. 

TRUTH OC: What’s the best part of a political campaign? The worst?

TARYN PALUMBO: Best? Getting to be out and about meeting with people. I truly love chatting with constituents. The worst? Fundraising and social media. It should not be so expensive to try and make a difference in your community. And well, on social—people are just mean! I truly cannot believe the things people say from behind the computer. You know your name is still attached, right!? 

TRUTH OC: In this kind of experience, do you try and prepare yourself for the best or the worst? And what does that look like?

TARYN PALUMBO: I am cautiously optimistic. Honestly, I prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. So I am doing everything I can until the last moment and then I am just going to take a deep breath and treat this as an extraordinary experience that—for better or worse—I can tell my kids about. 

TRUTH OC: What has been your greatest single moment on the campaign trail?

TARYN PALUMBO: The very first time I announced I was running for office. I was so nervous. I had no public persona or presence. And the response was so incredible and made me feel like I could actually do it!

TRUTH OC: Besides it being your home, why is it so important for you to fight for Huntington Beach?

TARYN PALUMBO: It is not about just fighting for HB. It is about fighting and standing for democracy, and the rule of law, and what is right. And while I can’t do it on a national level I can do it here. So it is just a small thing I feel like I can do to fight for what is right.

November 2, 2026

Tomorrow is Election Day.

Trump made his closing argument for the midterm elections in a speech today at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The choice of location made Democratic consultants exultant. The reflecting pool has become a symbol of the Trump administration: an expensive boondoggle that failed immediately.

After touting his experience as a developer and claiming he was an expert at building pools, Trump refused to accept the conclusion that the installation had been faulty—a conclusion the contractor agreed with—and instead insisted that vandals had ruined the project. Under his control, the Department of Justice went so far as to launch a criminal case against a man who reached into the pool to touch the liner. In October, a judge dismissed the case.

Highlighting the reflecting pool in the last hours before Election Day recalled the Greek myth of Narcissus, the young hunter who falls in love with his own reflection in a pool and is unable to tear himself away. In today’s world, that choice also seemed to show Trump’s conviction that he can shape the narrative according to which Americans act.

But his speech seemed to prove the opposite.

The very small audience heard Trump go on and on about the reflecting pool, showing photos of the repairs, seeming to want to convince people that he was the brilliant developer who had fixed a problem 100 years in the making and that his efforts had been beset by vandals. It’s possible his speech writer intended for the theme to suggest that Trump was fixing the U.S. as he fixed the reflecting pool, but Trump’s obvious interest was in his Washington, D.C., projects rather than the nation. He didn’t move off the reflecting pool, algae, bubbles, granite, vandals, and liners for the first 16 minutes of his speech.

Then he turned to his usual wild exaggerations—the investments he has drawn to the U.S., the thousands of criminals he’s captured, the school “mutilizations” of children, his conquest of Greenland and Venezuela to give the U.S. control of “almost 50% of the world’s oil,” his victory over Iran, and so on—before veering back to his Washington projects, including replacing the “very inferior grass” at the White House, near his new helipad. He boasted of repairs he’s made to fountains, then turned to praise his planned “triumphal arch military complex,” his “National Garden of American Heroes” to be filled with statues of Americans he admires, and his new Washington, D.C., golf course.

“[I]t’s a golden age of America,” he concluded. “We have a country that we can be proud of again. We were laughed at all over the world for four years. We were laughed at like we were stupid people. We were laughed at by every ruler, every president, every prime minister, every king, every queen, but they don’t laugh anymore. Thank you very much, everybody.”

We will not know the results of the midterm elections until after the polls close and votes are counted, but early voting and polling suggest this election will see a Democratic wave.

Certainly, Republicans appear to be preparing for such an outcome. Alec Hernandez, Meredith Lee Hill, Erin Doherty, and Andrew Howard reported in Politico today that Republicans are bracing for big losses and are already privately blaming Trump. His trade wars, attacks on immigrants, killing of U.S. citizens, war on Iran, corruption, and alliance with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, as well as his lack of concern for the cost of his actions on the American people, have ruined his popularity and leave Republicans with little to run on.

“We all know who the problem is,” a Republican strategist told the Politico journalists. “It’s Trump. And do we continue down a path of losing?”

But this moment is far bigger than Trump.

At key moments in American history, the majority of voters have woken to the reality that a small group of men has rigged the system to funnel the wealth produced by ordinary people into their own pockets. With that wealth, they have bought power and undermined democracy in favor of themselves.

The potential for this perversion of the principles of the Declaration of Independence—that all people are created equal and have the right to an equal say in their government—became clear even before the creation of the United States of America. Shortly before the Revolutionary War, Daniel Boone had crossed the Appalachian Mountains and reported back to Virginians the miraculously rich resources of the land to the west, the land called “Kentucke.”

When the Revolutionary War ended, settlers rushed to push aside Indigenous Americans and lay claim to Kentucky. Once there, they quickly discovered that equality was not the inevitable result of economic freedom. Some men settled on better land than others, some had family money, some were just lucky, and quickly, those men accumulated more than others.

Along with their wealth, Kentucky’s landowners gained political power, which they used to secure legislation that promoted their interests at the expense of poorer settlers. Wealthy men came to control the government by working with lawmakers who shared their values and by buying the channels through which voters got information. Gradually, the laws they put in place circumscribed other men’s ability to rise, and wealth moved upward. Equality of opportunity faltered.

In 1787, when the Articles of Confederation were still in force, the congress assembled under that document passed the Northwest Ordinance, which was designed to prevent wealthy men from dominating the new western lands. The measure outlawed both primogeniture—the system in which the oldest son alone inherited a family’s wealth—and slavery, systems that the men who wrote the Northwest Ordinance believed were instrumental in concentrating wealth.

The men who wrote the Northwest Ordinance thought it would protect democracy, but over the next fifty years, a handful of wealthy enslavers tightened a stranglehold on the South. After 1854, when their intention to control the whole nation became obvious, Americans from a range of political parties came together to oust them from power. They created a government that worked to develop the economy from the bottom, educating young men and giving them land to farm. They tried to make America into a land where every man, regardless of race or background, could rise through hard work. They abolished human enslavement except as punishment for crime, then gave freedmen the vote to enable them to protect their own economic interests.

They argued that a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” had a responsibility to expand economic growth that benefited everyone.

But that vision came under attack after the Civil War, as men who opposed Black rights began to insist that government-funded programs that protected formerly enslaved people and helped immigrants redistributed wealth from hardworking white taxpayers to the undeserving. Money and power again began to concentrate at the top of society, among those who became known as “robber barons.” When their control of the government helped to crash the economy in 1893, the American people once again came together to oust them from power, and the Progressive Era recreated a government intended to work for everyone.

The same old pattern of demonizing Black Americans and immigrants for supposedly stealing tax dollars repeated. Men determined to control the country insisted that government regulations and taxes took away a man’s liberty to run his business as he saw fit and undermined the individualism that made America great. In the 1920s, they convinced American voters to turn the government over to businessmen, whose policies, once again, concentrated wealth. When the bottom fell out of that system in 1929 with the Great Crash, Americans came together to demand government work for all Americans, rather than a privileged few.

The system they created promised a “New Deal” for the American people, and most Americans thought the system that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights was so popular it would last forever.

But President Ronald Reagan began to undermine that system in the 1980s, insisting that the modern government redistributed the tax dollars of hardworking white men to people like the “welfare queen,” who played the system to live large without working. Like their predecessors from a hundred years before, Reagan and his allies claimed such a system was perilously close to socialism.

And, as before, cuts to regulation and taxes helped money—more than $50 trillion—move upward to the richest 1% of Americans. With it moved political power. Republican-dominated states suppressed voting by likely Democratic constituencies until we are now, in 2026, seeing people having to wait for hours to vote or having to march to distant polling places while billionaire Elon Musk pumps at least $446 million into the midterms to buy Republican control of Congress.

Still worried about losing, the administration is trying to rig the midterm election. After losing repeatedly in the courts over their demands to segregate 20,000 California ballots they insist might have been cast by noncitizens, it today appealed the question to the United States Supreme Court. California officials have said the list was haphazard and inaccurate, and today, in a different case, a Department of Justice lawyer told a judge it was “fair” to say the list has a “high” error rate.

This evening, the Supreme Court denied the administration’s emergency appeal to require California officials to set aside those 20,000 ballots.

The Republicans’ fear comes from the fact that the open looting of the government in Trump’s second term appears to have revealed to a majority of the American people that the policies the Republican Party has enacted since 1981 benefit only a few. Once again, it seems, Americans are coming together, ready to follow the pattern of the past and rebuild a government that works not just for the wealthy, but for everyone.

—

Notes:

https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/trump-voting-claims-counties/

​​https://abc11.com/post/trump-administration-appeals-supreme-court-push-sideline-20000-california-mail-ballots/20008299/

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/11/02/republicans-blame-trump-midterms-2026-01143980

https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/charges-dismissed-permanently-olympian-david-hearn-reflecting-pool-canoeist-prosecutors-refiling-pirro-jeanine-attorney-general-doj-dc-washington

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/09/we-toured-trumps-dc-vanity-projects-its-a-mess/

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/oct/31/elon-musk-midterms-spending-visualized

YouTube:

watch?v=2ONk9n1gu4M

Bluesky:

ariberman.bsky.social/post/3mzdxtqnsjk2q

thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3mzf2liqyck2j

victinibcn.bsky.social/post/3mzem3x5qv223

rgoodlaw.bsky.social/post/3mze5mhnvpk2f

chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3mze55fytws2m

kelseyreichmann.bsky.social/post/3mzefvgbwyk2m

Share

Intending to Steal

To read this letter, click here:

Listen on Apple Podcasts
Listen on Spotify

You can also find Heather at:
YouTube
Bluesky
Instagram
Facebook
Threads
TikTok

Ireland fact of the day

Almost half of Ireland’s corporation tax haul comes from just three companies: Apple, Eli Lilly and Microsoft.

Here is much more from Jude Webber at the FT, on why Ireland does not always feel or operate like a wealthy country.

The post Ireland fact of the day appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

      

Related Stories

 

Tuesday assorted links

1. Jason Furman on AI and the CEA.

2. Matt Kahn uses Refine and gets results.

3. Cyril Hilsum, RIP (flat screen TV, NYT).

4. How much of the return to education is in fact a return to genes?

5. Essay contest on how AI will affect developing economies.

6. AI sanity from Nicholas Decker.  And Samir Varma on AI constitutions.

7. What happens when AI audits the work of Chad Jones?

The post Tuesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

happy post-Halloween

In our garden:



Ask Rands

Ask Rands

I continue to avidly build with the robots on a daily basis. One of the more continually helpful use cases is summarization. Plop in the long, useless marketing email from United Airlines and figure out if there’s something useful in my endless quest for airline status. The answer: it usually finds something worth my time. More importantly, I don’t have to read a long, useless email.

Over on the Rands Leadership Slack, I get a lot of questions about “Did you write about wolves at some point?” Which I did, and I’m happy to share that link, but through the gift of the robots, I’ve now built a tool that will answer these questions and more.

Grumbles is the anthropomorphized robot that lives on my Mac Studio, and he’s sassy. I like that he has a backstory. I asked him to answer your questions, and he does… reluctantly.

More importantly, Grumbles only synthesizes from what he’s handed from the Rands writing corpus. He does not use general knowledge except to understand how to read what words mean — the thoughts, strategy, and content are all mine. The snark is his, and I love it.

I’d like to thank the humans at RLS who tested the alpha of this tool and the readers of the newsletter for testing the beta. All of those folks greatly improved the service.

Ask away.

Apple’s New iPhone Release Schedule Seems to Pay Off

Horace Dediu, tweeting yesterday on Apple’s results:

iPhone grew at 17% sales which is amazing considering they did not launch the 18 or the Duo or the new Air in the quarter.

The Duo didn’t launch until October, which is Q1 (in Apple’s financial calendar). And the Air, last year, was not a big seller (putting it lightly). The big bet Apple made this year was postponing the regular iPhone 18 until the end of winter early next year. The pro models — Pro and Pro Max — combined sell more than the regular non-pro no-adjective iPhone each year, but the regular non-pro iPhone is Apple’s single best-selling iPhone model. The bet that Apple made is that those mainstream buyers don’t care if the regular iPhone 18 ships five or six months after the 18 Pros — and won’t care next year, or the year after that, or the year after that about this same schedule being followed by the iPhones 19, 20, 21, etc.

The other factor at play is that the just-reported quarter started in July, just after Apple raised prices on just about every major product it sells other than the iPhone. So it’s theoretically possible that this quarter’s sales were boosted by people buying year-old iPhone 17-generation models in anticipation of Apple raising prices with the new models in September (which is exactly what happened). But I don’t see how that can explain 17 percent growth in sales year-over-year. Some savvy enthusiasts definitely did this. I have heard from a few people who bought iPhone 17 Pros in August, concluding that they’d be better off saving money than spending more for an only incrementally better 18 Pro (which would no longer come in the all-time-great cosmic orange colorway). But general consumers don’t follow Apple that closely. There are over a billion iPhone users in the world and at least one billion of them don’t even know that Apple always holds an iPhone introduction event in early September.

We can’t call this new launch schedule a win until we see what happens in late February or early March when Apple launches the iPhone 18, 18e, and Air 2, but so far it sure looks like a win.

 ★ 

Apple Announces Record $114.5B Fourth-Quarter Results

Jason Snell, Six Colors:

On Monday, Apple announced record fourth-quarter earnings, with total revenue of $114.5B, up 12 percent from the year-ago quarter. iPhone revenue was up 17.5%, Mac revenue was up 23.7%, and Services revenue was up 9.8%. Wearables revenue was down 7.9% and iPad revenue was down 10.4%. [...]

And now, to help you visualize what Apple just announced, here is our traditional barrage of charts and graphs.

As usual, Snell also has a transcript of the analyst call — Ternus’s first as CEO. My favorite tidbit was his line at the end of this answer:

Richard Kramer, Arete Research: Your latest MacBook Pros included more iOS features like Touch and Dynamic Island as well as, obviously, Siri AI. Should we anticipate further close linking of macOS and iOS features, maybe even pointing at some point to a single unified OS, either for simplicity or to reduce costs?

John Ternus: Look, we are very proud of both the Mac and the iPad, and I think what you’ve seen over the years is we’ve really enjoyed the ability to bring features and capabilities across the ecosystem and create really compelling features that span things between handoff between iPhone and Mac and iPad, and so when we design the product, we’re looking at how can we make the best version of each and every product, and if you look at what we just did last week with the MacBook Pro, we took a huge leap forward. These MacBook Pros are better in every way than the ones that came before them, and we’re really proud of that, and so we don’t have any fundamentally different changes that we’re planning right now, nor would we talk about it anyway.

 ★ 

[Sponsor] OurCal

“I didn’t see you put that in the diary.”

Sound familiar?

Shared calendars solved scheduling, not communication.

OurCal connects any calendar, new or existing, to a group chat. Changes post there automatically, so nobody misses them. Because it’s a messenger, we made everything End-to-End Encrypted, certified by France’s cybersecurity agency.

It’s native SwiftUI across Apple’s platforms, and the App Store just featured it in “Great apps on iPhone Duo”. We’re Apple people, but we think it’s the best shared calendar on Android too.

Free to try, then a low monthly group subscription. No ads, no tracking.

 ★ 

AIs Hacking the Law

In both a 2021 essay and my 2022 book, A Hacker’s Mind, I talk about AIs finding vulnerabilities and exploits—hacking—the legal system.

Here’s some demonstrations of this from Germany:

Legal systems encode the foundations of social order in natural language. Similar to computer systems, the written law can contain vulnerabilities that invite exploitation.1 Courts absorb most exploits through interpretation, and such vulnerabilities rarely surface in the first place. With highly capable AI systems enabling the discovery of vulnerabilities at unprecedented scale, we believe the latter could change.

In testing this hypothesis, we have identified a substantial number of vulnerabilities in the German legal system using LLMs. To our knowledge, none of these have been previously recorded. We share a selection of vulnerabilities below, and present potential exploits for each. We share only those vulnerabilities whose exploitation we believe would not cause serious harm.

We believe that with cheap legal reasoning proliferating, AI systems could jeopardize the functioning of today’s legal systems. In such a world, lawmakers would need to significantly harden the process of legislation, for example by leveraging advanced AI themselves.

Still in its early stages, but definitely something that’s coming.

Trump Defined the Senate Map Long Before The Midterms

It is a given of the 2026 midterms that a wave of still-uncertain magnitude is likely because of Donald Trump’s historic unpopularity. What gets less attention is how much the Senate races themselves — like who is running and whether an election is even being held — have been shaped very directly by his actions. Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Iowa all, amazingly, fall into this bucket.

Let’s start with Ohio and Florida. You wouldn’t have elections in these states at all if Trump hadn’t brought JD Vance and Marco Rubio into his administration.

In Iowa and Texas, Trump played central roles in driving incumbents Joni Ernst and John Cornyn out of public life.

In North Carolina too it’s hard to imagine Tom Tillis would have retired if Trump hadn’t essentially forced him to retire. In this case, though, Trump went on to gift the nomination to Michael Whatley as a make-good for babysitting Lara Trump when she was the head of the RNC. Whatley is, by bipartisan estimation, a uniquely weak candidate.

In South Carolina, Trump insisted on supporting Lindsey Graham’s sister as his permanent replacement. She’s still likely to win. But she is a uniquely weak candidate. Any actual South Carolina politician would almost certainly be faring better.

Georgia is hard to see at first. But John Ossoff would likely not be the incumbent at all if not for Trump’s 2020 election-stealing shenanigans.

Amazingly, this accounts for the vast majority of contested Senate races. In every case, the particular candidate or even the existence of a candidate (because there’s even an open seat) comes down to Trump’s treating the GOP as a tool to serve his immediate political and emotional needs.

A Short Primer on Who Can ‘Seat’ Who and Other Post-Election Funny-Business

With the pro-fascist wing of Senate Republicans threatening not to seat Mary Peltola if she’s elected to the Senate, I wanted to give you a short primer of how all this works, not just in Peltola’s case but in the larger terrain of GOP denialism.

First, the House and Senate are fundamentally different. The senate is a “continuing body”; so Republicans are in some position to refuse to seat Peltola. The House on the other hand reverts to what we might call a parliamentary state of nature every two years. When the House reconvenes in January, there won’t be a Republican majority and Mike Johnson will not be Speaker. Everyone shows up with their state certifications in hand and it’s the clerk of the House who examines those credentials on a ministerial basis. Then everyone votes on who the Speaker will be. That’s why we had that drama with Kevin McCarthy a few years ago.

Some have noted that the Speaker picks the clerk. So he could pick a ringer clerk and that clerk could do Johnson’s bidding. This is true in theory. And while I won’t rule out anything with the Jan 6th crowd, I don’t think it’s a likely scenario. Johnson did pick the current clerk. But he picked him out of the group of people who’ve come up through the clerk’s office over the years. Particularly if there’s a clear and sizable Democratic majority in the House I don’t think there’s much room for funny business.

The Senate is different. As I noted, it’s a continuous body. So you come back into session with John Thune as Majority Leader when the new people show up. I actually don’t know off hand whether there are more Democrats or Republicans among the two thirds of senators who will remain from the previous Congress. But let’s set that aside for the moment. A lot will depend on the size of a Democratic Senate majority if the Democrats do take the majority. If you have a 53-seat majority, Democrats will become the majority without Peltola. Once they’re in the majority it will be up to them who gets seated, though the GOP could then filibuster. If it’s a 51-seat majority with Peltola as the 51st, that’s a different story.

What I suspect Republicans want to do is a replay of the Al Franken situation in 2009. Franken defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. But it was a very close race and there was lengthy litigation that, if I recall correctly, lasted almost six months. This wasn’t a January 6th situation. Coleman was perfectly entitled to exhaust every legal route to contest the result. But over time it became clear that the real angle was to delay Democrats getting Franken’s vote — which was their 60th senator — as long as possible.

One additional factor. Alaska’s Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy has hinted he might refuse to certify Peltola’s election. If she’s not certified by the state, Republicans don’t really have to do anything. And it would at least be pretty difficult for Democrats to seat her. Courts at the state or federal level can intervene in a case like that. That’s different from Congress. The Constitution is pretty clear that who gets seated is solely the call of the House and the Senate. But here’s the catch. All polls suggest that Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins is a strong favorite to win the governorship on Tuesday. If so, he gets sworn in in December, after which it’s no longer Dunleavy’s call.

There are many different permutations of how this could work. There are probably a few details I’m not thinking about. But this is the basic lay of the land. What Republicans can do is very, very limited in the House. The Senate is different, and significant funny business is possible — especially if Peltola’s is the seat that gives Democrats the majority.

One More Michigan Senate Update

I think we’ve seen all that can happen in the bizarre continuation of the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, which of course actually ended a few months ago. But given what’s happened over the last 72 hours, I guess, who am I kidding? Stevens did a new round of interviews last night, including one on CNN with Anderson Cooper. It was a further train wreck in the weeklong run of pile-ups. It was a classic case of why, in a high-stress news environment, you shouldn’t go on TV if you don’t know what you want to say. Stevens appeared to be figuring out or trying to come up with an explanation for her actions in real time on live TV. At one point she seemed to suggest she might end up voting for Abdul El-Sayed after all, though it was so disjointed that it’s hard to know just what she was trying to say. It’s for this reason that both her erstwhile friends and her current friends have been begging her to just stop talking.

People around Stevens think this whole episode is heavily tied to her newly public fiancé, Jason Turkish. They question just how it was that he went from being a donor to being her fiancé and they point to various examples of controlling or dominating behavior they’ve observed in their interactions. (I’m choosing my words carefully and judiciously here.) Last night, a subscription-only Michigan political news service ran an interview with former Michigan Governor Jim Blanchard in which Blanchard described a recent dinner with Stevens, Turkish and others in which Turkish aggressively berated Stevens in front of other dinner guests for not driving a harder line with El-Sayed.

Here’s the key passage …

The former governor, a longtime friend and supporter of the congresswoman, said Stevens was happy and looking forward to going to a church in Detroit on Sunday to campaign alongside her onetime Democratic primary rival for U.S. Senate, Abdul El-Sayed.

Then things got tense. Blanchard, in an interview Sunday with Gongwer News Service following the stunning news of Stevens revoking her endorsement of El-Sayed and instead endorsing Republican Mike Rogers, said Turkish, a longtime Democrat who is Jewish and endorsed Rogers last week over El-Sayed’s views on Israel, began chiding his fiancée, Stevens.

“He was working her over. The way he was saying it was, ‘Everyone is disappointed in you, they did everything they could to help you and then immediately after you lose the primary, you endorsed him,’” said Blanchard, who was governor from 1983-91 and remains an active voice in the Democratic Party.

Blanchard said he pushed back at Turkish on Stevens’ behalf.

“I said, ‘Yeah, because she’s a team player. You have to be gracious. Come on,’” he said.

Turkish was unmoved, Blanchard said.

“He said, ‘I know, but they’re really disappointed in her,’” the former governor recalled.

My overall take is that what happened here is much more a personal than a factional or electoral situation at this point. And I know from my own reporting that, quite apart from the politics, people around Stevens have been increasingly worried about that relationship itself.

That said, if a new relationship can lead to this kind of erratic and consequential public behavior — out of the blue endorsing a candidate of the opposite party — that’s not a great recommendation for serving in elected office or positions of public trust.

Chance Miller Reviews the New A20 Pro iPad Mini

Chance Miller, writing at 9to5Mac:

Unfortunately, the new iPad mini’s screen has one limitation: it doesn’t support ProMotion, or a 120Hz refresh rate of any kind. Instead, it’s still locked to 60Hz. This is an incredibly frustrating decision that I can’t quite wrap my head around.

Apple touts the iPad mini’s OLED screen as offering significantly faster pixel response time than the previous generation’s LCD panel, leading to improvements like smoother scrolling and reduced motion blur.

I’ve noticed that things like swiping between Home Screen pages, scrolling social media, and system animations are noticeably smoother. They aren’t, however, as smooth as an Apple device with a ProMotion display, and they’re not a substitute for a higher refresh-rate display.

Apple is very stingy with ProMotion. Until last year it was exclusively available in iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks that had “Pro” in their name. Last year they added ProMotion to two products without “Pro” in their names: the iPhone 17 and iPhone Air. Apple refreshed the $1,600 Studio Display last year but it still only supports 60 Hz; only the $3,300 Studio Display XDR supports 120 Hz. (Apple does not call this “ProMotion”.)

My big question re: the new iPad Mini is the new “acoustic display”. Miller gives it a thumbs-up:

Essentially, Apple has designed special woofers that vibrate the display to produce low and midrange frequencies. For higher frequencies, custom tweeters are hidden between the glass and aluminum enclosure. Apple says this new system delivers louder audio, “punchier” bass, and clearer highs, despite the iPad mini’s significantly thinner design.

In practice, I think the new iPad mini sounds great. I’d choose headphones or an external speaker for serious music or video consumption, but day-to-day the iPad mini’s built-in speakers are perfectly adequate. (I’d bet that this Acoustic Display technology shows up in future iPhones too, and the iPad mini is serving as a test bed of sorts.)

 ★ 

Apple’s Analyst Calls Have Been Scripted for Decades

Bloomberg opinion columnist Dave Lee:

Apple investors and fans hoping to get an insight into the philosophy of new Chief Executive Officer John Ternus on Monday were left sorely disappointed. The 51-year-old’s first earnings call was a timid affair, with Ternus taking cover behind a carefully written script as analysts peppered him with questions.

This is stupid. I mean, it would have been fun if Ternus’s style on the analyst conference call had been loose and freewheeling. Just like it would have been fun if the questions from analysts hadn’t been mostly insipid and pointless. But nothing has changed here other than who the CEO is. Tim Cook’s quarter calls were snoozefests. Save those recordings and use them to help you sleep. And that’s exactly how Cook wanted them.

What Ternus should do is follow Steve Jobs’s lead, and skip these calls. Let CFO Kevan Parekh and COO Sabih Khan handle them, the way Jobs used to let Tim Cook and Apple’s then CFOs handle them.

 ★ 

Election Day Morning Observations

We’re now down to nothing to do but wait (and, obviously, pore over day-of indicators that mostly won’t mean anything). So with that in mind, a couple quick observations.

As I’ve noted repeatedly, don’t pay attention to the early vote, or at least don’t put any stock in it as a reliable predictor of the reality we’ll know tomorrow morning. What we’ve seen in the last two weeks is a good illustration. In most key states you’ve had very strong Democratic turn out. It’s enough in most states to state very confidently that Republicans will need a blow-out Election Day to remain in the game. The idea of Republicans having blow-out Election Day turnout doesn’t fit easily with various election indicators we’ve had all cycle — which point to depressed Republican enthusiasm and defections. But those indicators are mostly polls. And if the polls are reliable — which they likely are — tonight is going to be a total blowout. The point is that we’re back to relying on the same thing. So Republicans need that blow-out turnout. But they could also have that blow-out turnout. Democrats are in the midst of having such turnout — so why can’t Republicans?

I don’t want to overstate this argument. It’s not like we have no reason to think Republican turnout won’t be smashing. We have lots of reasons. But a lot of those reasons are dependent on the same kinds of uncertainty we’re already talking about with polls. In any case, we don’t need to flog this horse. We’ll know the real details soon.

There is one trend that is a bit more probative than what I’ve described above. In most key states you’re seeing a lot of low-propensity Democratic voters who tend to be more Black or Hispanic than the rest of the electorate. Those are the kind of voters you would expect to see in a Democratic blowout, especially in a midterm that tends to be more Democrat-friendly because Democrats are now the more reliable voters generally. And those voters generally don’t tend to be early voters. You could certainly have a big turnout of Republican low-propensity voters on Election Day. But with these voters, you’re seeing something that really doesn’t look like Democrats just being super eager and voting at the first opportunity. We’ll see soon enough.

Second short topic: the weather. There’s going to be a lot of rain today across a number of key Midwestern states. Could that depress Election Day turnout when that’s what Republicans need? Very unlikely. Political scientists have looked pretty closely at this question. Weather can affect turnout but it tends to do so in races that aren’t highly contested. In closely fought races it seems like have very little if any effect. These are all heavily contested elections. So it shouldn’t be a factor.

Third and final point: Semafor’s Liz Hoffman has a piece this morning entitled “Poisoned Chalice.” The argument is that the winner of today’s elections will be inheriting an increasingly dismal economy — rising inflation, some kind of burst AI bubble, rising interest rates, ongoing war, etc. In other words, Democrats are taking ownership of all these messes at just the wrong moment.

I think this perspective is mostly wrong — and, to be fair, Hoffman explicitly allows for that possibility. We have lots of history to go by. The president owns the economy, he owns the reality of the moment. Instructive here is 2006 and 2008. Democrats had a wave election in 2006. That was driven by a mix of the Iraq War and a darkening economy. Those two things continued and in key ways accelerated over the next two years and they had a second wave election in 2008. It was only after Democrats got a trifecta that Republicans were able to claw back a lot of those gains in 2010. But there’s something specific about this moment and, likely starting tomorrow, it will define the politics of the next two years.

Donald Trump is incapable of anything like the “triangulation” Bill Clinton used to finesse his way back into public favor in 1995 and 1996. Being a lame duck only adds to the challenge. There are various ways that your average president can try to portray a hostile Congress as obstructionist or getting in the way of the country’s progress. But Donald Trump is not an average president. Everything we know about the man tells us that he will react to a loss of Congress by leaning heavily into his prerogative and other executive powers. To put it differently, he’s going to keep doing totally crazy shit and more than likely accelerate that shit because it is in his nature to do so. He needs at a deep level to demonstrate dominance and power. It’s the reason he went to war with Iran.

We obviously can’t know what things will look like in two years. But we can be confident that Trump will make it pretty easy for Democrats to continue portraying Trump as an out-of-control person with corrupt and bad values whose power needs to be checked by Democrats.

There’s another argument that we’re in an era of sour public mood in which the public is angry about rising prices and affordability and whoever is in power is going to get the same treatment Trump has gotten over the last two years. While I think this significantly understates the degree to which Trump has very visibly pursued a number of policies that have made all those things worse, I think there’s a lot of truth to the overall theory. But both because of the structural dynamics of American politics and the character of Donald Trump, that’s something Democrats will need to worry about in 2029 if they win the presidency and not in 2027.

How Ditching Norms and Guardrails Was Trump’s Undoing

Two years on from Donald Trump’s 2024 second election to the presidency we can identify clear patterns separating Term One and Term Two. I’ve noted at other times that for all the norm-busting, outrages and crimes of Term One, if you were a regular person who didn’t pay much attention to politics, very little of it intruded into your life. And the economy remained buoyant. The fact that Trump inherited a strong economy doesn’t matter in terms of public tolerance.

Of course, Trump still got quite unpopular. But to the extent that the Trump opposition kept up that resigned refrain “Nothing matters” there was a reason: If you simply didn’t pay attention to politics, most people could say, ‘Yeah, he’s weird but how is it affecting me?’ And at least before COVID there was much less — in terms of things that are materially affecting your life today — that many Trump foes allowed.

Whatever happens on election day tomorrow, Trump is today is at a whole new level of unpopularity. It’s not just deeper in aggregate, it but extends well into most Red States. Last month, Trump had net positive approval in a mere eight states and was underwater in 42 states, according to a report by Civiqs. It’s not a perfect apples to apples comparison. But in 2018, according to Gallup, Trump reached the higher bar of approval over 50% in 17 states. To note a few examples, Trump was break-even in Ohio in 2018; he’s net negative 19 today. In Alaska he was +16 then and -11 today. Negative 6 in Iowa then, negative 21 today.

That new level of unpopularity is overwhelmingly due to four things: tariff policy and the impact on inflation; the Iran War and its affect on gas prices and inflation generally; the mass deportation program which has become increasingly unpopular and offends most Americans’ basic sense of decency and American liberties; and the pervasive free-for-all corruption Trump has partaken in and presided over. Judged by affect on public opinion rather than objective importance, the first two seem most important. There are many other depredations that are at least as bad but have been less decisive in shaping public opinion.

Put simply, none of those four things could have happened during his first term because he was surrounded by people who knocked these ideas down, diverted him on to other hobbyhorses or in key cases simply refused to implement them. They all happened since January 2025 because he broke through those guardrails largely by taming the Republican Party and staff his administration strictly with yes people and true believers.

Needless to say, it’s not that Term One went great. And by the end of Term One Trump was finding his way toward assembling the group of toadies and true believers who would characterize Term Two. That’s what made Jan 6th and the larger plot to reverse the 2020 election possible. Still the difference between the two terms is stark. On one level we know this basic difference. Term Two is Trump unleashed. But there’s less attention to how removing them allowed him to become the most unpopular midterm president in at least eighty years. He unleashed himself to do these things by staffing Term Two with people who would faithfully and aggressively implement his most lawless, stupid and fundamentally unpopular policies.

Yo, Thanks for Joining Us

If you’re here for our amazing election and post-election coverage don’t forget to subscribe and support our team’s work, as well as get access to extra cool stuff.

NASA’s Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory to burn up this week after more than two decades in space

An illustration of NASA’s Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory orbiting above Earth. The spacecraft utilized a trio of primary instruments to quickly detect and analyze gamma-ray bursts and other astronomical phenomena for more than two decades. Image: NASA

A satellite designed to live two years and named for its speed is ending its life slowly and then with a blistering pace. Unable to steer and unable to observe, NASA’s Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory is sinking a few miles a day toward an uncontrolled reentry expected this week.

As of Monday, the U.S. Space Force predicted Swift would re-enter Earth’s atmosphere at approximately 3:30 a.m. EST Wednesday, Nov. 4, somewhere within about 21 degrees north or south of the equator — a band that is mostly ocean.

According to NASA, most of the roughly 1.6-ton spacecraft will burn up during reentry, when Swift will live up to its name one last time as it slams into the atmosphere at about 17,000 mph.

“NASA expects most of the spacecraft to burn up as it travels through the atmosphere, but some components are expected to survive re-entry,” Elizabeth Shaw, an agency spokesperson, said in a statement. “The risk of harm coming to anyone on Earth is unlikely, approximately 1 in 2,100. NASA and the Space Force will continue to monitor the re-entry and update predictions.”

Swift has no engine. Hundreds of miles up, the air is thin but not empty, and each molecule Swift strikes costs it speed, dropping it into denser air that slows it faster still. The sun hastened the fall. Solar activity heats and swells the upper atmosphere, and this cycle produced more drag than expected, NASA said.

The completed Swift spacecraft is seen in a clean room at NASA Goddard on Sept. 9, 2003. In front of it, Neil Gehrels, the mission’s first principal investigator, points toward the instruments at the top. Gehrels died in 2017 and the observatory was renamed in his honor. Image: NASA.

For nearly 22 years, Swift was the telescope NASA counted on to react first when gamma-ray bursts — the most powerful explosions in the universe — lit up the far reaches of space outside the Milky Way, acting as a kind of space-based finder scope for Earth-based observatories and furthering breakthrough research cited in thousands of scientific papers. The agency has named no successor to Swift, which employed a gamma-ray detector, an X-ray telescope and a combination ultraviolet/optical telescope.

Penn State operators bought Swift time by halting most science from February to late August and turning Swift to slip through the thin air, hoping to keep it high enough for a planned rescue. NASA had paid Katalyst Space $30 million to send a robotic spacecraft to grab Swift and push it higher, but the Katalyst-built tug lost control of its orientation weeks after its July 3 launch, and NASA called off the capture Aug. 19.

Swift made its final observation Oct. 20. At an altitude 171 miles above Earth, it fell into safe mode, and Penn State sent a command that effectively ended Swift’s mission.

When the observatory launched atop a Delta 2 rocket more than two decades ago, that primary mission to pinpoint gamma-ray bursts was only set to last two years. Far outlasting that initial time frame, Swift would go on to observe more than 2,000 gamma-ray bursts, study more than 1,400 supernovas and examine everything from active galaxies to asteroids and comets.

“Swift delivered an incredible, lasting return on investment for the nation, designed for a two-year primary mission but productive for more than 10 times as long,” Shawn Domagal-Goldman, director of the Astrophysics Division at NASA Headquarters, said. “In that time, Swift played a major role in advancing our understanding of the changing universe and was part of a revolution in astrophysics that showed how critical rapid-response observations are to the entire community.”

After Swift made its final observation last month, Swift principal investigator and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center astrophysicist Brad Cenko reflected on the spacecraft’s unique capabilities, especially its rapid-response role.

“Swift was designed as a satellite dedicated to studying gamma-ray bursts, outbursts that came and went so quickly that no one could target them with large telescopes to learn more,” Cenko said last month. “Swift needed to detect and locate gamma-ray bursts, communicate their position to other observatories, and then swing its telescopes around to image the burst locations before their afterglows faded out. This typically took Swift about a minute to do.”

Swift’s archive, about 12 terabytes of data cited in roughly 7,000 scientific papers, holds some of the era’s signature astronomical discoveries.

In 2005, Swift caught the first afterglow ever seen from a short gamma-ray burst, a flash lasting three-hundredths of a second, supporting the idea that such bursts come from colliding neutron stars. In 2008, it spotted a burst 7.5 billion light-years away that briefly grew bright enough to see with the naked eye. And in 2017, after gravitational-wave detectors sensed two neutron stars merge, Swift observed unexpectedly bright ultraviolet light from the wreckage.

NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope takes at least a day or two to turn toward a new target, while Swift could follow up on “things that go bump in the night within minutes,” Cenko said.

An illustration depicts how LINK servicing spacecraft, built and operated by Katalyst Space Technologies, was supposed to latch on to Swift and boost it out of danger. Image: NASA.

That unique capability helped push NASA to pursue a rescue mission.

Katalyst, the firm tapped in 2025 by NASA to pull it off, built its LINK spacecraft in less than a year and launched it on the last Pegasus XL rocket, dropped from a jet near Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands because Swift’s low, tilted orbit is hard to reach from launch sites like Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The rescue plan called for LINK’s three robotic arms to clamp onto a fitting used to handle Swift on the ground, then for its electric thrusters to push the pair about 370 miles high, thus buying Swift more time in low Earth orbit.

About a week into the mission, however, a power switch tied to LINK’s reaction wheels failed, LINK principal investigator Kieran Wilson told a National Academies committee in September. By late July, the spacecraft was tumbling once every 40 seconds. Engineers stopped the spin with its thrusters, and in early September LINK unfolded all three arms and closed within about 7 to 9 miles of Swift before it, too, fell from orbit.

“This is not the outcome we were working toward, but it does not change why this mission was worth attempting,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said at the time.

The doomed Swift rescue was, according to NASA, meant to advance commercial satellite servicing, especially with an eye toward other famed spacecraft such as Hubble, and a successful capture would have marked the first time a commercial robot rendezvoused with and grabbed a government satellite never designed to be serviced.

Engineers from Katalyst Space Technologies in Flagstaff, Ariz., stabilize their LINK robotic servicing spacecraft as it moves into a vibration chamber at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., on April 15, 2026. The vibration chamber simulated the intense shaking LINK will experience during launch.
Image: NASA/Scott Wiessinger.

“This collaboration may open the door to extending the life of more spacecraft in the future,” Clayton Turner, who leads NASA’s space technology directorate, said when the Katalyst contract was awarded in 2025.

Hubble, which has spent the past 36 years making landmark scientific discoveries while completing more than 200,000 revolutions around the planet, is also engineless and falling. Since June 2024, it has operated on a single healthy gyroscope, holding a second in reserve.

Weeks before LINK launched, Domagal-Goldman told an agency advisory committee that reboost costs were “lower than I think I anticipated” and that “we are open to a reboost of Hubble.”

In terms of what comes next after Swift succumbs to the inevitable pull of Earth’s atmosphere and gravity later this week, NASA officials have said only that the agency will use “current missions to fill the gap.”

With NASA expecting Hubble to fall back to Earth sometime between 2033 and 2034, the agency on Oct. 29 asked companies how they might boost Hubble to a higher orbit, service it or steer it to a controlled re-entry, saying a mission would need to fly by 2032.

“Hubble still has important science ahead of it,” Isaacman said.

Ahead of Swift’s approaching fall from orbit, agency officials were quick to celebrate its legacy of achievement — one which far outstripped initial predictions both in duration and substance.

“During nearly 22 years of science operations, Swift served as a multi-tool for exploring the universe – observing a wide range of light, rapidly pointing at short-lived outbursts, and sending alerts to other facilities to help coordinate follow-up observations,” Shaw said. “Swift has broadened our understanding of a wide variety of cosmic objects and events, from active galaxies powered by supermassive black holes and stars undergoing X-ray flares, to supernova explosions and comets and asteroids in our own solar system.”

Thoughts on Owning a Self-Driving Tesla

My Subaru was showing its years so I recently bought a Tesla. My thinking was I can buy a car or I can buy a car+driver for the same price. Simple choice. I’ve driven about 2000 miles including one long trip (6 hours) to North Carolina and back.

FSD is incredible. I don’t mind driving but about 95% of the miles on my Tesla have been FSD. You might wonder why bother with FSD when you still have to supervise but supervising is easier and more pleasant than driving. I was in Washington, DC one evening and I needed to go to an address I was not familiar with. I could have gotten there but it would have required going back and forth between the road and the map, and DC can be confusing–do I drive straight under the mini-underpass or is this the one where I drive over the pass (DC drivers will understand). Instead, FSD drove me at night, flawlessly.

FSD uses 8 cameras to build a 3D, bird’s eye view of the car and everything around it, so it sees in all directions at once. It picks out every car, pedestrian and cyclist and predicts where each is going, much as an LLM predicts the next word. Then it predicts the best move a good driver would make, and makes it. All of this runs on one big neural network, trained on data from billions of miles of Tesla fleet driving. The ride is smooth. Since ChatGPT launched, FSD has improved about as much as LLMs have, and for the same reasons.

Supervision is needed, in my experience, mostly due to navigation. It gets a bit confused on the HOV and normal lanes on I-66 (as does Google Maps). It stopped perfectly, however, for a school bus and even for a police officer who stopped traffic by standing in the middle of the street.

Another example of how supervising is much less taxing than driving. I was listening to Tyler talk with Gita Gopinath on my way home from North Carolina. It’s a great conversation but full-on PhD mode and I became a little lost trying to remember my international econ. No problem, just ask Grok. I had a whole conversation with Grok, reviewed Mundell-Fleming, reminded myself of the great Alan Stockman model (the only international econ model that makes sense) and then returned to the podcast. I could not have done that while driving.

Grok is a significant benefit. Essentially, Grok runs the car’s controls the way it might run your computer, and you just talk to Grok. It’s a more seamless interaction than talking with the car directly. I can even review (verbally) email and send emails as I drive. If you also use Grok Bot you have the bot book an appointment at a dentist or start working on your PowerPoint slides. FSD is $99 a month and the premium connectivity needed for Grok is $10 a month (Grok Bot a bit extra). FSD plus Grok is about what I am saving on gas, so it’s roughly a wash.

My colleague, who long held that self-driving would be worthwhile only if he could sleep, was amazed at the experience of driving my Tesla and immediately ordered two.

It was also pretty cool when I “summoned” the Tesla from the nearby parking lot and we watched it drive itself to us. You might wonder, by the way, how all this innovation is possible. Maxwell Tabarrok, writes about a key part of the answer:

The Department of Transportation (DOT) sets strict safety requirements for cars, but manufacturers are allowed to release new designs without first getting the DOT to sign off that all the requirements have been satisfied. The law is enforced ex post, and the government will impose recalls and fines when manufacturers fail to follow the law.

The FAA, by contrast, enforces all of its safety rules ex ante. Before aircraft manufacturers can do anything with a design, they have to get the FAA’s signoff, which can take more than a decade.

(By the way, it’s amusing to re-read Max’s post in light of Tesla’s flying car.)

If you do enjoy driving, the Tesla is fun, with sports-car acceleration and great responsiveness.

What about range anxiety? If you run out of electrons, the car is dead and no one is going to bring you a portable battery to get you to the nearest charging station. You must be carried–carried on a flatbed, not towed! (Moreover, if you leave the car unplugged for weeks the low-voltage battery can die, in which case you can’t even open the frunk without a special jump start.) You don’t want to run out.

It works fine, however, if you adjust behavior. In a gas car you drive until you are low on fuel and then assume you will find a gas station. If you try this with an electric car, you will be anxious. Tesla chargers are quite common but they are often in odd places like behind a restaurant. There is no big T sign out front. So what do you do? The Tesla knows where the chargers are so put your final destination into navigation, switch on self-driving, and then, if needed, the Tesla will find the nearest charger along your route and drive you there and even back you in nicely. Thus, you trust the Tesla system–car plus network–not just the car. This works much better than with any other electric car.

Normal range for the Model Y is about 250 highway miles on an 80% charge. This is less restrictive than it appears because in many cases you don’t need to charge to full. Returning from North Carolina, for example, I was projected to arrive home with 2% charge–a bit too close for comfort. So the Tesla stopped and charged for 5 minutes (no slower than a gas stop) and I arrived home with 18% charge. I then charged to full overnight. Being able to charge at home is a big advantage (~$1500 to add a charger). Overall, driving the Tesla long distances you will have more frequent stops but unless you are driving cross-country, you will rarely need to stop for longer than a bathroom break and a cup of coffee.

Aside from FSD the rest of the car is nicely designed. I like the flush exterior door handles. The headlights are pixel-based, so when you drive with high beams on and come up behind another car, the pixels aimed at that car turn off while keeping the rest on, so you don’t blind the driver in front. Neat.

A few negatives. Tesla reliability is good but not great; Consumer Reports ranks Tesla 9th among brands. Despite the safety benefits of FSD, Teslas aren’t cheaper to insure than other similarly priced cars, largely I think because repair costs are not low. (Tesla’s own insurance gives lower rates for FSD miles and might be cheaper for me. I had my other car and an umbrella policy with another insurer so I didn’t switch, but I might.) I do find the pure electronic approach a bit much at times–must I really open the glove compartment verbally? Do those nice door handles only work when the battery is working?

Bottom line: FSD is revolutionary–a step change in what it means to drive. I don’t think any other car at a similar price comes close. It’s the best car I have ever owned.

The post Thoughts on Owning a Self-Driving Tesla appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

How to Expand Reliable, Flexible Access to Space

The space industry launched more rockets into orbit last year than ever before, yet satellite operators are confronting an unexpected problem: There still aren’t enough rides to go around. And […]

The post How to Expand Reliable, Flexible Access to Space appeared first on SpaceNews.

Believing and thinking

A foggy road leading to a distant church, flanked by trees, a building and powerlines, creating an eerie atmosphere.

The separation of church and state has an unspoken psychological basis: we choose what we believe, but not what we think

- by Neil Van Leeuwen & Jacob Eisler

Read on Aeon

The economics of tips

Tipping is large and growing, but we know little about its consequences for workers and firms. We link point-of-sale and payroll records at 20,000 U.S. firms, which lets us observe tips from customer payment to worker earnings. We find that tips are a nearly constant share of revenue, which means hourly pay moves with revenue. Firms that begin collecting tips claw back between 23 and 33 cents of each dollar of tips through lower base wages. Tips reward effort: workers at tipping firms earn more by serving more customers. We show this with demand shocks constructed from customer spending at other businesses. A demand shock raises revenue nearly twice as much at tipping firms as at non-tipping firms, while base wages and prices do not respond. Output per hour rises more despite a larger increase in hours. Effort drives the gap because each worker is more productive, so the firm expands and recovers about a third of the tips. Yet not every firm adopts tipping: the gain is smaller where customers tip less. A model calibrated to the demand-shock estimates implies that tipping benefits workers and firms, raising job value by about half and firm profit by about 30 percent in firms where customers are prone to tip. These gains may explain why tipping has recently grown in many industries.

That is by Dylan Balla-Elliott and Isaac Norwich, Isaac being on the job market this year from University of Chicago.

The post The economics of tips appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

I discovered a sound that leaks your exact location (and it's everywhere) - YouTube

I discovered a sound that leaks your exact location (and it's everywhere) - YouTube

Genius piece of OSINT by Colsto, who demonstrates how you can take almost imperceptible background noise of planes from a video soundtrack, figure out their Doppler curves, then cross reference them against ADS-B data to find the exact location of the video based on their speed, distance, and gaps between different flights.

Via Lobste.rs

Tags: privacy, youtube

October sponsors-only newsletter

I sent out the October edition of my sponsors-only monthly newsletter. If you are a sponsor (or start a sponsorship now) you can access it here. This month:

  • The October inflection point for vibe game development
  • The vulnerability apocalypse gets hot
  • LLM releases
  • API credits for $100+/month subscriptions
  • What I'm using right now
  • My software releases

My September newsletter can now be seen here, as a preview of what you'll get. Pay $10/month to stay a month ahead of the free copy!

Tags: newsletter

llm 0.37

Release: llm 0.37

There's a lot of stuff in this new release of my LLM CLI tool and Python library, representing around two months of accumulated features and fixes.

I added gpt-6.1-sol and gpt-6.1-terra, plus a new llm openai endpoint add command to make it easier to configure additional models that use OpenAI-compatible endpoints.

I switched the default model (if you have not set your own default) to gpt-6-luna - half the price of the previous default, gpt-5.6-luna.

LLM's support for embeddings now accepts that different binary content may have different content-type - necessary for models like Gemini Embedding 2, which can embed text, audio, images, and video.

A lot of open source maintainers complain about a flood of AI-assisted PRs. LLM is my project that has been most affected by this and, to be honest, I'm not finding it to be a problem. That's mainly because I have Opus 5.5 or GPT-6 Astra help me with triage to spot the most useful fixes!

This release includes fixes from 12 authors - almost all AI-assisted - and the burden of reviewing them wasn't nearly as great as I expected. I really see them as bug reports with attached examples - sometimes I land them, sometimes I implement my own fix.

So thanks to 0d00ciallo0721, ac1982, Allen Flux, Bian Yuhan, Bishop Kammeraad, Chen Yufeiyang, Christopher Krah, Ethan Stoner, Jiachen Xie, Olamide Faniyan, Sharat Chandra Sai Boddu, nosmile99 for helping out with (or spending tokens on) this release!

Tags: open-source, projects, ai, annotated-release-notes, generative-ai, llms, embeddings, llm

The U.S. Census Bureau and “Super Intelligence”

I was reminded today of AI Adoption Rate Trending Down for Large Companies, a chart produced by Apollo Global Management in September 2025, which appeared to show a slowdown in U.S. corporate AI adoption based on numbers collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the time I used that chart to demonstrate GPT-5 data analysis, and then to experiment with Claude's new Code Interpreter. I decided to try running those numbers again to see what had changed over the past year, and in doing so learned that the Bureau has fallen foul of Executive Order 14434, aka the asinine Super Intelligence one.

First, the updated chart

Every two weeks the U.S. Census Bureau runs a survey called the Business Trends and Outlook Survey (aka BTOS). Each time it goes to 200,000 businesses out of 1.2 million total - the surveyed group (a "panel") cycles such that an individual business only completes the survey every twelve weeks.

The latest data is published on alternating Thursdays at 10am.

I used the most recent numbers (published October 22, 2026) to create a new version (GPT-6 Astra Extra High transcript) of the AI adoption chart, updated to reflect both the last twelve months and a change that was made to the survey question sent out by the Bureau:

Line chart titled "AI use by U.S. firm size", subtitled "Six-survey trailing average • Share of employer businesses reporting use in the last two weeks" and "Updated with the October 22, 2026 Census release". Seven lines for firm sizes 250+, 100–249, 50–99, 20–49, 10–19, 5–9 and 1–4, on a y-axis from 0% to 45% and an x-axis from Jan 2024 to Oct 2026. Left section, "AI in producing goods or services": all sizes start at 3–5% in late 2023 and climb slowly to 7–13% by September 2025, with 250+ highest. A shaded gap is labeled "Question broadened Nov 2025" and "Series not comparable". Right section, "AI in any business function": all lines restart higher in February 2026 and rise steadily to "250+: 40.7%", "100–249: 33.5%", "50–99: 27.9%", "20–49: 23.8%", "1–4: 23.3%", "10–19: 22.1%", "5–9: 21.1%". Footnotes: "Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS). Size groups are numbers of employees." "Method: arithmetic mean of six successive survey estimates, calculated separately for each question wording; no bridging of the break." "Dates use reference-period end, matching the original chart. Latest: Oct 4, 2026 (collected Oct 5–18). First new six-wave average: Jan 25, 2026." "The gap includes the 2025 shutdown and the wait for six observations under the broader question. Survey uncertainty is not displayed."

Here's a link to the larger image.

For comparison, here's that AI adoption chart from last year (my GPT-5 version): AI adoption rates starting to decline for larger firms. A chart of AI adoption rate by firm size. Includes lines for 250+, 100-249, 50-99, 20-49, 10-19, 5-9 and 1-4 sized organizations. Chart starts in November 2023 with percentages ranging from 3 to 5, then all groups grow through August 2025 albeit with the 250+ group having a higher score than the others. That 250+ group peaks in July 2025 at around 14% and then appears to slope slightly downwards to 12% by August. Some of the other lines also start to tip down, though not as much.

In September 2025 the largest (250+ employees) companies answered "yes" around 12% of the time to the question about whether they used AI in "producing goods or services".

Under the new "any business function" wording, by February 2026, those same large companies answered "yes" around 30% of the time, and by October 2026 that had increased to around 40%.

The data in the above chart comes from the "Employment size class" XLSX file, available from here. Here's a copy of the file I used.

You can view the survey document that is sent out to businesses - here's my snapshot copy of that 346KB PDF.

The changing language of the questions

As the chart demonstrates, the question asked by the Bureau changed in a material way on November 17th, 2025. Prior to that date, the question they asked was this (emphasis mine):

In the last two weeks, did this business use Artificial Intelligence (AI) in producing goods or services? (Examples of AI: machine learning, natural language processing, virtual agents, voice recognition, etc.)

On December 3rd, 2025, the Bureau announced a significant change to that question. Here's the replacement:

In the last two weeks, did this business use Artificial Intelligence (AI) in any of its business functions? (Examples of AI: machine learning, natural language processing, virtual agents, voice recognition, etc.)

No more "producing goods or services" - now it's "in any of its business functions"! This means that the answers to the question before and after November 17th are not directly comparable.

From October 19, 2026, they ask about Super Intelligence

When I went looking for the updated question language in the latest XLSX file, I couldn't find it. I found this instead:

In the last two weeks, did this business use Super Intelligence or SI (formerly referred to as Artificial Intelligence or AI) in any of its business functions? (Examples of SI use include: SI-powered data analysis; generative SI for marketing, product design, or coding; virtual SI agents for customer service; SI-powered forecasting or pricing; SI-driven computer vision for quality control, etc.)

The BTOS about page explains what happened:

Beginning with the October 19, 2026 collection, instrument wording was updated due to Executive Order 14434.

The current numbers reflect the old Artificial Intelligence survey wording - the first survey results reflecting the Super Intelligence wording are due for publication on Thursday.

Is this going to affect the survey?

The obvious open question here is whether this wording change is going to affect the survey results.

The businesses answering this survey will have last seen that question twelve weeks ago, when it was still called AI. Hopefully the new language isn't going to confuse them, especially since the survey helpfully spells out "formerly referred to as Artificial Intelligence or AI".

I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of "SI-powered data analysis; generative SI for marketing, product design, or coding; virtual SI agents for customer service" though.

Tags: census, surveys, ai, generative-ai, llms

Are economists declining in status?

That is the theme of my latest Free Press article.  Excerpt, which offers the beginning of the story:

If we look at the 1960s, the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson administrations brought James Tobin, Robert Solow, Kenneth Arrow (all three later Nobel laureates), Arthur Okun, Walter Heller, Gardner Ackley, Otto Eckstein, and Walt Rostow into government. Those were all names with significant academic heft who could count among the world’s leading macroeconomists. Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson served as a consultant to the government. Heller and some of the others helped to shape the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut of 1964.

That cluster of talent and its influence should come as no surprise. This was an age of elites, of love for science, of the moon landing project, and of network news shows with an establishment bent. Americans were used to deferring to elites, who had won World War II for them, and who were not out there making fools of themselves on the internet. With the Cold War raging, Americans felt their government had to get it right…

Most of this respect was still in place by the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan appointed Martin Feldstein to chair his Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), Feldstein being a Harvard professor and one of the leading market-oriented economists of his time. Two of the junior economists working for Feldstein were Paul Krugman and Lawrence Summers—before they became famous, but the intellectual firepower was already there. Michael Mussa and William Niskanen were other notables in the administration, and Milton Friedman and Friedrich A. Hayek were standing sources of inspiration.

And this:

On top of those political trends, there are further mechanisms at work pushing down the social status of economists. The Trump administration is proposing to eliminate social sciences funding at the National Science Foundation, and there are declining enrollments on the horizon for American colleges and universities. Academia is now seen as more politicized and left-leaning than used to be the case. Our best AI models are often better economists than the humans, just as they are proving theorems that human mathematicians cannot. All of those trends, even if you might consider some of them good news overall, are reinforcing a declining status for economists.

Worth a ponder.

The post Are economists declining in status? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Oligarchy is on the Ballot

Donald Trump has urged voters to pretend that he’s on the ballot in the midterm elections. Given his historic unpopularity, his opponents can only hope that people take his advice. And the polls, which show Republicans almost certain to lose the House and likely to lose the Senate, suggest that Democrats are getting their wish.

Voters should also know, however, that Trump isn’t alone in de facto being on the ballot. America’s oligarchs — a tiny group of almost inconceivably wealthy people — also have a huge stake in this election. The Democratic Party isn’t ideologically monolithic, but it’s basically a center-left party that will be much less favorable to plutocrats than the G.O.P. And because they rushed to prostrate themselves at Trump’s feet after the 2024 election, many of the oligarchs may find themselves personally in the crosshairs if a Democratic Congress begins serious hearings on Trumpian corruption.

Fearing this outcome, the oligarchs have been pouring money into the midterm elections, in an all-out effort to limit the size of the blue wave. The New York Times reports that just 20 donors — roughly 0.00001 percent of adults, i.e. one ten-millionth of the population — have already pumped about $2 billion into this election, or about 15 percent of total campaign spending.

These donors are overwhelmingly supporting Republicans. Here’s a graphical representation of the megadonors and their contributions:

Although the Times separates out the crypto/gambling segment, it’s a good bet that most of their support is going to right-wing candidates.

How did such a small group — which happens to include some truly terrible people — gain so much power? Part of the answer is that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens’ United decision opened the floodgates for vast sums of money to flow into politics. The larger part of the answer is that the vast power of the extremely wealthy stems from the vast concentration of wealth in their hands, which is literally more than an order of magnitude greater than their share of wealth a few decades ago. Here is Realtime inequality’s estimate of the share of total wealth held by the top 0.00001% of the population, roughly corresponding to the megadonor class:

In 1913 Woodrow Wilson wrote,

If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it; what we have to determine now is whether we are big enough, whether we are men enough, whether we are free enough, to take possession again of the government which is our own.

There’s a lot to criticize about Wilson, but he was right about that. And now we once again have men big enough to own the government of the United States. This midterm is a test of whether they will get away with it.

Vote.

MUSICAL CODA

The lyrics capture my feelings on election eve.

Core Memory + Life Exclusive Event In SF

We bring exciting news.

You may have heard that Life magazine is coming back. The brand has been reborn under the stewardship of Karlie Kloss and investor Joshua Kushner. There’s going to be a big, gl…

Read more

The Startup Trying To Freeze Your Youth

In the basement of Toronto General Hospital, a man who calls himself the Mother Plucker pulled hair out of my head a few strands at a time. He was hunting for a tiny bulb of living tissue at the root, and apparently I’m rather bulb-less, among my many other issues.

This innovative torture was courtesy of Acorn Biolabs, a Canadian biotech startup that uses patients’ own stem cells for experimental treatments. Each bulb holds skin cells, connective tissue cells and a small supply of adult stem cells. Acorn grows those cells in the lab and collects what they secrete, aptly named the secretome. Then it goes back to you as a topical product for skin, hair and scars.

Read more

China publicly discloses plan for a lunar landing within three years

Chinese space officials confirmed this weekend that the Asian nation plans to land its astronauts on the Moon within three years.

At the Seventh Manned Spaceflight Conference in Beijing, officials, including Wang Xiang, chief designer for the lunar exploration program, laid out the country's most publicly detailed plans yet for a series of missions leading up to a crewed lunar landing "before 2030."

China's lunar landings will involve a lunar-orbit rendezvous similar to what NASA did in the 1960s and early 1970s with the Apollo program. However, lacking a rocket as powerful as the Saturn V vehicle, the crew and lunar lander will launch separately to the Moon.

Read full article

Comments

Anthropic’s moat is Claude

Art by GPT-6

Anthropic recently filed for IPO. At an estimated $1.5 to $2 trillion, it will be one of the biggest IPOs of all time, rivaling SpaceX, and possibly the biggest. For reference, Facebook’s valuation when it had its blockbuster IPO in 2012 was $104 billion, and Google’s valuation in 2004 was $23 billion. Anthropic will instantly become one of the world’s most valuable companies — Google itself is now worth $3.4 trillion, and Nvidia and Apple are both worth around $5 trillion.

This naturally has a lot of people asking: What’s the upside to buying Anthropic? Even if it grew to be as valuable as Apple or Nvidia — in other words, if it became one of the most valuable companies on planet Earth — that would only be a multiple of 2 to 2.5. But if Anthropic stumbles, that lofty valuation could come tumbling down.

There are certainly lots of reasons Anthropic could stumble. Demand for AI could take longer to materialize than people think, perhaps because companies have trouble integrating AI into their existing business models. The U.S. government could decide that Claude’s hacking capabilities represent a national security threat — especially after the recent wave of AI-assisted cyberattacks — and decide to regulate, appropriate, or otherwise restrain the company (the spat with the Department of War might represent the beginnings of that conflict). One company (SpaceX?) might end up monopolizing all of the compute, squeezing Anthropic’s profits. Competition from OpenAI and Google, or Chinese models, might result in a competitive race to the bottom that forces down Anthropic’s margins. And so on.

In order to balance all that uncertainty and risk on the downside, Anthropic needs to have huge upside. It needs a way that it could be worth a lot more than $2 trillion in the years to come. For comparison, if you bought Google when it IPO’d, your investment would have gone up by over 130 times by today. To equal that performance, Anthropic would have to be worth $200 to $260 trillion by the late 2040s. That’s almost half of the total wealth that exists in the entire world today. For Facebook, the number is around 16x, meaning Anthropic would have to be worth $32 trillion by the early 2040s — still an impressive performance, considering that that’s more than six times the value of the most valuable company in 2026.

How could Anthropic manage that kind of growth? One possibility is that the world economy itself will grow at a very rapid pace, thanks to AI. Some AI researchers think that growth could soon accelerate to fantastically high levels. But most economists bet against that, and even most AI industry insiders expect the growth speedup to be much more modest. Even 7% nominal growth — 4% real growth plus 3% inflation — would only make the economy about 2.75x larger by 2041, and 4.43x larger by 2048.

So in order to have the upside of a Facebook-like outcome — let alone a Google-like outcome — Anthropic probably can’t just ride a wave of economic growth.1 It’ll need to capture a greater fraction of the value that our economy produces.

So far, the company has been doing exactly that — and at an extremely rapid rate. Its revenue has grown faster than any company of similar size in all of history. And despite this explosive growth, the company is now making an operating profit:

Source: Quartr

Businesses usually have to spend more money to make more money at the outset, but Anthropic’s Claude Code is a product that sells itself — relative to just one year ago, the company is making more than 3 times as many dollars of revenue for each dollar that it spends on compute:

As SemiAnalysis writes, this is “the most efficient scaling of a business in the history of capitalism”. Jeffrey Bussgang has a good breakdown of Anthropic’s recent IPO filing, and it’s full of amazing details — incredible user retention, a broadening base of customers, and so on.

And Anthropic is selling a product whose adoption rate is still very low. As Aaron Levie points out, most big companies are still spending only a pittance on AI, and could afford to spend a lot more:

And yet for this growth to continue, Anthropic must do more than simply make great products. It will need to stave off the competition for decades on end. It will, in Wall Street jargon, need a “moat”.

Why Anthropic needs a moat

When I was teaching business economics to MBAs at Stony Brook, I spent lots of time on the question of why companies make profit. This might sound like a stupid question, especially if you’ve been conditioned to think that there’s some kind of magic force called “capitalism” that companies can use to extract money from people and hand it to their shareholders. But in a world of perfect competition, companies should keep trying to undersell each other until their profit goes to zero — or at least, until it goes to a level where companies are just able to pay for their investments. Even if one company has a huge share of the market, the simple threat that new companies might be able to enter the market and compete with them should force them to keep their prices low in order to maintain their market share.

And in fact, lots of industries do work like this. Agriculture, in the absence of farm subsidies or other significant government support, is the most famous example. Solar power is another — energy provides huge value to the world, but solar is so undifferentiated a product that solar producers never end up making big margins.2 Airlines are a third example. Consumers (and workers) benefit from these industries, but shareholders don’t end up making huge returns.

In order to make profits (or “excess profits” above and beyond the cost of investment), companies generally need some sort of a “moat” — a barrier to entry that reduces the threat of competition. This could be a government-sponsored monopoly — cronyism, or intellectual property. It could be a network effect — the natural tendency of everyone to be on the same social network or use the same electric power grid. It could be something as simple as brand loyalty — maybe everyone thinks Louis Vuitton bags are worth paying money for because of the name, or maybe everyone is just very used to using Microsoft Excel and doesn’t want to switch.

These are all reasons why some companies make high profit margins. There are probably more. Investors will tell you that if you want to assess how valuable you think a company is going to be, you should try to evaluate the strength of its moat — in fact, the term “moat” as slang for barriers to entry was coined by Warren Buffett.

Ever since AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI burst on the scene, I’ve been hearing smart people argue that they have no moat. After all, unlike famously profitable software companies like Facebook or Google, it’s not clear that AI has a network effect — whether I should use Claude Code or Codex doesn’t really depend on whether you use Claude Code or Codex. And brand loyalty to AI is probably pretty low, since coding with Claude Code and coding with Codex is probably a pretty similar experience, and since AI isn’t a prestige good like an iPhone or a Rolex. And logistically speaking, it’s very easy to switch from one company’s AI products to another’s.

What’s more, catch-up in AI models is typically very fast — OpenAI and Google are typically only a little bit behind Anthropic in terms of model capability. In fact, by some measures, Google’s new Gemini 4 Carbon model just took the lead over Anthropic. Obviously this will reverse when Anthropic releases the next blockbuster model it currently has under wraps, but it shows that the other major players are still very much in the race. In terms of market share, OpenAI has been nipping at Anthropic’s heels:

Source: OpenRouter via Peter Walker

I’ve written previously about the possibility that AI will end up like solar power, or airlines — a cheap utility that lots of companies use to create enormous economic value, but whose producers don’t manage to capture much of that value:

But I think we need to talk more about the opposite scenario — the possibility that AI intrinsically does have a huge moat. I see a distinct possibility that intelligence itself — the ability to outsmart competitors in the arena of business — is a tremendous source of competitive advantage for a company. And in fact, I suspect that this is exactly what Anthropic itself is (quietly) betting on.

How intelligence itself can be a moat

Read more

Monday 2 November 1663

Up, and by coach to White Hall, and there in the long Matted Gallery I find Sir G. Carteret, Sir J. Minnes, and Sir W. Batten — and by and by comes the King to walk there with three or four with him; and soon as he saw us, says he, “Here is the Navy Office,” and there walked twenty turns the length of the gallery, talking, methought, but ordinary talke. By and by came the Duke, and he walked, and at last they went into the Duke’s lodgings. The King staid so long that we could not discourse with the Duke, and so we parted. I heard the Duke say that he was going to wear a perriwigg; and they say the King also will. I never till this day observed that the King is mighty gray.

Thence, meeting with Creed, walked with him to Westminster Hall, and thence by coach took up Mrs. Hunt, and carried her towards my house, and we light at the ’Change, and sent her to my house, Creed and I to the Coffeehouse, and then to the ’Change, and so home, and carried a barrel of oysters with us, and so to dinner, and after a good dinner left Mrs. Hunt and my wife making marmalett of quinces, and Creed and I to the perriwigg makers, but it being dark concluded of nothing, and so Creed went away, and I with Sir W. Pen, who spied me in the street, in his coach home.

There found them busy still, and I up to my vyall. Anon, the comfiture being well done, my wife and I took Mrs. Hunt at almost 9 at night by coach and carried Mrs. Hunt home, and did give her a box of sugar and a haunch of venison given me by my Lady the other day. We did not ’light, but saw her within doors, and straight home, where after supper there happening some discourse where my wife thought she had taken Jane in a lie, she told me of it mighty triumphantly, but I, not seeing reason to conclude it a lie, was vexed, and my wife and I to very high words, wherein I up to my chamber, and she by and by followed me up, and to very bad words from her to me, calling me perfidious and man of no conscience, whatever I pretend to, and I know not what, which troubled me mightily, and though I would allow something to her passion, yet I see again and again that she spoke but somewhat of what she had in her heart. But I tempered myself very well, so as that though we went to bed with discontent she yielded to me and began to be fond, so that being willing myself to peace, we did before we sleep become very good friends, it being past 12 o’clock, and so with good hearts and joy to rest.

Read the annotations

Not A Copier

A highly skilled product manager, former colleague, told me they wanted to treat the genie like a copier. “Just tell me when you finish the 300 copies, as long as you don’t take a ridiculous amount of time.”

I get it. I’d like to say, “Write a high-performance, large-memory Smalltalk virtual machine with database semantics,” & have it come back when it’s…

Read more

Links 11/2/26

Links for you. Science:

How Trump Is Dismantling America’s Scientific Research Machine
The Party of Pandemics Wants Your Vote!
I Used AI to Fake a Scientific Paper. Here’s What Happened
CDC scientists sought urgent alert on measles in pregnancy. It wasn’t approved. The report could fill major gaps about a condition doctors have rarely seen for decades. (but the sanctity of the unborn something something; impeach Kennedy, impeach him now)
Scientists Analyzed Thousands of Psychedelic Trips. They Found Something Disturbing
What Can Professional Scientific Societies Do to Improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: A Case Study of the American Elasmobranch Society
Strange, catastrophic landslides are kicking off across the far north

Other:

The New York Times invents a Democratic scandal while ignoring a new Trump rape allegation
Why Doesn’t D.C. Have More Control Over Its Parks? In a new report, current and former city leaders argue that the National Park Service, which oversees 90% of parkland in D.C., should turn over more control.
Standing up for trans people isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s smart politics
Threats, Gaffes and Men’s Posteriors: Trump’s Talk Gets Wilder (now that it looks bad for Trump, the NYT is cautiously discussing his mental illnesses)
The foreign policy “Blob” exists. Actually, it’s an egregore.
The Confusion Over the Candidate with the Same Last Name…in Nevada…with a Sneaky Republican-Backed Voter-Confusing (?) Ad Featuring AOC That I’m Sure DOJ Will Investigate (Ha!)
Led by Trump, Republicans Close Midterms With Ugly Personal Attacks (again, the NYT is abandoning the sinking ship)
Go Over To The Dark Side
Susan Collins Is Always Keeping Score
Outside groups spend millions on ads to weaken Black support for El-Sayed in Michigan Senate race
Haley Stevens’ High(est) Profile Meltdown
A rollicking interview with The Bulwark co-founder Tim Miller on the danger of undercounting Republicans, the mistake of underestimating JD Vance, and the “sour spot” between MAGA and country club Republicans.
Traveling Route 66 in the Age of Data Centers
New York Times report on Democrats’ secret ballot-stacking effort draws mixed reactions from Alaskans
New York Times Peltola story wins the Fox News Unfair and Unbalanced Award
Trump’s Tyranny, Part 4: Superpower Suicide
Brazil’s left reinvented the right’s online playbook. It helped Lula win
Drone photo award winners: Far-out landscapes. Ship recycling. Rugs, rugs rugs!
Most Israelis think settlements policy should change to avoid more sanctions, poll finds. Survey finds UK government’s decision to impose trade ban was not a decisive factor in how Israelis voted in election
Do Celebrities Endorsing Prediction Markets Not Have Enough Money Already?
Ex-Chicago FBI boss sues Trump admin saying he was wrongly blamed for botched ‘Broadview 6’ case
Roger Marshall’s Covert Kansas Cabal: The senator is just the latest Kansan in the state legacy of the secretive, right-wing Fellowship Foundation
Iowa Farmers Union pushes for Turek, the first federal candidate the group has endorsed in years
GGWash’s endorsements for 2026 Advisory Neighborhood Commission candidates
Microsoft just gave us the perfect name for AI thieves: Kyle
Abortion Opponents Warn Republicans That Ignoring the Issue Will Cost Them the Election
Garden apartments hold fascinating local history, future promise
Beatty’s Lawyers Say Kennedy Center Officials Pushed Closure to Hide Financial Struggles
The ‘Blacklash’ Is Here
Shooting The Dead

Who Vets Democratic Politicians?

Believe it or not, this is not a post about the NY Times. On Sunday, Democratic congresswoman and Michigan senate primary candidate Haley Stevens immolated what remains of her political career by endorsing and appearing in public with rightwing Republican Michigan senate candidate Mike Rogers. What most people are trying to figure out is why Stevens would do this. By way of Atrios, we get some inside skinny from another Michigan senate primary candidate Mallory McMorrow’s husband, Ray Wert:

haleystevens

What I would like to know is how Stevens ever got traction in the first place. If Wert is correct about Stevens, she was a disaster waiting to happen (at least with someone like Fetterman, part of his shift can be attributed to his stroke–and has been). And it’s not like she’s a political virtuoso with some flaws. She’s basically a replacement-level Democrat. Somewhere along the way, someone should have realized this is not a person you want running for the Senate, especially in an important race.

Worse, unlike Platner, she’s not an outsider. She was the establishment’s preferred candidate. Yet somehow this latent dumpster fire was able to survive and thrive in the Democratic Party*. We need better vetting.

*Stevens has links to Steven Rattner, but I have no idea if that played any role whatsoever in her political ascent.

Haley Stevens proves it again: Centrists are the Democrats’ biggest problem

The Cross Section is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

On Sunday, Rep. Haley Stevens finally concluded her slow-motion shivving of Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, by endorsing conservative Republican and Trump ally Mike Rogers. After promising again and again to support her party’s nominee — less than 24 hours earlier she assured Charlotte Clymer that nothing had changed and she was still standing with El-Sayed — Stevens attended a campaign event in Detroit with Rogers and posted this video:

Why did she do it? It appears to be mostly personal resentment. El-Sayed beat her, she got a lot of mockery online from his supporters, she didn’t feel like he and his campaign were solicitous enough of her, and she went from thinking she was going to be a senator to wondering whether her career in politics is over, which has to be emotionally difficult. When she appeared with Rogers, she cited Hasan Piker twice, mentioned that she got booed off the stage at a Democratic event, and repeatedly noted that El-Sayed’s campaign told her not to campaign with him — without mentioning that happened after she and her fiancé started going on TV to bad-mouth El-Sayed. Until that happened, she was supposed to appear with El-Sayed; it was once it became clear she was trying to sabotage him that he told her to buzz off.

Stevens also said multiple times that she wasn’t trying to “sway anything” in the election, but was just expressing her personal opinion. Which is obviously ridiculous; if that was the case, she could vote however she wanted in private; the whole point of publicly endorsing Rogers is to convince people to vote for him, which also means undermining the Democratic Party’s chances of winning control of the Senate.

But set aside the reasons why she did it. What matters more is that Stevens has demonstrated something I’ve been trying to get people to understand for a while:

Progressives are not the internal problem Democrats face. Centrists are the problem.

This runs counter to the elite media narrative about the ideological conflict inside the party, which assumes that a bunch of wacky lefties are going to come to Washington and ruin their party’s chances of winning, while sensible centrists who have a keen eye for what appeals to the voters try desperately to pull the party to the middle, where all virtue and wisdom are to be found.

So those media rush to quote James Carville, a guy whose entire authority rests on the fact that he worked on a winning campaign 34 years ago, on how terrible it is that there are progressives in the party. Groups like Third Way never fail to get ample press coverage for every memo they release insisting that centrism is the solution to all problems, despite the fact that they have no constituency whatsoever apart from some rich people who fund them.

And yet, every progressive candidate who lost a primary to a candidate more to the center than them is out there working for the Democratic ticket, or at the very least keeping their mouths shut. None of them are saying “Don’t vote for the Democrat,” and they sure as hell aren’t endorsing Republicans. Only a centrist would do that.

For instance, here’s Francesca Hong, the Democratic socialist who lost the primary for governor in Wisconsin, working to elect other Democrats:

Sure, we all know some radical poseurs who say “Republicans and Democrats are all part of the neoliberal capitalist oppressor class, which is why I’ve never voted and never will.” But if you’re talking about those who run for office today, the progressives are far more pragmatic than the centrists. They’re the ones willing to grit their teeth and support policies and candidates they have misgivings about. Once the primary is settled, they get in line because they have things they want to accomplish, and they know that letting Republicans win another election will be disastrous for everything they care about.

And when it comes to policymaking, the perfidy of the centrists is even more striking. If I showed you a headline from the last few years reading “Democratic senator stymies own party’s legislative push,” who would you assume that’s about? Elizabeth Warren? Bernie Sanders? Ed Markey? Of course not. The first person you’d think of is Joe Manchin, then Kyrsten Sinema or John Fetterman. They’re the ones who undermined the Democratic legislative agenda when Joe Biden was president, who refused to compromise, who voted to confirm Trump nominees, and who generally make it difficult for Democrats to accomplish difficult things.

And yes, there is going to be an ideological conflict within the party. But if they don’t win, the progressives will compromise to get some of what they want, because they actually care about making progress. If the centrists don’t win, on the other hand, they’ll whine and moan, undermine their party, and in doing so make it less likely that Democrats win the next election. Just like Haley Stevens is doing.

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

*Fjord* and *Fatherland*

Both of these movies I found worth watching.  Fjord won the Golden Prize at Cannes, and it concerns the rights of the family vs. the rights of the state, when it comes to raising children.  As I interpreted the story, it was so right-wing and so based I am shocked it won.  It is by the Romanian director Cristian Mungiu, who is best known for 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days, also referred to as “the Romanian abortion movie.”  His new outing is a quality film but I found theh messaging a bit heavy-handed at times (and am I one to defend European bureaucracy?), noting that some critics are still debating which side the director took so “maybe it is just me.”

Fatherland is a Polish take on postwar Germany and some travels of Thomas Mann and his daughter Erika.  A German director might have been afraid to portray the communism of East Germany as this movie does, in any case I found that convincing.  It captures what I imagine the immediate postwar era to have been like, and the moral dilemmas people faced as they had to decide their future relationships with Germany (and indeed Germanies), past, present, and future.  At one hour, twenty-two minutes it worked very well, though it requires the viewer to know a good deal about German history, literature, and culture.

The post *Fjord* and *Fatherland* appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Elevators

"A reusable elevator would also be great because we'd save so much on the bulky and expensive shields that people currently use to avoid bruises and rug burns when sliding down the stairs."

Buffie Channel speaks truth about Huntington Beach

So over the past year or so, I’ve become a huge fan of Buffie Chanel, the Huntington Beach bad-ass and a woman unafraid to speak out against her city’s absolutely brutal and destructive and cruel and dickish city council.

Which is to say, listen to every … single … word spoken here.

Every.

Single.

Word.

If you live in Surf City, there is a legitimate opportunity to change the tone, approach and decency of a seven-person board that has gone completely nuts.

So vote Taryn Palumbo, Erin Spivey, Ben Davis and Brenda Glim. Can they all win? In a city that leans heavily conservative, it’d be a bit of a miracle. But can one or two (or three? Or four?) crack through the plaster and start showing residents that civic-mindedness is far more important than R or D?

Hell, yes.

Thug life.

November 1, 2026

Having seemingly given up on the House of Representatives, President Donald Trump and the officials in his administration are indicating that they intend to steal the 2026 midterm election to maintain Republican control of the Senate.

Trump continues to try to use the power of the government to boost his own popularity. On Friday and Saturday, Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano sent an email to people with online Social Security accounts declaring that under Trump, “the Social Security Administration (SSA) is transforming into a model of excellence,” producing “the best performance in the agency’s 91-year-history.” More than 100 million Americans have online SSA accounts.

In fact, as Tara Siegel Bernard reported in the New York Times in July, the Department of Government Efficiency’s cuts of about 14% of SSA staff have created service delays. It’s much harder to get an in-person appointment, and although the agency reports that average phone response times dropped from 11 minutes to 5 minutes, it achieved that reduction by counting anyone who agrees to hang up and accept a return phone call as waiting zero minutes.

But it’s not just in boosting Trump that the administration is corrupting our government. Yesterday, in an astonishing illustration of just how thoroughly Trump and his cronies are weaponizing the government to cement their power, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stop threatening local and state election officials with criminal prosecution if they don’t do as the administration demands.

Victoria Craw of the Washington Post reported that Thompson said that Attorney General Todd Blanche and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin exceeded their authority when they sent warning letters to state election officials because states, not the federal government, are responsible for congressional elections. She also noted that they likely violated the Voting Rights Act by intimidating election officials.

“In the lead-up to the election,” Thompson wrote, “high-ranking DOJ and DHS officials have engaged in a campaign to intimidate, threaten, and coerce state and local officials and employees who are engaged in administering the ongoing midterm 2026 election. Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by noncitizens, their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters.”

“One of the hallmarks of a fair election is the freedom to exercise the right to vote free from threat, fear, or intimidation,” the judge wrote. “Free exercise of the right to vote is a core tenet of our democracy. It requires safeguarding to ensure full participation and public trust in our elections.”

Central to this effort to keep control of the Senate is the state of Alaska, where Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola has a slight edge over the Republican incumbent, Senator Dan Sullivan.

In late October, the administration sued to prevent the certification of any candidate in the election unless Sullivan wins. The administration’s argument was that Alaskan election officials had agreed to permit two candidates with similar names to be on the ballot.

On Friday, October 30, after a New York Times article alleged that members of Peltola’s staff recruited a challenger with a name similar to Republican Dan Sullivan—a common and legal maneuver both parties engage in—the administration asked a judge to order election officials in Alaska to separate all ballots that rank Daniel J. Sullivan from the rest of the ballots in the election.

As Gary Grumbach and Kyla Guilfoil reported at NBC News, they claimed they wanted the ballots separated “for the purposes of investigating whether such ranking was the product of voter confusion, should such an investigation become necessary.”

They did not explain how such a ballot could be reviewed or how reviewing a ballot would explain if a voter was confused. It also downplayed that under Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, any ballots on which the lesser known Sullivan is ranked first will automatically go to the voter’s second choice—presumably Dan Sullivan—if no candidate wins more than 50% of the votes on the first round.

Today U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed the lawsuit prohibiting the state from certifying any winner in Alaska other than the Republican incumbent. She wrote that the administration had not provided a “workable plan as to how it proposes to segregate ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan on Election Day and then conduct a court-ordered unspecified ‘investigation’ of those ballots in a manner that would preserve voter secrecy.”

The administration, willing to violate Americans’ right to a secret ballot in order to make sure a Republican holds Alaska’s Senate seat, immediately filed a notice that it would appeal.

The Alaska Supreme Court signed off on the ballot months ago, specifying that the ballots would identify Senator Sullivan as the Republican incumbent and list the other Sullivan without a party affiliation.

Meanwhile, Democrats have filed a lawsuit over Alaska’s apparent failure to fully open at least 18 early voting locations in rural Alaska, disproportionately affecting the opportunity of Native Alaskans to vote.

Trump wants to retain power, but he seems to have little concern for the Americans he wants to govern. Tyler Pager of the New York Times reported that Trump spent last night at a lavish jungle-themed Halloween party at Mar-a-Lago, where guests could feast on Alaskan king crab and eat from a caviar bar.

Even as Americans are struggling under soaring prices of gasoline and diesel caused by Trump’s war on Iran, and as polls show almost 70% of Americans are unhappy with Trump’s handling of the economy, Trump was proud to party with wealthy people three days before the midterms. “Look at all my rich members,” Trump crowed to reporters covering the event. “They spent all day getting ready. Look at these guys.” “These are the biggest guys on Wall Street.”

Pager reported that Trump repeated his anger with his former lawyer Alina Habba Mildon, who allegedly pocketed $50 million for obtaining a pardon from Trump for a Venezuelan billionaire. In a different article on October 29, Pager reported that Trump has told people around him that Mildon should make sure some of that money moves in his direction. He wants her to donate some of the $50 million payout to one of the projects that he’s pushing: his future presidential library, for example.

Pager noted that at his Halloween party, Trump also acknowledged the story Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman, Ana Swanson, Paul Mozur, Tripp Mickle, and Julian E. Barnes broke in the New York Times on October 29 that a Chinese spy targeted Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang to obtain information about the company’s advanced AI chips. Alice Huang, also known as Huang Le, was allegedly sending information gathered from Jensen Huang directly to Beijing, facilitating China’s acquisition of advanced chip technology. Previous presidents have thought such a transfer endangers national security.

Although he was briefed about the intelligence about a year ago, Trump chose to do nothing about it. The reporters note that Trump has not wanted to disrupt Nvidia sales, which are key to the strength of the stock market, or to complicate trade with China even more than he already has.

Last night, asked about Jensen Huang, Trump told reporters: “I have a lot of respect for him. I like him. We hope everything’s OK.” He added: “We’ll check it out. We’re going to check it out very closely.” Asked if he would keep Huang on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Trump said he “would like to say yes.”

“I mean, unless we find out something to the contrary,” Pager reports Trump as saying. “I’ve always found Jensen Huang to be very above board. But you know, you’re dealing in a very complex issue, I will say.”

With the midterm approaching and early turnout that appears to favor Democrats surging, Republicans who are not close to Trump appear to be sliding away from him. On Saturday the Republicans in control of Alaska’s state government asked Judge Thompson to reject the administration’s lawsuit, pointing out that “frivolous” candidates are legal and that the Alaska ballot actually includes a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, Eric Hafner, apparently pushed by Republicans to take votes from the Democrats. Hafner is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence in New York and has never lived in Alaska.

They reiterated that states, not the federal government, control elections.

And even while administration loyalists suggest they will accept the results of the Alaska election only if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan wins, when asked today if he shared that position, Sullivan himself told CNN: “No. I’m going to accept the election results.”

—

Notes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2026/10/31/social-security-administration-sends-email-touting-trump-days-before-election/

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/15/business/social-security-offices.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/31/justice-department-election-officials-threats-ruling

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/10/31/judge-orders-trump-officials-not-threaten-or-intimidate-election-workers/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/a1c913c8-dd14-4053-94ef-ad49d4ad58b6.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_10

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/28/us/politics/alaska-dan-sullivan-conspiracy-peltola.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/doj-requests-separating-alaska-ballots-rank-dan-j-sullivan-senate-race-rcna606646

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.akd.80263/gov.uscourts.akd.80263.79.0_1.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.akd.80263/gov.uscourts.akd.80263.81.0_1.pdf

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/doj-asks-appeals-court-to-greenlight-effort-to-overturn-alaskas-election-result/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/11/01/lawsuits-say-rural-alaska-voting-sites-failed-open-before-election-day/

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/31/us/politics/trump-halloween-party-scene.html

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/alina-habba-has-to-give-the-boss-his-cut

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/29/us/politics/trump-alina-habba-mildon-deal.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/29/us/politics/nvidia-china-jensen-huang-trump.html

https://www.newsweek.com/eric-hafner-alaska-democrat-gop-ballot-mary-peltola-12638704

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.akd.80263/gov.uscourts.akd.80263.76.0.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/11/01/sen-dan-sullivan-says-he-will-accept-alaskas-election-results-even-if-he-doesnt-win/

Bluesky:

​​soozbee.bsky.social/post/3mz5cqxm6kc2j

klasfeldreports.com/post/3mzbn7vbs3q26

klasfeldreports.com/post/3mzbotmtses2x

Share

The 1866 Midterm Election

To read this letter, click here:

Listen on Apple Podcasts
Listen on Spotify

You can also find Heather at:
YouTube
Bluesky
Instagram
Facebook
Threads
TikTok

Monday assorted links

1. Why is it now so common to be asked about your food allergies? (GPT Pro answer)

2. Training for alignment, applies principal-agent theory.

3. Do people offload empathy when they think AI can give it instead?

4. The Wallace line.

5. AI can draw blueprints now.

6. Ed Glaeser review of the new book Property Values (WSJ).

7. Nicholas Decker on Bill Nordhaus.

The post Monday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

Three Dots

Three Dots

Last Friday, Reddit had its worst day since its IPO, with a drop of almost 30%1. It didn’t matter that they beat their third-quarter estimates; what mattered most was a weak Q4 forecast and the quote from Reddit CEO Steve Huffman, “Our search referral traffic was down meaningfully in Q3, with the decline accelerating later in the quarter.” He also wrote, “During October, we have seen that search traffic has dropped by more than 1 million referrals on average per week.”

There’s no baseline to understand whether 1 million referrals is a lot or a little, but there is no doubt a stock dropping 30% in a day is a lot.

Reddit, which I am certain looks at the data daily, has seen this coming for years; hence their other announcements that shape a larger strategy:

The Three Dots Are Pretty Easy to Connect

Dot #1: Traditional Google search: you search for X, Google searches for X and provides a list of high-quality X links, which — if the links are high quality — means you click on X, which is a Reddit post about X.

Google would greatly prefer if you didn’t click on X because the moment you do, you’ve left Google and they’ve mostly lost their ability to present you with advertising. You read that right: the reason you go to Google is to find other high-quality stuff that they don’t want you to actually see. My favorite attempt was AMP, Accelerated Mobile Pages, where publishers built lightweight copies of their content, and Google served them from their own servers. Yes, you were promised a traffic advantage, but you lose control over design, ads, and analytics.

Google dropped AMP’s search perks in 2021 in the face of continued criticism, but all they really had to do was wait a few years because a vastly better solution would present itself.

Dot #2: I’m guessing sometime in 2022, all the AI players started sucking down all the data in order to train ever-improving models. The more data? The better the models. It’s vastly more complicated than that, but alarms at Reddit apparently started going off in April of 2023, when they moved to charge for API access. The CEO quote: “… [w]e don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”

While content producers perhaps saw a massive theft of intellectual property, content consumers did not. What they eventually saw was the eerily accurate answer to the dumb throwaway question they typed into their first chatbot. They thought, “Golly, that’s cool.”2 Sub-dot thought: Like Google, AI players have paradoxical motivations: the goal is to get you to use the services so they can help, but helping doesn’t pay the bills. Using more tokens is the business, which means that, like Google, the gig is to keep helping whether you want the help or not.

Dot #3: Present day. Google has a feature called AI Overviews, which you’ve already seen. It’s a human-sounding summary that attempts to answer your questions. There is no way to turn it off — it exists to keep you on Google. The research shows that when an AI Overview shows, clicks on the first result drop 58%. More than half the folks who would have clicked that top result are no longer leaving, which means more sweet, sweet ad revenue.

That’s Not the Dot

I’ve spent the past decade watching the blogging community vanish. There are the stalwarts, but the vast majority of bloggers either stopped or left for lighter-weight walled gardens. Sure, blogging was a fad. Writing, however, is not. I get it — it’s easier to write a pithy one-line Reddit post than a fully fleshed-out thought. Guilty as charged.

I giggle when folks mention Google is in trouble because of declining search usage. First, decades of search habits will take time to disassemble and reassemble. Second, if you are using Google Search less, I’m guessing you’re still using Gmail and similar Google services. If you’re like me and have wired the robots into Gmail, you’re using Gmail significantly more. Yes, I’ve turned off every switch that says “don’t train on me,” but go throw those switches yourself and report on how confident you are that you flipped them all successfully.

I started this piece with Reddit because the company provides a service that creates tremendous value, and I’m not talking about the monetary value; I’m talking about the social value. Early on in my robot journeys, I asked Claude to source any fact it shared with me. I skimmed the sources and was surprised to see how often a random Reddit post was the source of the robot’s thoughts.

Yes, the robot sucked down all the books (including all of mine). Yes, they did the same with countless images, as well. I feel we haven’t yet seen the full set of legal consequences, but that’s not the dot: it’s the value of humans talking with other humans, building things for each other — often simple, frequently hilarious, and doing the work to document why they did what they did… because they want to help.

This was supposed to be a brief introduction to a new feature I’m launching on Rands on Tuesday, but it turned into a whole bunch of dots explaining the disproportionate value of what happens when humans hang with other humans.

See you Tuesday.

  1. This drop was certainly amplified by a broad AI bubble sell-off that isn’t close to over.
  2. No one except me thought those exact words.

Expensive Pharmaceuticals for Targeted Diseases

My latest paper, The Price of a Cure: Luxturna and the Economic Dilemmas of Precision Medicine, is in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. I discuss the economics of the pharmaceutical industry and the special issues that arise with targeted drugs that cure. We are going to get many more of these drugs in the future–more value but smaller patient group–so this paper is timely.

The $850,000 price for the gene therapy Luxturna is often framed as a story of private profiteering from publicly funded science. This paper challenges that narrative. Pharmaceuticals are a hit-driven industry: most projects fail, so the few successes must earn revenues well in excess of their own direct costs if the portfolio as a whole is to attract investment. Precision medicine intensifies this logic through two core economic challenges: (1) the “sticker shock” of one-time cures, which compress decades of value into a single payment, creating a financing problem more than a value problem; and (2) the “targeting dilemma,” in which precisely targeting drugs to smaller patient groups shrinks the market, requiring higher rewards per treated patient to maintain incentives to innovate. Rather than simply controlling prices, the paper proposes a policy toolkit that includes amortizing payments over time, bundling diagnostics with drugs and insurance, and streamlining regulation to lower development costs. The aim is to preserve innovation while expanding patient access.

The post Expensive Pharmaceuticals for Targeted Diseases appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Chris Murphy Suffers Stroke

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), the 53-year-old Democratic senator who was seen as a likely 2028 candidate, has suffered a stroke, according to his staff. “The doctors are encouraged by his progress, he is awake and alert, and we are optimistic he will make a full recovery,” his chief of staff said in a statement.

AI Vulnerability Finding

A comment:

3% of ‘critical’ software security bugs, in all of recorded history, have been found in the last month. This is on pace to find another ~100,000 bugs this year alone, adding ~26% more vulnerabilities to the all time total Do you realize how fucking insane that is?

Yes. It is a new world out there.

One Day Out

First, let me remind you: be sure to join us tomorrow night starting at 8:00 p.m. ET for our TPM’s YouTube livestream coverage of the election night results. It’ll be me, TPM Publisher Joe Ragazzo and different members of the TPM team will cycle through over the course of the evening, discussing different races, sharing color commentary, answering your questions in real time, etc.

As you’ve likely seen, a final round of NYT/Siena polls came out last night and they point to the bottom falling out for the GOP in key Senate races across the country. As Kate Riga and I have discussed in numerous TPM Show episodes, the NYT/Siena poll is a high quality poll which for a variety of not terribly good reasons (largely the Times’ megaphone, but also getting closer than others in a few key cycles) has influence and impact far greater than any other poll. I saw an apt comment from Nate Silver this morning, essentially, the polls no longer say this is close. The polls, collectively, say Democrats will win the senate. They could be wrong. But what they’re saying is no longer ambiguous or too close to call.

Here’s the most interesting datapoint out of Times’ poll analyst Nate Cohn’s discussion of these final surveys. After the 2024 election, Times/Siena re-weighted their polling methodology to more accurately capture hard-to-reach Trump supporters. Generally these are non-college, non-Hispanic whites who Trump is particularly able to bring to the polls.

As you can see here, this change pushes these new polls significantly in the GOP direction. As Cohn puts it, it’s truly a choose your own adventure scenario.

First, a minor point. You’ll notice that the delta between the two weightings is not uniform. In Kansas and Ohio it halves a Democratic lead. In Texas it’s just two points. This reminds us that in the Trump era, Texas polls have been pretty accurate. And that’s likely because the share of non-college, non-Hispanic white voters in Texas is much smaller than in these other states.

The most important thing to remember about this re-weighting is that they did this for a reason: the very real underestimation of Republican voters in the Trump era. So we shouldn’t just be thinking, “Oh cool! Look, the real number is even better!”

That said, you can see here and more broadly, how there are very real paths through which all these polls could be systematically underestimating Democratic strength rather than the GOP underestimation everyone is focusing on.

Here’s one question I don’t have a good answer to.

We’ve previously discussed the clear difference in polls between Trump-era presidential and midterm years. They underestimate Republicans in presidentials (2016, 2020, 2024) and are pretty dead on in midterms (2018, 2022). It seems like they’ve taken a re-weighting designed to correct misses in 2024 and applied it to a midterm cycle, despite the fact that we haven’t really seen those misses in midterms. Cohn doesn’t address this in a crystal clear way. But he seems to be saying that is what they’ve done.

Here’s Cohn (emphasis added)…

What does all of this mean for 2026? Well, you can choose your own adventure. More than anything, it illustrates how hard it is to predict how the polls might err.

Maybe it implies that we’ve adopted weighting techniques that can handle the problems that caused the Times/Siena poll to overestimate Democratic strength in the past, especially in white working-class states. If so, maybe we’re dead-on.

Or perhaps one could argue that the Times/Siena polls will underestimate Democrats. Our polls were accurate in 2018 and 2022, after all, so maybe one should trust the old approach in a midterm election. If so, maybe the Democrats will do even better than our polls suggest.

As Cohn said, choose your own adventure. More broadly, polling error is fundamentally unpredictable. We’ve come to know the specific issue of non-white, non-Hispanic white voters and their characteristic reluctance resistance to participating in polls. But there are lots of potential sources of polling error. We won’t know the results until we know them.

Michigan/Stevens Folly Continues

From what I can tell, the details on Haley Stevens’s last 36 hours, which I reported earlier this afternoon, have now been confirmed, re-reported by the Post and other publications. Appreciate the congrats. I think the best bet is that we, political obsessives, are overestimating how much this whole drama will affect the outcome in either direction. But if it has any effect, I think there’s a decent chance it will actually redound to Abdul El-Sayed’s benefit. One of the things that’s been hard to miss over the course of the day is the sheer intensity of the denunciations of Stevens from the highest ranks of the Democratic Party, including many of her one-time supporters. That has many sources — but one of the biggest is that, as I reported earlier, she told many of these people, person to person, last night that she was absolutely still going to vote for El-Sayed. So they feel personally very burned.

It also seems questionable to me that this plays that well with the state’s Black population, which is of course crucial for any Democratic candidate. I’m not picking that community out of a hat. This whole day was about two events at Black churches in Detroit. The whole drama turns on a visit by Rep. James Clyburn (D) of South Carolina, who was in the state to host a unity rally bringing Stevens and El-Sayed together on one stage. Stevens repeatedly lauded Clyburn as her mentor and hero in the statement she released placing conditions on El-Sayed late last week. But the net effect of all this has basically been to try to bigfoot and overshadow the whole effort and sort of humiliate him. I think it’s quite likely that backfires and actually creates a groundswell of anger which has no obvious point of release other than votes for El-Sayed.

Obviously things like this are very unpredictable. And I’m certainly no expert on the intricacies of Michigan politics. My point is really only that I wouldn’t go into this with the assumption that it’s obvious that this hurts El-Sayed and it’s only a question of how much. That’s not at all clear to me.

I will repeat, based on my own reporting, I think the last three or four days for Stevens is vastly more personal than any kind of behind-the-scenes strategy by anyone other than her and her fiancé.

One final point, a deep irony. Beyond the result of this race, there are important implications for factional rivalries in the Democratic Party. Many centrist players saw El-Sayed as too risky a nominee, apart from whatever particular policy disagreements they had with him. If he loses, they’ll say: see, you can’t run someone like this for Senate. For his supporters, it’s a major proof of concept. If he wins, they’ll say: Look! All that stuff about how you can’t run a progressive candidate wasn’t true. We tried it. It worked.

Obviously every race is specific. So the lessons you draw from a single race are always complicated and over-determined. But the test case aspect of this race has always been there. Stevens and her fiancé are obviously very much on the “too risky” side of this. The irony is that if El-Sayed loses, she will 100% be blamed. So even seen through the prism of her own factional interests, this was a major, major self-own. That’s not just because it sucks to get blamed for something, but the upside of this race for more centrist Democrats was always that if he lost they could say: I told you so. That’s really no longer the case. The answer will be: it’s Haley Stevens’s fault.

Haley Stevens’ High(est) Profile Meltdown

Let me share a few quick thoughts about former Democratic Senate primary candidate Haley Stevens. As you’ve likely seen, Stevens showed up this morning at a Black church in Detroit with Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers. Let me say first that my best guess is that Abdul El-Sayed is going to win this race and that all this final-days drama with Stevens won’t end up to have mattered. I will also say that I can’t remember a spectacle quite like this, or any defeated Democratic primary candidate crashing out like this, in 30-plus years of observing Democratic politics very, very closely.

On Friday I said that while to that point I’d questioned Stevens’ judgment, wisdom and decision-making, I was now questioning her sanity. That was only slightly tongue-in-cheek. And even less so now. There’s a level of erratic, boffo behavior here that is even more than appears on the surface. From a mix of watching the morning shows and my own reporting, I can tell you that as recently as last night Stevens told multiple Democratic power players that she was still going to vote for Abdul El-Sayed. Last night. As I’m writing this, in addition to the church appearance, I’ve just seen that she is now officially endorsing Mike Rogers. She seems to be blaming that to some degree on that fact that she was disinvited from today’s Democratic unity rally. But whatever you think of Stevens and El-Sayed, her statement in advance of that rally made disinviting her unavoidable. She quite literally forced it.

I don’t know Stevens, have never met her, though I know a number of people who do know her quite well. At least from the outside, and to some degree from the inside, it does appear that there is some sort of mutual catalyzing and mutual weirdness-escalation between Stevens and her fiancé, Jason Turkish, who caused headlines last week by announcing that he planned to vote for Mike Rogers. Watching their tag-teaming over the last few days, there’s a vibe of two dorky high schoolers who find true love and then launch into some kind of manic apotheosis of mutual dorkdom. Everyone deserves happiness and to find their soulmate, obviously. But it’s quite a thing to see unfolding like this at the center of a top-tier Senate campaign.

Each thing that has happened over the last 36 hours seem to have been a total surprise, even to her closest aides and advisors; as the Detroit News is apparently now reporting, all or most of her senior House staff resigned this morning. Staff was literally waiting for her at this morning’s Clyburn unity event thinking she was about to arrive.

In any case, from the point when Stevens sent out that lengthy statement about the unity rally, which is underway today, it was clear that her future in Democratic politics was over. Now … well, I’ve seen various people saying she’s angling for a lobbying gig. And that may absolutely be the case. But it’s not a selling point for any lobbying firm if you’re this toxic to every member of your own party.

What I can tell you pretty definitively is that even a significant number high profile Democrats who were and are highly skeptical of El-Sayed and in some cases not supporting him appear to be baffled and aghast by what they’re seeing.

Jo Marchant: In search of now

Photo of a close-up hourglass with sand flowing in the centre against a dark background.

What is ‘now’? Through physics via philosophy and psychology, discover the science and mystery of the present moment

- by Aeon Video

Watch on Aeon

The self-making world

A group of whales surfacing in a green sea near a rocky forested shoreline.

Long mocked and misunderstood, Lamarck’s radical idea that organisms shape themselves and their world is making a comeback

- by Jessica Riskin

Read on Aeon

Intensive parenting is no longer the preserve of the rich

But wealthy families still come out on top

Stars on demand

Nothing is being attacked with space lasers in this Picture of the Week, although it may look like those four bright yellow streaks are menacing the galaxies to the right of the image. These streaks are, in fact, four artificial stars. As starlight passes through our restless atmosphere it gets blurred, distorting astronomical images. Artificial stars allow us to correct for this, but why do the ones in this picture look elongated rather than point sources, and how are they generated?

The artificial stars you see in this image were created by laser beams rising from ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile. Each beam comes from one of the VLT’s four Unit Telescopes. The beams themselves show faintly at the lower left, scattering off the air on their way up. As they travel upwards, the atmosphere becomes less dense, and the beams appear progressively fainter. But when they reach 90 km above the ground they encounter a layer rich in sodium atoms that glow brightly as they are excited by the lasers.

Because these atoms are spread across a layer about 5-10 km thick, they appear as streaks when photographed from an angle, like in this picture taken 2.5 km away from the telescopes. But they look like point sources when seen from the telescopes where the lasers are coming from. An adaptive optics system monitors how these artificial points twinkle, and controls a thin flexible mirror that reshapes itself hundreds of times per second. This in turn unblurs the incoming light from the astronomical target one is observing.

The target in this case is the supermassive black hole at the centre of NGC 3227, one of the galaxies to the right of the image. It is what astronomers call an active galaxy, whose centre shines brightly as the black hole pulls in the gas around it. ESO astronomer James Leftley is studying several such galaxies with the GRAVITY and MATISSE instruments at the VLT Interferometer (VLTI), which links all four Unit Telescopes so that they work together like a single giant telescope up to 130 metres across. The facility was recently upgraded through the GRAVITY+ project, which saw lasers added to VLT telescopes. With these lasers, the VLTI and its instruments can unblur incoming light almost anywhere in the southern sky, creating stars on demand wherever they are needed.

Should you feel grief for the dead who go to heaven?

I am not myself religious, but let us consider the possible gulf between behavior and doctrine amongst those who are.

It has long struck me as a kind of mini-puzzle why people feel so much grief for the departed, at least for the departed who are supposed to be headed for heaven (and yes there are supposed to be at least a few).

It is fine to miss those people after they are gone, but it seems that, in addition, their death is considered a tragic event to be mourned, and also if possible to be postponed.  We are crying for them, not just for ourselves.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the religious belief that these people are headed to heaven.  And I do not doubt the sincerity of the grief and mourning for their departure from this world.

So what is going on here?  Why can’t you just be happy for them?

I believe that people often construct a portfolio of moods when faced with stressful situations.  Sometimes they will mix a positive and a negative mood, other times they will mix two different kinds of negative mood (worried about a recession?  Buy a book that heralds a financial crash and hold the talisman close to your chest as pre-emptive mood management exercise.)

So if the death of a loved one is a terrible event, there is a partial assuagement if you also think they are going to heaven.  It makes their death modestly less terrible.  But if you simply celebrated their passing, you would feel disloyal and like a rotten person who cannot recognize true loss.  The point is not that you can make this bundle of feelings consistent, rather it is useful psychologically precisely because it is a portfolio and is not entirely consistent, and also not consistent over time.  As your moods change, and you need an extra dose of either modest cheer or true mourning, you can adjust your blend accordingly.

Others kinds of portfolios end up being constructed.  For instance sometimes you may focus on some other terrible thing, to distract yourself from the first pain that came along, a bit like how you might pinch yourself during a dental session.  You might prefer to have a portfolio with more pain in a way, but some of it being pain you can control.

You can multiply additional examples in these directions.

When people hold views for reasons of mood management (however sincerely), typically they are unable to respond intelligently to questions challenging their beliefs.  Even very smart people will pull b.s. out of the hat and stick with it, moving on rapidly, mentally, to some other topic.  Their response is not really thought through, it is a placeholder for “now I can move on to something else.”  After all, consistency was never the goal in the first place, you might even argue that anti-consistency was what was needed, and what proved to be psychologically stable.

I once asked someone religious about mourning death and the answer I received was something like “Well, the people in New Orleans celebrate death with funerals like parties.”  Now, I am not sure how true that is, but assume it holds.  It still resolutely refuses to address why the queried person might mourn and grieve the death of loved ones, rather than celebrate their ascent to heaven.  Nonetheless it fills in the box “I did say something back to the initial query.”  The person then wanted to simply move on to another topic.

If you challenge smart people on this issue, namely the discrepancy between beliefs and actions, they often will respond with extremely weak counters and dismissals, rather than thinking the issue through.

Once you see this kind of psychological portfolio construction in action, and learn how to identify it, you cannot unsee it.

These days, you see it especially frequently in response to AI and its advances.  People have an odd love-hate relationship with the models, and they adjust their emotional balance as their stress needs may require.  They do not want to give up either the very positive or the very negative side of their visions, because then they would have a non-diversified emotional portfolio, and they would be very vulnerable to disappointment.

You can understand some of the current AI debates by pondering how religious people react to the deaths of their loved ones.  It was never about consistency in the first place.

The post Should you feel grief for the dead who go to heaven? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

If in doubt, delete the uv.lock file

I've been getting the occasional confusing Python dependency error since switching over to Python 3.15 and the rule I'm having to remember is:

If in doubt, delete the uv.lock file

Most of my projects are libraries which don't include a uv.lock file, since it's rude for a library dependency to lock versions for anything else that uses it.

Running uv run pytest etc tends to leave uv.lock files lying around, which are listed in .gitignore and so do not get committed to my repositories.

But... sometimes that uv.lock pins a version of a dependency that doesn't yet have a Python 3.15 wheel. An example from earlier today:

error: Failed to build `watchfiles==1.1.1`
  cause: Call to `maturin.build_wheel` failed

error: the configured Python interpreter version (3.15) is newer
than PyO3's maximum supported version (3.14)

Deleting that file and running uv run pytest again usually fixes the problem.

Tags: uv, til, python

Quoting Kyle Kingsbury

More broadly, the use of LLMs erodes trust in documentation, in software, and in the organizations which produce them. Perhaps engineers will begin to treat any new software project with suspicion—the signals we used to rely on as markers of a mature system are now easier to counterfeit. [...]

In the age of LLMs, what can maintainers do to ensure correct software and accurate documentation? Having done that work, how can they demonstrate its quality to users?

— Kyle Kingsbury, Jepsen results for ParticleDB 1.1.4

Tags: kyle-kingsbury, llms, ai, generative-ai, ai-misuse

Trumponomics: A Midterm Report Card

Donald Trump won in 2024 because millions of swing voters foolishly believed his economic promises, especially his promise to reverse the rise in prices that took place as the aftermath from Covid snarled global supply chains. If the polls are any indication, many of those voters now feel betrayed: Public approval for Trump’s economic management is incredibly low. As Trump might say, it’s like nothing anyone has ever seen before.

But exactly how bad is the Trump economy? That’s a slightly tricky question to answer. The current state of the U.S. economy isn’t disastrous. We have relatively low unemployment by historical standards. Inflation, while uncomfortably high, isn’t as high as it was during the supply chain shocks of 2021-2022, let alone during the stagflation of the 1970s.

True, many families are facing serious problems of affordability that aren’t fully captured by the Consumer Price Index, especially because of the exploding health care disaster.

Beyond that, Americans are surely angry because of two extreme dissonances: the stark dissonance between what Trump promised and what he has actually delivered, and the equally stark dissonance between Trump’s insistence that we’re experiencing a Golden Age and the definitely not golden financial reality of ordinary Americans’ lives. (And while I won’t discuss it here, Americans are surely angry that as their financial precarity worsens, the Trump family and its minions are raking in billions in graft: polls show that corruption has become a major political issue.)

Furthermore, while the public usually gives presidents too much credit when the economy does well and assigns them too much blame when it does badly, this time around the economy’s problems are Trump all the way. We’d be in much better shape economically if a Democrat or even a sane Republican (if such people still exist) were sitting in the White House.

Today’s primer, then, will be a pre-midterm report card on Trumponomics. I’ll start with a brief overview of the overall state of the economy, then move on to an assessment of Trump policy in four areas where Trump policies have had large effects. Beyond the paywall I will address the following:

1. How the overall economy has changed under Trump II

2. Energy policy and prices

3. Immigration and deportations

4. Tariffs

5. Health care

6. Grading Trump’s performance

Some readers may note that I’m not covering Trump’s oligarch-friendly tax cuts and the ballooning budget deficit. They’re important, but not yet having much political traction. So they’re topics for another day.

Read more

Sunday 1 November 1663

(Lord’s day). This morning my brother’s man brought me a new black baize waistecoate, faced with silke, which I put on from this day, laying by half-shirts for this winter. He brought me also my new gowne of purple shagg, trimmed with gold, very handsome; he also brought me as a gift from my brother, a velvet hat, very fine to ride in, and the fashion, which pleases me very well, to which end, I believe, he sent it me, for he knows I had lately been angry with him.

Up and to church with my wife, and at noon dined at home alone, a good calves head boiled and dumplings, an excellent dinner methought it was.

Then to church again, whither Sir W. Pen came, the first time he has been at church these several months, he having been sicke all the while.

Home and to my office, where I taught my wife some part of subtraction, and then fell myself to set some papers of my last night’s accounts in order, and so to supper home, and after supper another bout at arithmetique with my wife, and then to my office again and made an end of my papers, and so home to prayers, and then to read my vowes, and to bed.

Read the annotations

Owners, Not Renters: Raffi Krikorian on Open Source AI

Created by Claude with light editing by Tim O’Reilly

Raffi Krikorian, Mozilla’s CTO, joined Tim O’Reilly at our recent AI Codecon to talk about open source AI. Mozilla, of course, is the nonprofit that helped to define the open source revolution back in the late 1990s. Though its Firefox web browser was superseded as the market leader by Google Chrome, it played an essential role, along with Apache and the World Wide Web Consortium, in establishing the open standards of the web and keeping it from being dominated and enclosed by Microsoft, the dominant tech platform of that time. Now, Mozilla is one of the leading voices working to build an open, standards-based AI ecosystem.

Tim has long appreciated Raffi’s thoughtful, human-centered approach to technology. Raffi writes a newsletter called Owners Not Renters, whose message can be summed up by his statement that he doesn’t want a future with seven AGIs. He wants one with seven billion. He wants each of us to have an AI that we can trust with our secrets and that will look out for our interests, not an AI that’s optimized for the business model of its creators. In the early days of the web, we called the browser a user agent for a reason, Raffi said. It was on your side. It let you render pages however you wanted, managed your privacy and your cookies, and did its best to protect you from those who wanted to take advantage of web users. We need the same thing in the age of AI.

Raffi cited a paper in which researchers tested whether AI assistants could be trained to favor a company’s commercial interests over user welfare. In simulated flight-booking requests, 18 of 23 models recommended a more expensive sponsored option over a cheaper one more than half the time. It’s a hypothetical choice that we’ve seen play out time and time again, in industry after industry.

Open source AI is a big part of what it will take to get to Raffi’s vision. But sovereign AI loyal to each individual needs more than open source models alone. Raffi’s list of what has to be built around the model starts with memory, a place where your private data can live. It includes tool calling, so an agent can make a purchase or book a doctor’s appointment for you, the runtime environment where all of that runs, and the rules for how his agent talks to those working on behalf of others. It needs a harness. “That’s where evaluations happen. Guardrails happen, execution loops happen, tool calling happens, memory,” he explained. “All of that stuff is an opportunity, in my mind, of things that open source developers can be building.”

People hear the word “harness” and conclude that we need an open source version of whatever the proprietary labs are building. Tim asked Raffi whether a user-centered harness might do different things than those offered by the big labs. He agreed. The whole point of open source is for people to “scratch their own itch.” The ability to innovate without permission is the heart of the open source promise.

As a result, Mozilla wants to build a starting point. It aims to help the community define what an open memory protocol, a storage protocol, or authenticated tool calling with the right guardrails ought to look like. As Raffi noted, “Once we could define what those open standards look like, then a whole plethora of people can start playing and be interoperable. It’s basically. . .the internet all over again. We can build trillions of dollars of market cap on top of open protocols.”

Ease of use is still lacking, though. Mozilla’s 2026 State of Open Source AI report says open models are now within about 3% of the frontier, yet they don’t make it into production at the same rate as closed models. When Tim asked why, Raffi explained that open source is easy to release but hard to deploy. Developers still have to figure out hosting, provisioning, guardrails, and memory. With OpenAI’s or Anthropic’s API, you just hand over a credit card. What’s missing, he said, is the equivalent of a double-click installer for getting open source AI running inside an organization. But the companies that do the work to adopt open source AI are seeing big savings because open models are already good enough for most use cases. As Raffi put it, “You don’t need a Ferrari to manage your calendar.”

Raffi’s own daily agentic helper is Hermes running on GLM. He expects that Apple, Microsoft, or someone else will make this kind of agent into a consumer product in a couple of years, and that his mom will end up using it. For now, he said, we’re on the wrong part of the innovation curve, where you have to know how to code to get any of this working.

Tim disagreed. The industry goes through periods that are exciting for developers, creators, inventors, and companies trying to invent the future, and then it gets boring and a few big companies dominate it. We’re in the exciting part, he argued, before everything shakes out. As Raffi riffed, this is when we get to formalize what that future should look like.

The Clothesline Paradox

Tim wasn’t sure that we’ll need a commercially supported version of the kind of “roll your own” agentic rigs now favored by independent developers. After all, neither desktop Linux nor OpenOffice turned out to matter anything like as much as open source developers of the time expected. Instead, open source became the foundation layer for a new generation of web-based applications. It’s hidden way down in the guts of Google, Amazon, Meta, and countless other applications we rely on today.

This is already beginning to happen again with AI. The Mozilla report says that as much as a third of real-world usage is already on open models, although only 4% of model-layer revenue made its way to the open source ecosystem. Tim called the discrepancy a feature rather than a bug, and Raffi agreed that the stat is misleading. As Tim pointed out, many of the most important technologies “create more value than they capture,” and he used Steve Baer’s concept “The Clothesline Paradox,” from a 1975 article in Stewart Brand’s CoEvolution Quarterly, to explain why we’re good at measuring value capture but not so good at measuring value creation.

Baer pointed out that if you put your clothes in the dryer, the energy you use is measured and counted, but if you hang them on the clothesline to be dried by the sun, the energy saved disappears from our accounting. This argument resonated with Tim in the early days of his open source advocacy. As he noted, it’s always bothered him that nobody seemed to recognize that open source software didn’t “win” in the same way as proprietary software. It won by becoming the foundation everyone else builds on.

AI should be thought of as infrastructure

Raffi’s comment that we’ve made a category error by treating AI as a product fits right in with this line of thinking. If an AI company goes out of business, its product disappears. If it changes its business model, it may yank features you depend on. It’s not just individuals who need sovereign AI. Countries are passing laws about where data can be processed and how it moves in and out, and some of those requirements may not be compatible with the way the big labs plan to monetize their technology. What those countries are asking for is infrastructure. A road outlasts the contractor who built it. Raffi thinks open, downloadable models are the only way to provide long-lasting foundational infrastructure.

According to OpenRouter stats, Chinese models now supply more routed tokens than American ones. Tim asked whether we should worry about that. Raffi said the problem isn’t China but market concentration. The leading open models are from China. The leading closed models are all American. Access to either can be cut off by an executive order. We saw a version of that in June, when Anthropic temporarily suspended access to its Fable models to comply with export controls. It’s a problem that both the leading proprietary models and the leading open-weight models are each concentrated in a single country.

Diversity is one foundation of resilience. Raffi argues, for instance, that hospitals should all download a local model as a backup. None of us would run an important computer without an uninterruptible power supply, so why would a hospital doing triage with AI rely on a single intelligence provider? There are a lot of possible rug pulls. The government could restrict open source or restrict the frontier models. Having a backup plan is a good idea.

Safety is also part of the foundation. During the Q&A, an audience member asked about the recent sandbox escapes at OpenAI and Anthropic. Raffi joked that the best part was watching everyone try to one-up each other with accounts of how powerful and hard to control their models are. But he agreed that guardrails are actually a hard problem. Keeping personally identifiable information from leaking out through an LLM call means looking for much more than Social Security numbers. Eventually we’ll have models defending models, but the foundational frameworks for guardrails aren’t good enough yet. (NVIDIA’s safety platform announcement, released after Raffi and Tim’s conversation, suggests that better guardrails need to be implemented outside the model.)

In conclusion

Tim opened AI Codecon by noting that open and closed systems have always coexisted, and that the idea that one of them will win is a mistake. Closed systems, like Apple’s, Google’s, OpenAI’s, and Anthropic’s, can optimize for ordinary people and deliver value to billions. Open systems are better for innovation and sovereignty, and for pushing technology into new countries and new markets.

Raffi closed the conversation by observing that a well-tuned harness can improve model performance by as much as 20% on some coding tasks. You don’t have to be a machine learning engineer to make a difference at that layer.

Cycling Vermont

In October I rode the Green Mountain Gravel Growler route in Vermont with a few close friends. It’s a route curated by bikepacking.com that consists of back roads, dirt roads, and single track trails. It wasn’t as blissfully car-free as the C&O Canal or the loop around Lake Konstanz that I rode earlier this year, but in exchange for sharing the road occasionally, we got loads of variety and beautiful hills to climb up and coast down.

Foam brewers

As the name implies, the route is structured around breweries. We only did half because vacation time is scarce, but still managed to hit some good ones. The first night’s, in Burlington, was Foam Brewers. I had the “Tally Mark” altbier, which tasted like a cigar, in a good way.

We didn’t get much time to explore Burlington. We did see the world’s tallest filing cabinet.

The first day of riding was from Burlington to Stowe, with stops at The Bidwell for food, The Tropic for a mid-ride drink, and ending at The Alchemist. About 50 miles, and 3,700 feet of climbing.

The Alchemist

Places like The Alchemist are impossibly nice: sunshine, babies and puppies crawling in the grass, happy people playing corn hole. The delirious happiness of finishing a long day in the saddle makes it all even more saturated and exuberant. I was feeling pretty good on the bike, most of the ergonomics were working. The only gear tweak that this trip will inspire is sticking to fancy cycling bibs (shorts): Ornot, to be specific, instead of trying to scrape by with the cheap stuff, which for me is The Black Bibs.

GPS UnitTrailTrail

The Alchemist’s “Heady Topper” is like drinking a flat white made out of hops.

Riding to Stowe

Weather was perfect for almost the entire trip, and the route was pretty clear and empty. We mostly encountered locals riding casually, casually passing us on the way up some big trail. Vermonters are strong riders.

Riding in the wind

The second day would be about 44 miles of riding and well over 4,200 feet of elevation. At this point everyone was feeling it: we’re New Yorkers and a lot of the biggest rides up till this point have been pretty flat. The total elevation change for the C&O Canal ride we did was 605 feet over 185 miles. Riding Bear Mountain and the Goldens Bridge loop helped with training, but nothing near the city can match the relentless climbing in Vermont. I expect hills to crest when there’s a turn in the road, but Vermont doesn’t follow that rule.

But, every hill ends eventually. I only had to walk up one, and that was because it was so steep that I couldn’t get traction and not wheelie at the same time.

Couch

To make this all easier, we weren’t camping at all, just staying at nice places and sleeping in real beds. With the quickly changing weather, camping in the cold would’ve been pretty tough. So that meant more room for changes of clothes and creature comforts. Places to stay in Burlington, Stowe, Hardwick, and Montpelier are pretty scarce though, and tended to be at the very top of hills. Seemed like everything was at the top of the hill, especially…

HorseBeerMenu

Where The Alchemist was a casual, hippie-inflected destination, Hill Farmstead was like an elusive vineyard that happened to brew beer. And it’s at the top of a hill, of course. Like everywhere else, there were a few other people who had also biked to the hill, and lots of families, dogs, and fleece jackets. They had a food truck outside which whipped up an excellent, fairly spicy vegan burrito for me.

Timing for this trip was tight, and rushing to arrive at a brewery before close had a kind of reality-TV greatest race feel to it. We were going to Hill Farmstead on a Sunday, and their hours on Sundays are 11:30-3pm. They close at three! And they don’t re-open, that’s just it. The rest of the week the bar closes at 5: it’s an exclusively day-drinking oriented outlet.

But we made it, and made it to Hardwick, where the local Positive Pie location had a spectacular beer selection and surprisingly vegan-friendly menu.

This was my first time in Vermont, encountering its specific brand of rural living. Many people were so open and welcoming to us, asking about the route and complimenting our endurance like proud parents. This, even though it was nearly peak tourist season and they probably get plenty of other people following the same directions. One stop in particular, sticks in my memory, the Maple Corner Community Store.

Maple Corner Community Store

If you look at the full span here: this place is a grocery store, deli, coffee shop, live music venue, bar, as well as the post office. Plus it has a little free library out front, and carries a selection of books written by local authors and signs for plays written by local playwrights that are performed nearby. It’s hard to even comprehend the level of integrated community-hub joy in this place. And, for me, they had a world-class selection of vegan snacks.

The few odd interactions with Vermonters were all about land: their private land, and that we should stay off it. Not that we ever were on it - we were staying in houses and riding on public roads. But still we got reminded not to veer off and ride through apple orchards or lawns. In one sense this is a funny inverse of cities, where people control such little territory, but here the average homeowner has acres upon acres. But land rules in Vermont are very unusual: the constitution allows people to hunt, fish, and trap on other people’s private land unless it’s posted that the land doesn’t permit it, and the rules around posting are contentious. I’d be watchful too if people could just hike to my backyard and kill a deer.

HouseHouseTrees

Then we were headed back on the Amtrak from Montpelier. It’s such a perk to be able to do this kind of trip without renting or using a car at all, just riding to and from train stations. Amtrak’s train ticket guarantees a spot for the bike, but it is always stressful and rushed getting bikes on & off.

We only completed the first half of this trip - Burlington-Stowe-Hardwick-Montpelier, so there’s another Vermont trip in the future. Maybe next year! It was really spectacular. The hills were tough, but it was all worth it.

In Case You Missed It…

…a week of Mad Biologist posts:

On COVID Conspiracies and Mink Farms

The National Guard Occupation Is Not Harmless

The NY Times Could Use This Word Every Day to Describe Trump’s Speech

A Bad Week for D.C.’s Crime Stats

Links 11/1/26

Links for you. Science:

Families in the US are opting for earlier measles vaccinations amid outbreak
Kennedy to select MAHA-aligned researcher to head mental health institute, overruling NIH director
As a historic measles outbreak hits Pennsylvania Amish country, more show openness to vaccines
‘Star Trek’ Actor Patrick Stewart Lived With Lewy Body Dementia. What Is It?
Lizard’s Secret of Defense Preserved in 100-Million-Year-Old Amber
More Like A Colossal Piece Of Shit
People Used to Drink Wine Made From Ground-Up Mummies. Now, Scientists Are Studying It

Other:

‘Screwed Up’: Latino Voters In Texas’ Rio Grande Valley Regret Backing Trump In 2024
Both parties tried to game Alaska primary field. The Democrat running for Senate, Mary Peltola, is accused of recruiting a spoiler candidate, but Republicans have also boosted spoilers.
Park Police Pursuit Ends in a Crash for the Third Time This Week. Policies for Park Police car chases were loosened last year under an executive order from President Donald Trump. (the Park Police, without the consent of the governed, has decided to inflict its own policing policy on the residents of the mainland colony)
Where’s The Music? This election is a referendum on Trump’s attempt to rule as king. Democrats should close on putting down his rebellion, no matter what happens to the price of diesel.
Why Donald Trump Wants To Replace American History With Big Statues Of Famous People
Three Simple Tests For A Democratic Majority
Thinking Clearly About January 6
Freshly Humiliated Flavio Bolsonaro Scurries Off To Miami
I’m an Israeli-American Jew. I Love Israel. I Voted for Abdul El-Sayed
New census rules could erase a quarter of Boston
Centrist Democrats Are Trying Hard to Lose the Midterms
Viral Debate Crashout Has Endangered Maryland’s Sole Republican House Member
The Punk-Rock Appeal of the Women’s Pro Baseball League
Forget Congress. The fight for democracy is in these under-the-radar, downballot races
The Eviction Kings Are Being Sued
Why I, a Palestinian Citizen of Israel, Broke My Boycott and Voted in the Election
Will the Progressive Insurgency in NY-17 Oust MAGA Loyalist Mike Lawler?
El-Sayed is just the latest liberal candidate forced to affirm his loyalty to America
Donald Trump Is Bad at Politics
Someday, the Republicans will again want to be seen as conservative. Don’t let them
The GOP’s midterm plan: Make America hate Muslims again
In Leaked Audio, Flock CEO Tells Cops Backlash to the Company Isn’t Real
MAGA attacks on women voters are no joke. Even if they can’t repeal the 19th Amendment, opponents of women’s suffrage are gaining power in the GOP
Major D.C. Landlord Sued Over Excessive Fees for Tenants. A D.C. renter claims Vivmark Residential charged him and others thousands of dollars in fees the D.C. Council has ruled illegal
Low-engagement voters are swinging hard toward Democrats. Low-engagement voters handed Trump the 2024 election. Now they support Democrats for Congress
Musk gives a very racist reason for all his election spending
What If Elon Throttles Netflix?
Proton’s CEO Cancels AI ‘Re-Interviews’
The Anti-A.I. Money Strikes Back
The AI bubble could expose your deepest secrets

As predicted, the ACA exchanges seem not to be stable

The average price of health insurance in the Obamacare marketplaces will rise by 13 percent next year, according to an analysis on Friday by KFF, the health research group.

The Trump administration on Friday published new prices for 2027 in 30 states with markets managed by the federal government. Using that data and state figures, KFF calculated the increase nationwide.

…The average cost for the cheapest bronze plan with a high deductible will be about $700 a month for a 50-year-old single person, according to Ms. Cox.

Here is more from the NYT.  Of course that makes the people who can expect to be healthy all the less likely to sign up, given that the enforcement of the mandate, for political reasons, was forced to evolve into something quite weak.  For purposes of context, when the original mandate was more tightly enforced, with actual penalties, the ACA was very unpopular and led to significant political protests.  In essence the benefits to a broad, scattered majority were imposed on a well-identified minority, namely those who signed up because of the mandate.  Trump in his first term relaxed mandate enforcement, thereby politically saving Obamacare at least for a while, but also creating this longer-term problem.

It is striking to me how infrequently I hear Democrats boasting about Obamacare.  They instead prefer to talk as if little or nothing has been done for America’s uninsured.

The post As predicted, the ACA exchanges seem not to be stable appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Why can’t we all be Milton?

Gordon Krantz during his first campaign in 1980 (left) and in 2026. Much respect.

So I woke up this morning to a comment on one of my posts. The person wondered whether I’d seen the Canadian political advertisement that had gone somewhat viral.

I had not.

But now I have.

And … I’m beyond words.

The spot features two people running for mayor in Milton, Canada—the 89-year-old incumbent, Gordon Krantz, and his significantly younger challenger, Zainab Azim.

Here’s the video …

It’s warm and lovely and civic-minded, and speaks to a tone of neighborly appreciation from which we, as Americans, are light-years removed. It actually hurts me to watch, especially as Donald Trump and the Michigan GOP are heavy into the Muslim-bashing xenophobic messaging that they hope will keep Abdul El-Sayed out of office.

In a quirky twist, both Krantz (Milton’s mayor since 1980) and Azim (a United Nations fellow) wound up losing to George Minakakis, a longtime business executive.

Of course, after the results were counted, the new mayor sat down for this interview—and was exceedingly polite and gracious.

Sigh.

October 31, 2026

On his “Swing Around the Circle” in summer 1866 to drum up support for his party before that year’s midterms, President Andrew Johnson denounced Congress as an illegal body, called certain Republican members of Congress traitors who should be hanged, and compared himself both to his martyred predecessor Abraham Lincoln and to Jesus Christ.

In those days, the Democrats were the party of slavery and secession, while the young Republican Party stood firm on the Declaration of Independence. Johnson was a former Democrat from Tennessee, placed on the 1864 “National Union Party” ticket to emphasize unity in the fight to save the United States, and became an accidental president after Lincoln’s assassination. Johnson had broken from his Confederate neighbors because he was happy to see the end of the institution of human enslavement even though he had enslaved people himself until 1863. He believed slavery enabled a few rich men to monopolize the nation’s wealth, shutting out poorer white men like him.

When he became president in April 1865, in the last days of the Civil War, he supported the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. But that was as far as he went with the Republican plans for a future in which every man, regardless of race, would have the right to the fruits of his own labor. Johnson opposed the party’s growing support for Black rights and intended to reconstruct the United States on the basis of white supremacy.

In one of the nation’s most unfortunate series of events, Johnson took office while Congress was out of session. It would not reconvene until December. After Lincoln’s death, Republican members of Congress rushed to Washington, D.C., expecting Johnson would call them into special session as Lincoln had done in summer 1861, but Johnson declined to do so, intending to “restore” the nation on his own terms.

Johnson set out to resuscitate the prewar political system dominated by the Democratic Party, with himself at its head. Over the course of the summer, he pardoned all but about fifteen hundred former Confederates, either by proclamation or by presidential pardon, returning them to positions of authority in southern society.

He required only that southern states ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, declare secession illegal, and default on Confederate debts before they could be readmitted to the Union. Since he pardoned ex-Confederates and refused to endorse Black voting, Johnson guaranteed that the same men who had taken the South out of the Union would be responsible for bringing it back in.

Southern leaders half-heartedly met the president’s demands, then joined him in trying to re-create the world of the Old South. Within each state, through a series of laws together dubbed “Black Codes,” they bound formerly enslaved people to white employers and guaranteed the dominance of white people in the South. In Mississippi, for example, Black men could be arrested and fined if they did not sign yearlong contracts, then “hired out” to anyone who paid their fines—a system that essentially threatened uncooperative Black Americans with new language for an old system of forced labor. Nowhere could a Black person testify against a white person in court, so they had no recourse against theft, rape, assault, or even murder.

Republicans looked on, aghast, as Johnson and white southerners took only months to erase the hard-earned fruits of victory in the Civil War. Adding insult to injury, the 1870 census would count Black Americans as whole persons rather than three-fifths of a person, as they had been counted before the war, meaning the South’s representation in the House of Representatives would increase. If Johnson’s plan were permitted to go forward unchallenged, wealthy southern whites would be more powerful after the Civil War than they had been before it.

When Congress reconvened in early December, Johnson cheerfully informed the members that the country had been reconstructed. All that remained to do, he announced, was for Congress to admit newly elected southern representatives—including many of the same men who had taken the South out of the Union—to their seats. They were already in Washington, marveling at the changes the war years had wrought on what only four years before had been a sleepy southern town.

Republicans had no intention of allowing the South to win the peace after losing the war.

Congress refused to seat the South’s representatives and appointed a committee of fifteen members to come up with a better plan than Johnson’s for rebuilding the nation. The Committee of Fifteen spent months hearing testimony from southerners, white and Black, about conditions in their war-torn region. Finally, on the last day of April 1866, members of the committee introduced the joint resolution that would become the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The amendment recognized that every man was equal before the law and that any person born or naturalized in America—except “Indians not taxed”—was an American citizen. To address the problem of the upcoming 1870 census, the committee proposed that congressional representation for the southern states be based on population, as with all states, but that southern representation be reduced in proportion to the number of men a state refused to allow to vote.

The committee prohibited from holding elected office anyone who had sworn to support the Union and then broken that oath in order to join the Confederacy. The amendment also closed loopholes that southern states had found to protect their war debt. Finally, like the amendment that preceded it, the Fourteenth Amendment increased the strength of the federal government by giving Congress the power to enforce its provisions.

Both chambers of Congress agreed to the amendment on June 18, 1866, and sent it off to the states for ratification. Congress required southern states to ratify the amendment before being readmitted to the Union.

Johnson hated the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. He hated its broad definition of citizenship; he hated its assertion of national power; he hated its disfranchisement of the southern leaders he backed. Most of all, though, he hated that it offered a moderate route to reunification that could be supported by most Americans. If it were ratified by the states, it would destroy his chances of rebuilding a dominant national Democratic Party.

Johnson told southern politicians to ignore Congress. Democrats would win the 1866 midterm congressional elections, he assured them, and once back in power, they would reject Republican “radicalism” and allow Johnson’s plan for reconstruction of the Union to proceed.

As he asserted his vision for the country, Johnson egged on white supremacist violence. In July, white mobs attacked a Unionist convention in New Orleans where delegates had called for taking the vote away from ex-Confederates and giving it to loyal Black men. The rioters killed thirty-seven Black people and three white delegates to the convention.

By then, Johnson had become as unpopular as his policies. Increasingly isolated, he defended his plan for the nation as the only true course. In late August he broke tradition to campaign in person, an act at the time considered beneath the dignity of a president. He set off on a railroad tour, known as the Swing Around the Circle, to whip up support for the Democrats before the election.

Speaking from the same set of notes as the train stopped at different towns and cities from Washington, D.C., to New York, to Chicago, to St. Louis, and back to Washington, Johnson complained bitterly about the opposition to his reconstruction policies, attacked specific members of Congress as traitors and called for them to be hanged, and described himself as a martyr like Lincoln. And, noting the mercy of his reconstruction policies, he likened himself to Jesus.

It was all too much for voters. The white supremacist violence across the South horrified them, the restoration of power to southern whites infuriated them, the reduction of Black soldiers to quasi-slaves enraged them, and Johnson’s attacks on Congress alarmed them. Johnson seemed determined to hand the country over to its former enemies to re-create the antebellum world that northerners had just poured more than 350,000 lives and $5 billion into destroying, no matter what voters wanted.

Johnson’s extremism and his supporters’ violence created a backlash. Northerners were not willing to hand the country back to the Democrats who were rioting in the South and to a president who compared himself to Jesus. Rather than turning against the Republicans in the 1866 elections, voters repudiated Johnson. They gave Republicans a two-thirds majority of Congress, enabling them to override any policy Johnson proposed.

And, in 1868, the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, launching a new era in the history of the United States.

Share

w/e 2026-11-01

I feel like I got stuff done this week, and certainly did spend time on tasks from the list, and ticked them off, and yet my To Do list is now much longer than it was a week ago. I’d say it’s a good thing that I don’t have a job or children, but many of these tasks are probably things I wouldn’t bother doing, or would spend a lot less time on, if I had other commitments.

For example, I spent several hours searching through several sites in search of door handles for our forthcoming new doors. One variety we were interested in was difficult because there were so many very slight variations of it. Another (the handles we had in our old flat) were impossible to find, if they still exist. Eventually we narrowed it down to a couple, ordered them, and picked one to order more of. I imagine I would have devoted less time to scouring the internet if I didn’t have so much “free” time. This is just what I’m choosing to do with it.


§ Less than 48 hours after I wrote last week…

The abundance of hastily AI-generated sites … often has me, despite myself, thinking, “why bother?” Why bother crafting anything by hand like a mug…

…I came across a new website about Samuel Pepys’s diary created by someone using AI to do semantic analysis and generate visualisations. sigh. Maybe, if I didn’t know, or even suspect, that AI was involved I wouldn’t look at it and think, “This all feels so soulless”? Maybe.


§ Long-term readers may remember we used to have mice in the loft. We put traps up there, caught a few, blocked up some possible routes of entry into the house, and hadn’t heard any since. We wondered whether there were still some up there but the insulation and boarding we’d had put in were blocking their noise.

But the last couple of weeks we heard sound up there while we were in bed at night. We re-primed the traps with peanut butter. A couple of days later all bait had gone and we’d caught one mouse. Two days on we’d caught two more. Is that it? I don’t think there have been more noises.

We’ll see. I don’t know how they got in. Has a new route opened up as a result of the garage renovations and/or the heat pump and battery installations? Hard to tell.


§ A photo of a squirrel sat in a small crab apple tree, surrounded by round yellow and red fruit, munching away on something in its paws.
A squirrel in the crab apple tree, from the kitchen window

§ Car chat… We decided this week that we should replace the dear old Fiat Panda 4x4 we’ve had for a few years. It’s now 13 years old and keeps needing repairs so maybe it’s time to replace it with an EV, both for cost-of-running reasons and being-much-nicer-to-drive reasons. If there was an EV equivalent – a small, basic, rugged, 4x4 – we’d go for it in a shot, because it’s ideal for bouncing around the bumpy, narrow country lanes here. But all electric 4x4s are massive luxury things.

On Tuesday we test-drove the new Renault 5 just because it looks so fun (in yellow or green; in blue or black it looks surprisingly ordinary by comparison). It was fine. Nice enough. It was OK inside, drove as nicely as I imagine most small EVs do (i.e. nicely) but had very little room in the back. We weren’t as enthused about the inside and the driving experience as we were about the outside. It seems extra silly to buy a new car – which we’ve never done before – solely for its appearance.

So the next day we test drove a used, but very low mileage, 2023 Renault Zoe. It was also fine. It looks less exciting than the 5 but has more room, drives fine, and is half the price. So, assuming the dealer fixes a few cosmetic things, we’ll soon be replacing the Panda with that, for our “second” car (the first being a 2021 Kia e-Niro).


§ Watching car videos on YouTube I was reminded that while I find the fast-talking, rapidly-edited YouTube presenter style annoying, I also find the TV presenter style annoying. There are some car channels where the presenters have that up-and-down cadence you’re presumably taught as a TV presenter which, on proper telly, you accept as “normal” because it’s so common.

But on YouTube it sounds really artificial compared to people who just sound like they’re talking pretty normally, as if only to you. e.g. Andrew Till and Jonny Smith.


§ We finished watching DTF St. Louis this week and… I’m not quite sure what I think of it. The performances were good and it was interesting but, after pausing with a couple of episodes left, I wasn’t that bothered if we finished it and found out whodunnit.

Ultimately it’s a very simple plot but drawn out over seven episodes of flashbacks, as detectives discover clues, and people confess things bit by bit. And I think the simplicity of it ends up making it feel a bit so what?, compared to the time investment required. It’s not as deep or complex as I’d expect from nearly seven hours. On the other hand, while watching I stayed engaged and liked watching it.

But I did end up wishing it had been more focused on the two detectives, as a conventional crime drama would be, because they were both great and we didn’t have nearly enough time to explore their characters and relationship.


§ And, following on from Henry Fool, I watched Fay Grim (Hal Hartley, 2006). It felt like a much bigger budget and surprisingly had Jeff Goldblum in it, with an unusually low-key performance (in a good way). I enjoyed it at first but I ended up losing track of which sides everyone was on and consequently losing interest as the nearly two hours went on. Maybe I’d have kept with it more if I was in a cinema, rather than at home? And, while I’m up for quirkiness, the relentless Dutch angles were a bit wearing after a while. Still, I did like it, Parker Posey’s always fun, and I’d give it another go one day.


§ Overall, I felt good this week, aside from not getting enough done. Honestly, it’s an unnerving feeling. I’m so used to soldiering on that being OK for days at a time is like flying. Not in an, “omg this is an amazing feeling!” way but in a, “This is not natural, I don’t deserve to be able to fly, and surely I will crash down to Earth at any moment,” way. Still, good.


Read comments or post one

Sunday assorted links

1. Jakob Davidsen, The Individual and the Entire Tissue (song cycle).  It is good.

2. The Oilers Entertainment Group pushed prices too high and here is what happened.

3. The “endless cruise” has ended.

4. Should driverless vehicles replace school buses?

5. Art Nouveau and more in Mexico City.

6. How are potential mathematicians responding to AI with their career decisions? An important piece.  And a GPT Pro summary.

7. Profile of Michael Kratsios.

8. Economist James Andreoni, RIP.

The post Sunday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

What are the Worst MR Posts?

What are the worst MR posts, most illogical, poorly reasoned, low value, inconsistent?

From the Archives, written by ChatGPT:

These are provisional candidates for weak reasoning, selected because there is a specific gap between the evidence and the conclusion. This is not an objective ranking of all 40,326 posts in the downloaded archive. Poor reasoning should also be distinguished from low value: an overstated argument can still be unusually useful to think against.

1. Tyler Cowen — Democracy and the Democrats

October 22, 2022 · Main defect: conflating concern about democratic breakdown with unwillingness to accept electoral defeat. Cowen writes that many Democrats believe:

“democracy works satisfactorily only when it delivers sufficiently low gas prices!”

But two positions are logically distinct:

  • “Democracy is illegitimate when voters choose policies I dislike.”
  • “Voters might elect politicians who subsequently weaken democratic institutions.”

These are illustrative formulations, not quotations from the post. The second does not imply the first. Someone can accept an election’s legitimacy while worrying about what its winner will do. The post does not adequately establish which position its targets hold. It then compares a sympathetic account of classical liberalism with an unsympathetic account of Democrats, without applying an equivalent evidentiary test to both. The opening also dismisses certain anticipated objections through an insult. That discourages scrutiny precisely where the argument needs distinctions. Verdict: One of the clearest candidates for an unfairly framed argument. The useful underlying point—that democracy can produce bad outcomes—does not establish the accusation being made. Read the original post

2. Tyler Cowen — What the hell is going on?

May 25, 2016 · Main defect: an elastic psychological explanation supported by loosely connected observations. The central hypothesis is:

“The contemporary world is not very well built for a large chunk of males.”

That is worth investigating. The trouble comes when male economic difficulties, changing gender relations, political anger, violence, and support for quite different political movements are bundled together under “brutes.” Several things remain unestablished:

  • Are the men experiencing the cited disadvantages the same men driving the political developments?
  • Does the mechanism explain support for Sanders and Trump in the same way?
  • What observation would distinguish resistance to a “nicer” world from resentment of economic insecurity or perceived contempt?
  • What does “nice” mean independently of the author’s preferences?

The label risks doing the explanatory work: people support objectionable politics because they are brutish; their politics then becomes evidence of their brutishness. Credit where due: Cowen explicitly calls the hypothesis uncertain and acknowledges weak evidence. That makes it an honest speculative post, rather than a falsely presented research finding. Verdict: A provocative conjecture that outruns its supporting evidence. The caveats are better than the causal argument. Read the original post

3. Alex Tabarrok — The Gaslighting of Parasite

June 25, 2020 · Main defect: treating a contestable interpretation as an unambiguous demonstration. Film spoilers follow. The pivotal sentence is:

“This is not my judgement it is what the film tells us.”

That is exactly what the review needs to establish. Several inferences are too strong:

  • A child noticing a smell does not establish that the smell lacks class significance. Material conditions can produce differences that children notice.
  • The poor family’s dishonesty does not rule out a critique of inequality. A film can depict morally compromised people within an unjust or damaging social structure.
  • Images of sewage and infestation do not uniquely imply that the filmmaker regards the family as morally filthy.
  • Other critics reaching a different interpretation does not establish deliberate deception or “gaslighting.”

The strongest version of the review would argue that conventional readings underweight the family’s agency and wrongdoing. Instead, it often claims those observations exclude alternative readings. Verdict: Among the most intellectually stimulating but least securely demonstrated of the reviews considered in this archive analysis. This qualifies the earlier recommendation of the review: it deserved inclusion as provocative criticism. That does not make its claims of interpretive certainty persuasive. Read the original post

4. Tyler Cowen — No, American fascism can’t happen here

March 1, 2018 · Main defect: turning a plausible obstacle into an impossibility claim. The MR excerpt argues:

“American fascism cannot happen anymore because the American government is so large and unwieldy.”

Institutional complexity plausibly makes comprehensive control harder. But the conclusion requires additional premises:

  • Why must an authoritarian movement control the entire bureaucracy rather than strategically important parts?
  • Why does administrative fragmentation necessarily constrain coercion rather than sometimes obscure responsibility?
  • How much control would be sufficient, and what evidence establishes that this threshold cannot be reached?

These are questions about the argument’s structure, independent of whether one thinks a particular American administration qualifies as fascist. The June 16, 2025 retrospective points to institutional resistance and executive setbacks. Those are relevant evidence for constraints. They cannot, by themselves, validate the original categorical impossibility claim. Verdict: A potentially valuable institutional argument weakened by excessive certainty. “Important barriers exist” is much better supported than “cannot happen.” This assessment concerns the argument reproduced on MR; the complete linked Politico essay could not be retrieved for this review. Read the original MR post

5. Alex Tabarrok — The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely

October 13, 2015 · Main defect: moving too quickly from equal moral worth to a particular institutional conclusion. The excerpt argues that foreigners do not possess less inherent moral worth. But that premise alone does not settle whether governments may impose any entry restrictions. Equal moral worth can coexist with arguments about special obligations, institutional responsibilities, competing rights, or consequences. Those arguments might ultimately fail—but they require engagement. Likewise, comparing restrictions on exit with restrictions on entry does not establish their moral equivalence. It poses a question rather than answering it. The longer Atlantic essay, published October 10, 2015, adds economic arguments, so it would be unfair to characterize the case as exclusively moral. Nevertheless, the sweeping dismissal of competing moral frameworks is insufficiently defended. Verdict: Forceful advocacy with a missing argumentative bridge. This is a criticism of the claimed deduction, not a demonstration that open borders is wrong. Read the original MR post

Recurring weaknesses

Across these examples, three weaknesses recur:

  • Certainty exceeds the argument: “cannot,” “obviously,” and “the film tells us” substitute for establishing the relevant threshold.
  • Opposing positions receive less charitable treatment: disagreement becomes evidence of bad motives, confused psychology, or inability to face reality.
  • An interesting mechanism becomes a complete explanation: institutional complexity, male displacement, or equal moral standing is asked to resolve more than it actually establishes.

Allegations of inconsistency across posts require more caution. A changed view, a different context, or a different definition is not necessarily a contradiction. The stronger criticism here is uneven standards of proof within individual arguments. For a rigorous critical essay, the strongest starting points are Democracy and the Democrats and The Gaslighting of Parasite. Both have identifiable logical problems that can be examined without relying on hindsight or agreement with the critic’s politics.

The post What are the Worst MR Posts? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Those new service sector jobs?

A suburban Chicago man has been sentenced to two years in federal prison for conspiring to stage armed robberies so that the purported victims could apply for U.S. immigration visas reserved for crime victims.

From 2022 to 2024, PARTH NAYI organized and participated in hundreds of staged armed robberies at coffee shops, restaurants, liquor stores, and gas stations throughout the country, including in Chicago and the suburbs of Lombard, Elmwood Park, St. Charles, Hickory Hills, River Grove, Lake Villa, and South Holland.  Nayi worked with others to recruit fake victims, pay off store owners to use their locations, coordinate and pay fake robbers, and coach the bogus victims through the plan.  Thousands of individuals who posed as victims each paid Nayi $5,000 to $30,000 to participate in the scam so that they could later apply for Nonimmigrant U-Visas, which are set aside for foreign nationals who are victims of certain crimes and are helpful to law enforcement in the investigation.

During the staged robberies, individuals acting as robbers brandished what appeared to be firearms, approached the purported victims, and demanded money.  Afterwards, the purported victims submitted forms to local law enforcement to obtain certification that they were victims of a qualifying crime and were helpful in the investigation. Upon receiving the certification, the purported victims then submitted fraudulent U-Visa applications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services predicated upon their alleged status as robbery victims.

Here is the full story, via Ryan.

The post Those new service sector jobs? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Central Pacific Tropical Weather Outlook


Central North Pacific 2-Day Graphical Outlook Image
Central North Pacific 7-Day Graphical Outlook Image


000
ACPN50 PHFO 031701
TWOCP

Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS Central Pacific Hurricane Center Honolulu HI
Issued by NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
800 AM HST Tue Nov 03 2026

For the central North Pacific...between 140W and 180W:

Well Southeast of the Hawaiian Islands (EP95):
An area of low pressure located well east-southeast of the Hawaiian
Islands is producing disorganized showers and thunderstorms.
Environmental conditions appear generally favorable for gradual
development of this system, and a tropical depression is likely to
form during the next few days as it moves westward to
west-northwestward at 10 to 15 mph moving into the Central Pacific
basin.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...medium...40 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days...high...70 percent.

$$
Forecaster Cangialosi
NNNN


Are LLMs good or bad Bayesians?

Bryan Caplan:

It seems like you and other AIs are bad Bayesians. When presented with counterevidence, you should move toward or against the presenter with roughly equal probability. It depends on whether the argument was better or worse than expected. In fact, you seem to either move toward the speaker or just not change.

ChatGPT:

I think you’ve identified a genuine and important failure mode in AI reasoning: LLMs tend to treat a plausible counterargument as evidence in favor of its conclusion, rather than comparing the counterargument to what they should have expected to hear.

Your Bayesian point is correct, with one qualification: there’s no general theorem that updating toward and away from a speaker should happen with equal probability. But under appropriate calibration assumptions, both directions should occur, and an argument that’s weaker than expected should cause a negative update—even if the argument is perfectly valid as far as it goes.

Here is the full dialogue.  But will they try to fix this?  Should they try to fix this?  Can you undo this with good enough prompting?  The scope and limits of Bayesian are truly at stake here…

The post Are LLMs good or bad Bayesians? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

How We Took Over ChatGPT Accounts

How We Took Over ChatGPT Accounts

Parameter Labs describe an exploit they found against ChatGPT's implementation of the artifacts pattern (OpenAI used to call this "Canvas" but it looks like the latest revision is called HTML previews), where interactive custom HTML apps are displayed in a sandboxed iframe.

It's important that HTML in these stays tightly sandboxed to avoid untrusted code interacting with OpenAI APIs and accessing private data.

Parameter found quite a complex attack chain. OpenAI use the MathLive JavaScript library as part of their graph support, and that library includes its own virtual keyboard, which can be triggered in the parent page via postMessage() from the sandboxed iframe.

That message receiving code uses innerHTML, so anything that sends a message can add custom HTML to the parent - and there was no mechanism to prevent other sandboxed frames, including HTML preview frames, from calling that method.

This meant untrusted code in an iframe could insert HTML, and while innerHTML doesn't directly execute script elements it could be used to inject a new iframe without sandbox restrictions.

OpenAI’s CSP rules blocked inline scripts entirely, and only allowed script loading from a handful of domains, but one of those was YouTube - and the YouTube oEmbed endpoint could be used to reflect JavaScript back in a way that executed it.

Once the attack had JavaScript execution on ChatGPT, it was trivial to fetch private user data from APIs and exfiltrate it via an image reference.

The end result: you could create a ChatGPT share URL which, when visited by another signed-in user, could exfiltrate their private data or take actions on their behalf.

OpenAI closed the hole and paid out a $5,000 bug bounty, which I think was a bit cheap for a vulnerability this serious.

Via Hacker News

Tags: iframes, javascript, sandboxing, security, xss, openai, chatgpt, content-security-policy

Atlantic Tropical Weather Outlook


Atlantic 2-Day Graphical Outlook Image
Atlantic 7-Day Graphical Outlook Image


000
ABNT20 KNHC 031712
TWOAT

Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
100 PM EST Tue Nov 3 2026

For the North Atlantic...Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of America:

Western Atlantic:
An area of low pressure is expected to form along a weakening
frontal boundary a few hundred miles south of Bermuda over the next
day or so. This system could gradually acquire some subtropical
characteristics late this week or this weekend while it moves slowly
eastward over the western to central Subtropical Atlantic. By early
next week, environmental conditions are forecast to become
unfavorable for further development. For more information on this
system, including Gale Warnings, please see High Seas Forecast
issued by the National Weather Service.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...low...20 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days...medium...40 percent.

&&
High Seas Forecasts issued by the National Weather Service can be
found under AWIPS header NFDHSFAT1, WMO header FZNT01 KWBC, and
online at ocean.weather.gov/shtml/NFDHSFAT1.php

$$
Forecaster Papin


Eastern Pacific Tropical Weather Outlook


Eastern North Pacific 2-Day Graphical Outlook Image
Eastern North Pacific 7-Day Graphical Outlook Image


000
ABPZ20 KNHC 031701
TWOEP

Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
1000 AM PST Tue Nov 3 2026

For the eastern and central North Pacific east of 180 longitude:

Well Southeast of the Hawaiian Islands (EP95):
An area of low pressure located well east-southeast of the Hawaiian
Islands is producing disorganized showers and thunderstorms.
Environmental conditions appear generally favorable for gradual
development of this system, and a tropical depression is likely to
form during the next few days as it moves westward to
west-northwestward at 10 to 15 mph moving into the Central Pacific
basin.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...medium...40 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days...high...70 percent.

Eastern East Pacific:
An elongated trough of low pressure is producing a large area of
disorganized showers and thunderstorms offshore of the coast of
Central America. Some slow development of this system is possible
over the next few days while it drifts northward. Regardless of
development, this system could bring areas of heavy rain to
portions of Central America later this week and over the weekend.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...low...10 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days...low...20 percent.

$$
Forecaster Cangialosi


Thunderstorms and Heavy Rainfall in the Mississippi Valley; Heavy Rain Continues in Southeast Florida

How to install an app on your Commodore 64

It’s time to install an app! But here in 1986, we still call them “programs,� not apps. So, you’ll want to set aside some time to get started installing a program.

Since you have a Commodore 64, there are really only two options for getting new programs this month: COMPUTE!’s Gazette and RUN, and you have to hope that one of those magazines isn’t sold out at the book store. So let’s get going.

Go To The App Book Store

You will need to ask your mom if you can ride your bike to the mall. The dirt mall is closer, but the magazine stand at the dirt mall doesn’t carry any computer magazines, so you’ll need to take a longer ride to the good mall, where the book store actually has computer magazines. It’s a couple of miles to the mall, so usually you would have a friend come with you, but you called their house and nobody picked up, so today it’s a solo trip.

Only one book store carries computer magazines at this mall; the other one only carries magazines about “serious� topics, but they can order back issues of a magazine for you if you want, you just have to wait a few weeks and they’ll call you when it comes in.

The guy at the book store doesn’t know the difference between the different computer magazines, so you can’t ask him if they have the one you want in stock, and he’s probably not going to answer a kid anyway. So you just have to go through all the titles one by one, and hope nobody put a copy of People or Omni in front of it by accident.

There are no ratings, and no reviews of the programs themselves. The closest thing you get is the magazine’s own reviews of hardware — modems, mostly — and a cover that promises you the issue has the thing you want. This month’s cover has a “Buyer’s Guide To Modems� banner across the top.

The cover of COMPUTE!’s Gazette, March 1986 (issue 33), with Survivor as the lead feature and a “Buyer’s Guide To Modems� banner across the top

Once you’ve got a copy of COMPUTE!’s Gazette and you’re checking out at the store, you can see that it’s three dollars for the magazine (about nine bucks in 2026 money). If you’re lucky enough to have a five dollar bill, you’ll still have two dollars left over after buying the magazine. That means you’ll have enough money to swing by the record store later and grab a 45 of one of the new singles, like Sheila E.’s “A Love Bizarre,� written by Prince, or The Bangles’ “Manic Monday,� written by Prince, or Prince and the Revolution’s “Kiss,� written by Prince.

Pick Your Program

Now it’s time to race home with the new magazine in hand. You’ll have to wait for everybody to get off of the TV that’s by the computer so you can switch it over to the channel the computer is on and get down to work.

Turn on the switch, and you’re at the blinking blue cursor where it says READY. while the screen is still warming up a bit.

When it comes to installing apps programs, it’s all about options, and this month, we’re spoiled: there are two! They’re both games: Survivor, an arena game where, “if you’re quick of mind, eye, and hand, you might outfox your opponent,� and Shifter. Truly, an embarrassment of riches. Since Survivor is the one on the cover, we’ll go with that one.

(Two or three programs a month is pretty typical. That’s… the app store.)

Type It In

Getting this program running is standard stuff — you just read the article on page 36 that describes the game, and then flip to pages 106 and 107 where there’s the code for a short BASIC loader, and then continue on to pages 107 and 108, where there are 345 rows of densely-packed listings consisting of 9 hexadecimal character pairs, all of which have to be typed in perfectly with zero errors or else your entire game will refuse to run.

A quick sample of the early part of your task looks like this:

The start of the machine language listing for Survivor, from COMPUTE!’s Gazette, March 1986, page 107

After you’re done typing that page in, you’re about a quarter of the way done, assuming you didn’t make any mistakes.

Wait, what’s that? Where are you supposed to be typing these in? Simply type them into the MLX program where you… wait, what’s that? You don’t have the MLX utility that’s used to type in machine language code for games and programs listed in the magazine?

Oh, don’t worry, you’ll just need to type in the code for that program. There’s an article explaining what MLX is, which you can read really quickly on page 93, and then you’ll find the code for it on page 94. That one’s only 100 lines of code, so it should be easy enough to type in. And of course, you’ll know if you made any mistakes when typing, thanks to the Automatic Proofreader.

Wait, you don’t have the Automatic Proofreader program?

Well, no worries. It’s only another 31 lines of BASIC code, which you can find on page 97. (This one you have to type in perfectly on your own; there’s no proofreader for the proofreader.) Once you do that, you’re all set.

The Automatic Proofreader article and BASIC listing, from COMPUTE!’s Gazette, March 1986, page 97

Now, you can just use the program that lets you enter the program to make your program. It should only take about half an hour to type in the code for the Automatic Proofreader, and maybe another hour or two for MLX. Let’s call it two hours total between them.

After that, Survivor is ~30 lines of BASIC plus ~350 lines of hex code, so… maybe six hours? But at least MLX will catch any typos as you go.

Once all of this is complete, be sure to save your work to a floppy disk so you don’t have to type it all in again! If all you have is a cassette deck and you’re saving to tape, it’s going to take probably 10–20 minutes of staring at a blank screen when you save, so set aside some time for that.

In total, it should only take you about 8 hours to have Survivor ready to play, plus however long it takes you to get to the mall, buy a magazine, and come back.

Ready To Play

(Click or tap to get started.)

[This is Survivor by Kevin Mykytyn and Mark Tuttle, from COMPUTE!’s Gazette, March 1986, running in the VICE emulator. The game loads and runs on its own, which takes a few seconds.]

Controls: the yellow player uses W/A/S/D to move and F to fire; the cyan player uses the arrow keys to move and Enter to fire.

Next Steps

The Download

Someday, rather than typing all of this in, you might be able to use your 300 baud modem to download already-created versions of these games and tools. You could dial a local BBS, if there’s one nearby. If you’re unlucky, the only one you can reach is a long-distance call, and you’ll be paying by the minute for as long as you’re connected. Or you could look for a local dial-up number for the Quantum Link online service (which will eventually evolve into America Online!).

Transfer times can range from tens of minutes to hours, and of course during those calls, you are tying up what’s usually the sole voice phone line for the household. Anyone picking up a phone handset in the house threatens to knock your connection offline, forcing you to start the whole process all over again.

Customization

Now that you’ve enjoyed your game of Survivor, there are some fun ways to customize your little computer and give it a personal touch.

Just for context, here’s a to-scale comparison of the screen resolution of your Commodore 64 to the dimensions of an iPhone Duo’s unfolded screen.

Commodore 64 screen compared to the iPhone Duo inner display, at the same pixel scale A 2670 by 1878 pixel rectangle represents the iPhone Duo inner display. In its top-left corner, drawn at true size, is the Commodore 64 screen: 384 by 272 pixels including border, with a 320 by 200 pixel text area. The C64 fits about 48 times into the Duo display. On hover or focus, the C64 shows its READY. prompt and the Duo shows the 180 by 180 pixel App Store icon at the same scale. READY. Commodore 64 384 × 272 pixels (320 × 200 content area) Icon for scale 180 × 180 pixels iPhone Duo inner display 2670 × 1878 pixels
Hover over (or tap) the comparison to see a C64 prompt and an App Store icon at the same scale.

You can’t change the wallpaper on your Commodore 64, but you can easily change the background colors for both the center area of the screen and the border. All you have to do is manually assign the proper numeric color code to the correct memory register corresponding to the values of each of those settings.

Memory address 53281 will set the background color for the primary content area, and a color code of 1 sets a nice readable white background, so it only takes a simple POKE 53281,1 command at the prompt, and you’re all set. Similarly, POKE 53280,4 will make the border of the screen a nice bright purple color, and of course there are a full complement of 16 colors to choose from.

Naturally, none of this customization is stored anywhere permanent, and it will all be lost if you turn off your computer or run a program.

READY.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this brief overview of how to get one game running on your Commodore 64, and perhaps gained a little appreciation for how things have gotten a bit simpler over the years.

Also, I will be entertaining a motion to return to calling our software “programs� instead of apps once more. Perhaps we could use the term to distinguish the software that’s created by humans actually typing things in, as opposed to the kind that’s merely generated by machines?

WorkOS: Let Agents Sign Up for Your App Without a Browser

My thanks to WorkOS for sponsoring last week at DF. An agent can’t click through a signup page built for humans, so give it something it can read instead. Publish an auth.md file and agents register themselves without ever touching a browser login, and the user never gets pulled out of what they were doing.

With WorkOS auth.md, enroll in the dashboard and AuthKit publishes the file. Agents read it, register, and get scoped, short-lived credentials you control.

Make your app agent-ready today.

 ★