Inanimate launch event in London, next week

The last time I posted about Inanimate, I mentioned that we’re building devices:

WORKS: five limited-edition devices for your AI agent and you.

(Five?? Yes five.)

We call them Promptable Products.

You can make apps for them. You can buy them, if you want to be part of our alpha community as we continue to develop them. You can… well, we’ll get to that.

We’re showing them to the world for the first time next week.

So if you’d like to join us in Shoreditch, London on 19 November, please sign up on Luma.

The gang will all be there and we’ll bring along old protos and new merch.

lmk if you can’t make it and you’re press or at one of the frontier labs, we can sort out a private demo.

Hey these are the names of the WORKS 26 family:

Pioneer, Candle, Session, Tempo and Oracle.


More posts tagged: inanimate (8).

Auto-detected kinda similar posts:

Unfinished

It’s been a while since I posted here. If all goes well, this will be the last post via this WordPress blog that you are reading.

I am not done. I’ve hardly started. My debt, the backlogs of things I mean to write, of things I egotistically imagine might do a smidge of good in the world if I did write them, is very long. This has been a hard year for writing for me, but I hope that there is a bit more time.

This website, www.interfluidity.com is not going anywhere. It will, in some fashion, become my front page.

The sites where I “actively” blog now are drafts.interfluidity.com and tech.interfluidity.com. As you can see, “actively” deserves its scarequotes.

One of many, many projects I’ve flaked on is creating means by which readers can comment on those sites. I still mean to do that. I wish I could promise a timeframe. I have ideas, though.

If you are subscribed to this blog by e-mail, you’ll become subscribed to drafts instead, unless I hear otherwise from you. E-mails from drafts are instant to unsubscribe. One click, I promise.

Past post aren’t going anywhere. All permalinks will be preserved, along with as many other links as I can manage.

This blog began in 2006. Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play more recently. It’s not over, but it’s been a long strange trip. Thank you for accompanying me. Thank you for reading.

The future of Trumponomics: compromise or failure

How the art of the deal may yet prevail over the art of denial

New OpenSSH Vulnerability

It’s a bad one, and it’s been in the code for a decade:

A newly disclosed flaw involving OpenSSH and musl, dubbed “*sshole,” allows attackers to log in to certain Alpine Linux and other musl-based Linux accounts configured to block password authentication simply by entering an oversized password.

“Oversized” means longer than 256 bytes. Details.

Slashdot thread. And another news article.

Call for papers: 21st Matching in Practice Workshop, Budapest, December 14-15

 Here's a call for papers for the  21st Matching in Practice Workshop in Budapest in December.

21st Matching in Practice Workshop
December 14 @ 9:00 am - December 15 @ 3:00 pm
"The MiP Workshop is an annual meeting organized by the Matching in Practice network of European researchers working in the research field of Matching Theory and Market Design.

The event has no registration fee, but invitation is needed for attendance. Catering and dinner will be provided to all participants, but the travel and accommodation costs are only covered for the plenary speaker. The host organisation is the Institute of Operations and Decision Sciences, Corvinus University of Budapest.

The plenary talk will be given by Irene Lo (Stanford), and the roundtable discussion will be on school choice.

We call for submissions for 12 selected contributed talks. The deadline for submitting the papers is 12 November, sent in pdf format to peter.biro@uni-corvinus.hu (title: “MiP workshop submission”), decisions will be made on 13 November by the scientific committee. We especially welcome submissions on school choice or other two-sided matching market applications."

Checking the AI audit of Saez and Zucman’s research.

From SaneCite:

We checked the anonymous AI audit of Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman’s research that Marginal Revolution featured on 28 Oct: all 147 problems it calls serious enough to change a headline number, against the papers, their sources and the authors’ own data. The audit’s facts hold up: for 131 of the 147, every fact we could check was right, and none had its core facts wrong. 21 of the 147 change a headline number; 98 depend on a disputed choice of method; 20 change no number; 8 we could not check on that question. A second pass graded the 99 flags we first counted as depending on a disputed choice of method: 11 standard, 70 defensible, 11 questionable, 6 we could not grade, and 1 contested. It found one, No. 54, that does change a headline number, which is why the counts are now 21 and 98. Saez and Zucman were sent our findings on 29 Oct and did not reply by 6 Nov.

Here is the audit of the audit, open code and data, kudos to the authors.  Here was the original AI audit.  Here is the October 30 revision of that audit.

Addendum: And a revised version with less jargon.

The post Checking the AI audit of Saez and Zucman’s research. appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

SpaceX now fundamentally an "infrastructure company," senior official says

For a long time, SpaceX has been synonymous with the development of newer, larger, and ever-more-reusable rockets. But that began to change over the last decade with the introduction of Starlink, and the change has accelerated during the last 18 months as the company has pivoted to data and artificial intelligence.

At last week's UP.Summit conference in Florida, the vice president of launch at SpaceX, Kiko Dontchev, offered some of the most revealing comments to date about the company's changing focus, how it is embracing AI, and why the Falcon 9 rocket—which has dominated global launch for a decade and remains the world's preeminent launch vehicle—is firmly on the road to retirement.

"In the last couple years, when I talk about SpaceX, yes, we are a rocket company, but fundamentally we are an infrastructure company at this point," Dontchev said. "We're building infrastructure on the ground and low Earth orbit, soon on the Moon, and obviously eventually Mars."

Read full article

Comments

The wholehearted life

A smiling elderly woman in traditional attire holding a brush, standing against a red textured background.

Roshi Joan Halifax is an original, generous, gritty and profound Buddhist teacher. How does she look back on her life?

- by Ben Daitz

Read on Aeon

Quoting Prompting Claude Fable 5.2

Claude Fable 5.2 responds closely to what the prompt says about who owns the code it works on. In Anthropic’s testing on small coding tasks, when a prompt said nothing about ownership or presented the code base as someone else’s, the model tended to add to the existing structure, even when that repeated existing code. [...]

If you want the model to improve the structure as it works, say that the code is its own:

This codebase is yours: what it's for and how it's built are your call, and you'll keep building on it.

In Anthropic’s testing on small coding tasks, the model merged repeated code in about half of the tries with this sentence, and in under a tenth of the tries without it.

— Prompting Claude Fable 5.2, Anthropic documentation

Tags: prompt-engineering, anthropic, generative-ai, ai, llms, claude-mythos-fable

Yonkers Rises

Tool: Yonkers Rises

I realized I didn't know where Yonkers was, so I looked it up on Google Maps and then, to help embed its location and shape in my head (and to try out Claude Fable 5.2's 3D modeling and animation skills), I prompted Fable 5.2 Medium to:

Make a three js animation where yonkers stands up as a big mech (cool stand up motion) and átomos around manhattan and queens and Brooklyn, use openstreetmap mapping data

It correctly deduced that "átomos" was a mobile keyboard typo for "stomps":

Tags: three-js, llms, ai, generative-ai, claude-mythos-fable

llm-anthropic 0.31

Release: llm-anthropic 0.31

Anthropic released Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 today. Fable 5.2 is currently ranked first on Artificial Analysis. Anthropic say it "solved two open problems in the physics of black holes", so clearly their internal benchmarks have become more ambitious!

I've added the new models to llm-anthropic, so you can now run prompts through Fable 5.2 like this:

uv tool install llm
llm install llm-anthropic
llm keys set anthropic
# paste key here
llm -m claude-fable-5.2 "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle"

I ran pelicans at all five reasoning levels - low, medium, high, xhigh, and max. You can see them all here - here's the best result I got, from xhigh:

It's good - legs the right side of the bicycle, good frame, nice pouch, weird little fingers on the handlebars. The pouch looks slightly misaligned with the top of the beak.

max failed to return an image at all, running out of tokens after spending 128,000 thinking about them. That's the same bug that I saw with Opus 5.5 - but it's new for the Fable series, both Fable 5 and Fable 5.1 returned max effort pelicans just fine.

It's priced at $8/million input and $40/million output, which is a 20% discount on the previous Fable 5.1 ($10/$50).

I also used Fable 5.2 to help identify the source of a mysterious beep.

Tags: llm, anthropic, claude, generative-ai, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, ai, llms, claude-mythos-fable

Introducing Our Smallest, Most Efficient Model: Muse Ember

Introducing Our Smallest, Most Efficient Model: Muse Ember

Meta AI just launched their entry in the Claude Haiku/GPT Luna category: Muse Ember, which they describe as:

[...] our smallest and most efficient model designed for complex reasoning execution and the work agents repeat all day: tool calls, coding subtasks, routing, extraction, and long document parsing.

For shorter prompts it's priced the same as GPT-6 Luna and Claude Haiku 5.5 - both are $0.10/million input tokens and $0.50/million output. Today's other big model release, Claude Fable 5.2, is 80x that price at $8/$40.

The pricing is a little less straightforward as prompts get longer, though. Luna, Ember, and Haiku all support up to a million input tokens, but they also all have a threshold after which the price goes up. Taking that threshold into account Ember is priced between the two others:

Model Prompt size Input ($/M) Cached input Output
GPT-6 Luna ≤272k $0.10 $0.01 $0.50
>272k $0.20 $0.02 $0.75
Muse Ember 1.0 ≤200k $0.10 $0.004 $0.50
>200k $0.30 $0.012 $1.50
Claude Haiku 5.5 ≤100k $0.10 $0.01 $0.50
>100k $0.50 $0.05 $2.50

But comparing price-per-token doesn't really make sense these days, when reasoning tokens mean that different models might use dramatically different numbers of tokens to solve the same problem.

For that, one measure that's useful is the Artificial Analysis.

Stacked bar chart from Artificial Analysis comparing a cost in dollars across six models, each bar split into four unlabeled stacked segments, sorted from lowest to highest total. Claude Haiku 5.5 (low): $0.04* total, bottom segment $0.02, three thin unlabeled segments above. GPT-6 Luna (non-reasoning): $0.07 total, bottom segment $0.06, thin unlabeled segments above. GPT-6 Luna (xhigh): $0.10 total, segments from bottom $0.07, $0.02, $0.02, plus a thin unlabeled top segment. Muse Ember (xhigh): $0.12 total, segments from bottom $0.06, $0.02, $0.02, plus a thin unlabeled top segment. Muse Ember (max): $0.14 total, segments from bottom $0.07, $0.03, $0.03, $0.02. Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh): $0.25* total, segments from bottom $0.14, $0.04, $0.05, $0.02. Anthropic bars are terracotta, OpenAI bars are dark gray, Meta bars are blue, each with the company logo beneath.

And even more useful than that is their Intelligence Index vs. Cost per Task chart, which shows the following for those three models:

Scatter plot from Artificial Analysis titled "Intelligence Index vs. Cost per Task", plotting Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (y-axis, 5 to 40) against cost per task in USD on a log scale (x-axis, $0.04 to $0.3), with a green "most attractive quadrant" in the upper left and a dotted Pareto line. Claude Haiku 5.5 (low)* scores about 19 at roughly $0.044. GPT-6 Luna (non-reasoning) scores about 9.5 at roughly $0.07. GPT-6 Luna (xhigh) scores about 23.5 at roughly $0.10. Muse Ember (xhigh) scores about 34 at roughly $0.12 and Muse Ember (max) about 36 at roughly $0.14, both on the Pareto line. Claude Haiku 5.5 (xhigh)* scores about 34.5 at roughly $0.25, well to the right of the Pareto line. Three unlabeled gray dots also sit on the Pareto line.

The Muse Ember models sit right on that Pareto line - the line at which you can only improve one dimension by giving up another. Meta call this out in their announcement:

It also sits on the efficiency frontier of the full Artificial Analysis leaderboard: no model scores higher for less per task.

(That grey dot on the Pareto line in the middle of the green area is GPT-6.1 Terra (low) - clearly I should be paying more attention to the Terra family!)

Muse Ember has six reasoning levels - minimal, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max - so I rendered six pelicans riding bicycles. The "high" reasoning level failed to return a full SVG, and the other SVGs were surprising in that the reasoning level didn't cleanly map to the visual quality of the response.

Here's the "max" one, but the others are worth a look too:

Bicycle frame is OK, basket has fish, pelican has a weird blue hat on.

The Ember pelicans are comparable in quality to those I got from Muse Wonder, which is 40x the price of Muse Ember.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, meta, llm-pricing, llm-release, artificial-analysis, muse

*Godzilla: Minus Zero* (no spoilers)

This is a morally serious movie (really).  And Ghidorah stars!  The whole thing is about twenty minutes too long, but mostly very good.  And like many in the Godzilla series, it offers extended and instructive commentary on American-Japanese relations, and how the Japanese view them.  Not for everyone, but I am glad I went.

The post *Godzilla: Minus Zero* (no spoilers) appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Noah Smith and Azeem Azhar discuss the AI boom

Azeem Azhar of Exponential View is an excellent blogger whom I tend to cite a lot. So it was very fun to call him up and talk to him about the AI boom, and the possibility of an AI bust! The discussion was sparked by this post of mine a few weeks ago:

I don’t think we reached any firm conclusions, but it was fun to mull these issues over. Expect more discussions between me and Azeem in the future!


Subscribe now

Share

He Changed Manufacturing In America

A couple of weeks ago, we brought you the story of SendCutSend and its founder and CEO Jim Belosic. If you haven’t read the piece, you should. It’s lovely.

And now we’re coming at you with early access for our subscribers to a SendCutSend video we filmed in Reno.

Read more

Robert Hall’s 1983 proposal to index IOR

Today’s post is brought to you by my sponsor, Mechanize. They’re hiring junior software engineers at $300K/year base salary. Apply now!

* * *

[I did most of this post on Nobel Prize winner Robert Hall a month ago and finally got around to finishing it today.]

One of my favorite papers is a 1983 Robert Hall publication in the Journal of Monetary Economics. Here is a key passage discussing the intuition of Hall’s proposal to stabilize the price level by paying interest on reserves in a way that is indexed to the price level:

The case where reserve certificates [RCs] are perfect substitutes for other forms of government or private debt is particularly interesting. As a general matter, the price level will be indeterminate in this case. However, I will show that a particular form of indexing eliminates the indeterminacy.

The central problem with a fiduciary monetary system is the following: In the absence of inefficient regulatory intervention, the demand for reserve certificates is unpredictable and possibly unstable. But the purchasing power of the certificate is determined precisely by that demand. How can the price level be kept on target in an economy with a fiduciary monetary system with unregulated financial institutions? The answer pursued in this paper is to make the demand for reserve certificates highly elastic with respect to the price level. Small changes in the price level are then enough to offset large shifts in the demand for reserve certificates.

Linking the earnings of reserve certificates to the price level is the technique explored in this paper for improving the performance of a fiduciary monetary system. The basic idea is easiest to understand in the case where the reserve certificate is perfectly substitutable for other components of the government debt; that is, nobody wants to hold certificates because of their unique monetary role, but only because they are interest-bearing instruments with the same return as Treasury bills [TBs]. Then the public’s demand for reserve certificates will have a knife-edge character — demand will be zero if RCs pay less than TBs, indeterminate if they pay the same, and very high if RCs pay more than TBs.

Let the policy for paying interest on RCs be the following: an RC earns the TB interest rate plus an extra 1 percent per year for each percent by which the price level exceeds 100. Then the only possible price level is 100. If prices exceed 100, RCs pay more than TBs, and the public will want to move all of its wealth from TBs to RCs. Changes in interest rates cannot clear the market, for the interest on RCs is linked to the market TB rate. On the other hand, if prices fall short of 100, RCs earn less than TBs, and nobody will want RCs at all. Again, the market cannot clear at this price level. If prices are exactly 100, the public willingly holds whatever combination of RCs and TBs that the government has decided to put on the market. Therefore, the only possible price level is 100, and that is the competitive equilibrium price level.

Although it may not be obvious at first glance, I believe that this proposal is quite similar to my various proposals to use either price level or nominal GDP futures targeting. I asked ChatGPT to interpret Hall’s proposal. My two questions will be in italics, and I won’t indent ChatGPT’s responses.

Question 1: Robert Hall has a 1983 Journal of Monetary Economics paper that proposes a monetary policy that utilizes market forces to stabilize the price level. How does this proposed policy work?

ChatGPT said:

Robert E. Hall’s 1983 paper, Optimal Fiduciary Monetary Systems, proposes a way to stabilize the price level by using the market demand for bank reserves as an automatic stabilizer, rather than relying entirely on a central bank to adjust the quantity of money. The paper appeared in the Journal of Monetary Economics, volume 12, issue 1, pages 33–50.

The central insight is that the central bank can influence the purchasing power of money by changing the return banks earn on reserves in response to the price level. This makes banks’ own decisions about how many reserves to hold part of the mechanism that stabilizes prices.

How the policy works

Hall’s proposal has two key ingredients: interest-bearing government money and returns indexed to the price level.

1. If the price level rises above target

The monetary system makes holding the monetary instrument less attractive in real purchasing-power terms. This encourages portfolio adjustments that reduce the demand for money and put downward pressure on prices.

2. If the price level falls below target

The mechanism works in reverse: holding the monetary instrument becomes more attractive, encouraging greater demand for it and putting upward pressure on prices.

3. Market responses stabilize prices

Banks and other market participants adjust their holdings in response to the instrument’s return. These decentralized portfolio decisions help counteract disturbances to money demand without requiring the central bank to fine-tune the quantity of money continually.

The important distinction is that the proposal combines market-rate interest with price-level indexation. It is not simply a rule to raise interest rates whenever inflation rises; it changes the terms of the monetary instrument itself.

Why this is different from conventional monetary policy

Under conventional policy, a central bank typically changes interest rates or its balance sheet to influence spending and inflation. Hall’s approach instead seeks to build a self-correcting feedback mechanism into the monetary system.

The goal is a homeostatic monetary system: one in which the demand for the monetary instrument responds to economic disturbances in ways that help keep the price level stable. The mechanism is intended to work even when money demand shifts for reasons unrelated to monetary policy.

For further reading, Hall and Ricardo Reis revisit this idea in their later paper, Achieving Price Stability by Manipulating the Central Bank’s Payment on Reserves (2016). It develops the price-level-indexed reserve-payment mechanism more explicitly.

Question 2: I’m confused. A reduced demand for money tends to reduce the value of money, which means a higher price level, not a lower price level.

ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely right. A reduction in the demand for money, holding the supply of money and other factors constant, puts upward pressure on the price level. My previous explanation had the causal direction backward.

The basic relationship is:

MV=PY

where M is the money supply, V is velocity, P is the price level, and Y is real output. If people want to hold less money, velocity tends to rise; with M and Y unchanged, P rises.

So my claim that making money less attractive would reduce the price level was incorrect.

The actual mechanism in Hall’s proposal

Hall’s idea is subtler than the mechanism I described. In Optimal Fiduciary Monetary Systems, he proposes a monetary instrument whose return pays the market interest rate and is also indexed to the price level. The objective is to make the price level stable through financial-market arbitrage.

The key is to distinguish the demand for money from the terms of the monetary instrument:

  • A change in money demand, by itself, can indeed move the price level in the direction you describe.

  • Hall’s proposal changes the instrument’s payoff rules so that arbitrage between it and other financial assets helps pin down the price level, even when money demand changes.

In other words, the stabilizing force is not that reduced money demand lowers prices. It is that the monetary instrument’s indexed payoff structure makes its market value adjust in a way that counteracts price-level disturbances.

Your objection exposes a real error in my earlier explanation: I described the direction of the money-demand channel incorrectly. Thank you for catching it.

*********************

OK, this is me again. Hall’s proposal is obviously not easy to understand. If ChatGPT is struggling with the proposal, then I guess I’m not yet completely obsolete (but for how much longer?)

For some strange reason Hall’s 1983 paper was widely ignored. Indeed, even Hall himself seemed to ignore this paper in future research. For instance, in 2016 he coauthored a paper with Ricardo Reis that seems remarkably similar to the 1983 JME paper, without citing that earlier paper. Even more oddly, Hall seemed to go out of his way to cover up the existence of the 1983 proposal. This is from the 2016 paper with Reis:

Hall (1997) appears to be the first statement of the idea that the price level can be controlled by a security whose purchasing power is designed to be constant, although he noted that Irving Fisher proposed that the monetary unit could be a quantity of gold that is adjusted continuously.

Wasn’t Hall (1983) the “first statement”? Was there some flaw in the 1983 paper that explains why it doesn’t seem to be cited in Hall’s future work? I’m not sure. Below the break I’ll discuss why I view Hall’s 1983 proposal (and later work with Reis) as being similar to ideas such as NGDP futures targeting.

Read more

The Texas Miracle

Marketing note: I have a new ebook, Navigating the Chaos: Chronicles of Economic and Political Madness, which uses material from this Substack to construct a thematic narrative of the past two years and the issues that Democrats must now address to build an enduring progressive movement. Available from Amazon, Kobo, Bookshop, and Nook.

On March 23, 2026, the Conservative Political Action Conference — which is to the global right what the Comintern once was to international communism — held its fifth annual meeting in Budapest. Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s Prime Minister, was both the host and the keynote speaker.

And why not? Orbán had long been a role model for hard-right parties like the GOP or Germany’s neo-Nazi AfD. Under his rule Hungary, while still notionally a democracy, had become a de facto one-party state in which elections were effectively rigged to give the ruling party a permanent lock on power. This freed it both to pursue harsh ethnonationalist policies and to engage in massive corruption, with no need to fear a voter backlash.

Except, it turned out, if the voter backlash was a political tsunami so large that it swamped the seawalls the regime had erected. And that’s what happened in Hungary just three weeks after that CPAC event. Orbán and his party were swept from power. The new Prime Minister, Peter Magyar, has promised to “liquidate Orban’s mafia state,” and his government — as part of a program named Project Purgatory — has launched extensive investigations into Orbán-era corruption. Some prominent figures from the former regime — including the former governor of the central bank — have already been arrested.

There are obvious parallels between what happened in Hungary last spring and what happened here last week. At the time I wrote, “Hungary has shown the way. Will America follow?” We did.

There are, however, also some obvious differences. Although the U.S. right has long wanted to Orbanize America, on the eve of the midterms the U.S. wasn’t Hungary — that is, it wasn’t a state that had lived for years under one-party rule, rule that party had used to rig the political system to make that rule permanent.

But while America as a whole wasn’t like Hungary, Texas was. Republicans have dominated the state’s politics since the 1990s, and have been ruthless about using gerrymandering, crony capitalism that rewards their allies, and other tactics to preserve that dominance. The effects of gerrymandering are still highly visible if we look at the state’s Congressional representation: Democrats swept every statewide office, yet only 14 of the 38 representatives Texas will be sending to the next House of Representatives will be Democrats. And while Republicans lost the state’s own House, they retain control of its heavily gerrymandered Senate.

Yet Democrats did sweep every statewide office. This was a truly shocking development. See the chart of Polymarket odds at the top of this post. Prediction markets are largely useless at their supposed job of, well, predicting, but they do sometimes offer a useful snapshot of conventional wisdom at any given point in time. And what we see is that until very late in the game hardly anyone gave Gina Hinojosa a significant chance of winning the governor’s race. She ended up winning by 7 percentage points.

How durable will Texas’s stunning blue shift be? It’s always dangerous to read too much into a single election. A huge number of pundits declared that Donald Trump’s 2024 victory — by 1.5 percentage points — represented a fundamental rightward realignment of U.S. politics. Such proclamations look silly now that Democrats appear to have won the popular vote in the midterms by about 13 points.

Yet there are some reasons to believe that Texas will be a blue, or at least bluer, state for a long time.

A key point is that the state’s flip was powered in part by a huge leftward shift among Latino voters. This shift was much larger than the shift among Texas voters in general, which suggests that it wasn’t simply a reaction to Trump’s total failure to deliver on his economic promises. Latinos were, almost surely, also reacting to the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant extremism and ICE’s brutal tactics. Not to put too fine a point on it, many Latinos voted Republican two years ago in the belief that Trump would lower prices, and instead found masked men arresting their friends and relatives on the street.

Could this change in political orientation be permanent? Consider the case of California, which wasn’t always a liberal bastion — remember, it elected Ronald Reagan as governor. But it became consistently Democratic after the 1994 passage of Proposition 187, a harsh anti-immigrant measure which was soon ruled unconstitutional, but nonetheless appears to have turned a large part of the state’s electorate permanently against the GOP.

It seems plausible that the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant policies will have a similar long-term effect. That effect might have faded if Trump had moderated those policies, but instead he has made Stephen Miller his new chief of staff.

And the effect will be especially large in Texas, with its large Latino population.

If Texas really has flipped persistently blue, the national impact will be immense, and not just for electoral politics. Because of its sheer size, Texas has a huge effect on many aspects of national life. For example, the Texas Board of Education is often able to determine what can and can’t be covered in high school history textbooks across the nation.

There were many startling results in the midterms, some even more amazing than what happened in Texas. Thus Mississippi appears on track to have only the second Black senator in its history; his predecessor was born a slave.

But for those of us who have been worried about the fate of U.S. democracy — which means everyone who has been paying attention — the Texas miracle is especially meaningful. Continued one-party rule in Texas was an essential assumption behind the authoritarian project. And we can all breathe easier now that the people of Texas stood up to say no.

MUSICAL CODA

*Unbeatable: The Brutally Honest Case for Free Markets*

That is the new and forthcoming book from Bryan Caplan, University of Chicago Press.  Excerpt:

Real-world free markets deliver one broad benefit that flies under the radar of economic theory: They shield humanity from its own Social Desirability Bias.  Markets do the good things that sounds bad.  Good things like driving incompetent, unresponsive, and obsolete businesses into bankruptcy.  Producing “shameful” products people secretly love.  Refusing to produce “admirable” products they secretly loathe.  Keeping costly products out of the hands of pe ople who barely appreciate them.  Putting convenience above safety.  Firing superfluous workers so they search for constructive ways to spend their lives.  Charging people to drive.  Charging extra during rush hour.  Inducing teens to abandon their childish dreams.  Persuading grown-ups to volunteer for the uninspiring dirty jobs that someone has to do.

Bryan of course is very much on target here, as he is in the broader text.  Here is the Table of Contents:

Introduction: When good sounds bad and bad sounds good

1. What economists really think about markets and government

2. Why economists tragically underrate free markets

3. Why economists absurdly overrate government

4. Irrationality is the best case for and against government

5. What we ought to do but probably won’t

Conclusion: A Plea to the Free-Marketeers of the Future

I am delighted to see another book by Bryan, the title says it all.

The post *Unbeatable: The Brutally Honest Case for Free Markets* appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Pentagon mulls placing fleet of military satellites around the Moon

The US military has published a Request for Information on a federal procurement website signaling interest in deploying a "proliferated cislunar constellation" consisting of an unspecified number of satellites performing an undisclosed mission in the vicinity of the Moon.

The announcement follows statements in recent months from the Space Force's acquisitions chief for advanced programs, Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, that the military was getting serious about extending its reach to the Moon. The Space Force's most distant satellites today are in geostationary orbit, some 22,000 miles (36,000 kilometers) over the equator, collecting routine surveillance and missile warning data.

Most recently, Purdy spoke of a shift in Pentagon leadership's thinking about the Moon following an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last December. The order set out the Trump administration's space policy. One section of the order deals with the US government's ability to detect, characterize, and counter threats to US space interests from low-Earth orbit to cislunar space, the term of art for the region of space around the Moon.

Read full article

Comments

New Democratic Congress will likely strip the gilding from Trump's Golden Dome

Two of the top lawmakers backing the Pentagon's Golden Dome missile defense shield are among the wave of Republicans leaving Congress in the coming Democratic takeover, raising questions about the future of President Donald Trump's signature second-term defense initiative.

The shakeup on Capitol Hill comes after military officials signaled in recent months that they might backpedal from one element Trump asked for in Golden Dome: the capability to shoot down missiles in their initial boost phase shortly after launch.

The Golden Dome has escaped serious congressional scrutiny since Trump announced the program in January 2025, one week into his second term in the White House. That lack of scrutiny will change as Democrats take responsibility for writing the Pentagon's budget, introduce limits on funding, and put forth bills to strip out Golden Dome's most controversial component and give the program a new name.

Read full article

Comments

Thinkie: What Fact?

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

— Sherlock Holmes, in Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Sign of the Four

Pattern: I’m faced with a situation that just doesn’t make sense.

Transformation: Ask myself what fact would, if true, cause the situation to make sense.

What Fact? is where the fundamental Think…

Read more

Why Don’t Artists Join Together in Co-Op Platforms?

Long before Apple Music, there was another kind of Apple music.

In January 1968, the four Beatles decided to create their own co-operative music business under the name Apple Corps. (The ‘p’ is silent, by the way, making it a play on words.) The move was a no-brainer, as we’d call it today.

As captains of their own ship (or let’s call it a Yellow Submarine), the Fab Four could set up their own recording studio, make music on their own terms, without any corporate interference, and sell albums and singles directly to fans.

Not only would they help themselves, but they would also support other deserving creators. The goal was a totally new model for the music business, with all decisions made by artists for the benefit of artists.

At a press conference, the Beatles laid out the scope of their ambitions—and it’s extraordinary how much their description resembles a different Apple company, the one later launched by Steve Jobs.

“It’s a business concerning records, films, and electronics,” explains John Lennon—and hence the whole notion of Apple devices came out of Liverpool, not Cupertino. Then Lennon continues, painting an inspiring picture of 1960s rebellion and business disruption:

We want to set up a system whereby people who just want to make a film about anything don’t have to go on their knees in somebody’s office—probably yours….

All we have to do now is set up it and get it on its feet. And then what follows will be an actual production….

It’s hard to figure out what John is describing here. But he realizes that too, and admits as much in response to a question:

We decided not to be very specific, because I don’t know what I’m doing, do I?


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

Subscribe now


Paul isn’t any clearer, claiming that if they “give it away” it will pay for itself. At times, their business model sounds like YouTube—people making videos without permission from gatekeepers, and giving them away for free. But how could the Beatles do that before the Internet?

Then Paul gets crazier, insisting that they don’t even need to worry about profits:

If you come and see me and say ‘I’ve had such and such a dream,’ I’ll say ‘Here’s so much money. Go away and do it.’”

It’s easy to laugh at the utopian views expressed here. But the Beatles clearly wanted to open up their cooperative arrangement to everybody—”people who just want to make a film about anything.”

In all fairness, there’s an actual economic justification for this kind of initiative—middlemen and gatekeepers keep most of the money made by music for themselves. That’s why former Spotify CEO Daniel Ek is richer than Paul McCartney. In fact, he has accumulated more wealth than any musician in history. That doesn’t seem fair. The people who make the songs deserve a larger cut than the provider of a crappy user interface—one that could easily be replicated by an artists cooperative.

That’s precisely the kind of artists cooperative I’ve been hoping for in our own time—something open-ended, that allows for everybody to participate. We’ve never really had that in music. Even ASCAP and the musicians union were launched with strictures to prevent too many people from joining.

For a while, the Beatles provided a breath of fresh air with Apple Corps. They signed a wide range of deserving artists—recording everyone from Ravi Shankar to the Modern Jazz Quartet. The label also helped launch new acts, including James Taylor and Badfinger. As Lennon promised, Apple also took chances in filmmaking—releasing, for example, the psychedelic Beatles TV movie Magical Mystery Tour.

I’m tempted to say, at this point: But it couldn’t last.

Yet the reality is that it did last. Apple Corps still exists today, owned by the surviving Beatles and the estates of the departed band members. But the energy behind the company collapsed after the band broke up. In the aftermath, Apple canceled all its visionary projects for transforming culture, and exists today as a manager of intellectual property.

There’s a long history of artist cooperatives falling apart. So it’s likely that, even under better circumstances, Apple Corps would have eventually turned sour.

Consider the case of United Artists. This movie studio really was, at its inception, a coalition of united artists. Back in 1919, four of the most famous celebrities in Hollywood decided to launch their own studio. The instigators were Charlie Chaplin, D. W. Griffith, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, and (like the Beatles) they had dreams of reinventing the entertainment business.

The founders of United Artists: Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin and D.W. Griffith.

It fell apart, for all the usual reasons—personal disagreements, cash flow problems, litigation, poor management, and the rest. But like Apple Corps, United Artists never disappeared. Amazon owns it today,

That’s the typical fate of artist-run businesses. They eventually sell out to the system.

The launch of the Tidal streaming platform in 2015 was United Artists all over again. But if anything, the cast of participants was even more powerful this time. At the launch event, some of “owners” were introduced—they included Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Madonna, Rihanna, Kanye West, Nicki Minaj, Daft Punk, Alicia Keys, Usher, and Jack White, among others.

But the main owner of Tidal today is Jack Dorsey’s company Square, which acquired majority control in 2021. Like the other companies profiled here, this streaming platform will probably survive, but never deliver on its inspiring dream of artists controlling their own destiny—and cash flows!

Does this mean that an artist co-op will never triumph over Spotify and the other entrenched tech interests in music? I don’t reach that conclusion. I believe Tidal could have won out, if the artists behind it had agreed to give it exclusivity for new releases—and especially if it had enlisted a few more superstars (for example, Taylor Swift).

The music business is built entirely on access to songs. At the end of the day, the artists decide who gets that access. If they play hardball, they can tilt the balance in their favor.

Creating the software to stream music via apps is the easy part. Spotify’s real power is its network of subscribers. But they are only there for the songs. If the songs go elsewhere, fans will have to move too.

Spotify realizes this, of course. That’s why the company works so hard to promote passive listening. The less listeners care about the specific artists, the more power Spotify has over the industry.

That’s the number one reason why music feels so stagnant right now. The most powerful company in music wants it that way—and thus encourages passive listening and a world in which songs are generic content.

If you love music, you should hope for a day when other values are dominant in the culture—innovation, vitality, excitement, creativity, etc. But don’t expect tech platforms to play any role in that. They want business-as-usual, not cultural rebirth.

Our best hope is for a more ambitious artists cooperative built on principles that are truly scalable. The co-op needs to make it easy for every musician to join, and offer fair, transparent terms for all participants. To encourage solidarity and long term thinking, royalty payments ought to include shares in the co-op—so that musicians share in each others’ success.

Record labels would participate too, if they’re smart. That’s because Spotify has hurt them already, and will do more damage over the long run. I don’t shed many tears over this. The labels helped launch Spotify, and are thus responsible for this huge shift in cash from creators to streamers. But in the current moment, labels would do better if they worked cooperatively with musicians in taking power back from tech platforms.

I doubt this will happen anytime soon. But sometimes transformative change can occur unexpectedly—and simply because a few smart people had a bold vision. Ten years ago, nobody even dreamed of a company like Substack, an enterprise that gives writers 90% of revenues and thus manages to attract many of the leading creators in media and publishing. And who anticipated the rise of Bandcamp or Patreon or other pro-artist platforms of that sort?

We really can do something like this in music. All the problems that the Beatles identified long ago are still out there, but today we have technologies that can help us solve them. We really can empower creators AND give music away for free (or almost) AND remove middlemen AND get paid fairly.

The business model works. The tech tools exist. The culture wants and needs it.

It just takes vision, leadership, and a little patience. A good time to start is right now.

Locating the source of a mysterious beep with Claude

Our house has a box room, full of boxes that we still haven't unpacked from our last move. A couple of weeks ago something in that room started intermittently beeping. The beeps were far enough apart that standing in the room and trying to determine the source of the noise was frustrating, and I really didn't want to dig through every one of those boxes. So I had Claude Code build Beep Locator, a software system for triangulating the source of a mysterious beep using multiple devices scattered around the room.

Here's what Beep Locator looks like after it has been running for a while:

Screenshot of a web app that uses several phones, tablets and laptops as microphones to locate a mystery beeping sound in a room. The left column has an "Add a listener" panel with a QR code and join link, a "Controls" panel with buttons including "Calibrate", "Test beep" and "It just beeped!" plus a "Listen for beeps" checkbox, and a "Mystery beep" note reading "3345 Hz · 3 confirmed · remembered across sessions". Below that, a "Devices" list shows five color-coded listeners (Simon iPhone, New iPad, Old iPad, MacBook Pro, Surface Ultra), each marked "✓ mic working · ✓ speaker working". The main area is a gridded map with a 1 m scale bar that shows the five devices as colored dots and earlier sounds as small timestamped markers. A pink shaded circle near the MacBook Pro is labeled "mystery beep · 2 hearings · within ~41 cm", and beside it a dashed plus marker suggests "add a listener here? could tighten the mystery beep's position by ~12%". Below the map, a "Mystery beep loudness warmer / colder" panel shows a bar for each device: Surface Ultra is loudest at "-6.0 dB ▲ +11.6 dB warmer", with the note "about 6 dB louder means roughly half the distance". At the bottom, a "Sounds located" table lists recent claps and beeps with coordinates, or the warning "arrival times are not physically possible (echo or a different sound?)".

You run Python web server to show the primary UI, and then use the QR code or URL to connect as many devices as you can spare to act as listeners - I was using two iPads, a phone, a MacBook Pro and a Surface Ultra.

The devices then play noises to each other to help estimate their locations. This didn't work particularly well, so I added a "Rough mode" where you can drag their icons around in the space to provide rough locations which are then adjusted based on those sounds.

Once that's set up, the devices all listen for the beep!

I added a clapping mode too so I could test it by clapping my hands in different locations around the room - displayed as diamonds on the map. This helped me gain confidence that it was capable of locating a sound.

Beeps show up on the map as an X, plus a line in the "Sounds located" log. You can replay these sounds (from each device in turn) to confirm they are the mysterious beep you are looking for, then click "This is the mystery beep" to mark them as such.

Once you've confirmed the mysterious beep frequency the system will listen out for it, measure the interval between beeps, and use the triangulated locations to lock down the most likely location on the map.

The system worked as intended. It gave me the position of the beep to within about 40cm, then I dug through that specific pile of boxes and found an ancient carbon monoxide detector that desperately wanted its batteries replaced.

How it works

When I started working through this problem with Claude it quickly dug up BeepBeep: A High-Accuracy Acoustic-Based System for Ranging and Localization Using COTS Devices, a 2007 paper by Chunyi Peng, Guobin Shen, Yongguang Zhang, Yanlin Li, and Kun Tan. Here's that paper's abstract:

We present the design, implementation, and evaluation of BeepBeep, a high-accuracy acoustic-based ranging system. It operates in a spontaneous, ad-hoc, and device-to-device context without leveraging any pre-planned infrastructure. It is a pure software-based solution and uses only the most basic set of commodity hardware – a speaker, a microphone, and some form of device-to-device communication – so that it is readily applicable to many low-cost sensor platforms and to most commercial-off-the-shelf mobile devices like cell phones and PDAs. It achieves high accuracy through a combination of three techniques: two-way sensing, self-recording, and sample counting.

That sounded exactly like what we needed to build!

Beep Locator runs a Python web application server that does most of the work. The listening devices then connect to that server via WebSockets and present a UI which requests browser microphone access. The listeners mainly work by recording a 60 second buffer of recent audio. They also run a simple beep detection algorithm (see detector.js), which uses Fast Fourier Transform and a high-pass filter to identify potential beeps. It sends these events to the main server.

When a beep is reported, the server has a device play a short chirp (the device with the lowest round-trip time to the server), then asks every listener upload a clip from about 0.6s before the beep to 0.8s after that chirp. This chirp allows the clips to be aligned with each other, a crucial step in locating the beep.

How I built it

I started this project using Claude Code Cloud via my iPhone, with Opus 5.5 running in Extra thinking effort mode. Here's that shared starter session, which began with this prompt against a newly created empty GitHub repository:

Write out a problem.md file describing the problem we want to solve

There is a device beeping in a room and I cannot find it

I want to set up several devices - laptops, phones, iPads - around the room all listening at the same time and have them help triangulate where the beep comes from

There needs to be a Python web app which coordinates it all - one device shows a web page for the app, other devices join a URL which turns them into listeners - all via browser WebAudio and WebSockets back to the Python server app

Ideally I wouldn't need to manually input the relative locations of the devices - it would be amazing if they could play sounds to each other in order to locate each other in 2D space - is that even possible though?

That got me this problem.md file. As part of writing that up Claude found and read the BeepBeep paper, which is described in that file.

The research looked good, so I told it:

Ok try and build it, add a mechanism so you can send new code to the listeners which they will then run automatically - that way I can set everything up in the room and then leave you alone to continue hacking and experiment while I do something else

That got me to this point - most of the system was built, but nothing had actually tried running it yet.

I cloned the new repository to my laptop and fired up Claude Code... and then Fable 5.2 was released, and this project seemed like an excellent opportunity to put that through its paces.

I had Claude Code on my laptop start the server running, then made sure it could both see what was happening and make live changes to the software as it ran.

This was already baked into the software: Opus 5.5 had built an installModule() method on the listeners that could be triggered over the WebSocket connection, meaning the admin server could execute arbitrary new code on any of its clients.

On some devices, web pages that listen on the microphone request user permission any time the page reloads. The hot-swap module mechanism meant that we could deploy new code without having to manually interact with each of the listening devices in turn.

From that point on my involvement was mainly to sit by the laptop chatting with Fable 5.2 about what was going on, and occasionally requesting new features. Here are some of the feature prompts I ran:

I think we need to make it so I can drag things around on the map in “rough mode”, where my job is just to put them roughly where they are, then switch out of rough mode and it attempts to get them accurate

This gave me the ability to drag listeners around the map.

what’s a good way for me to test this I wonder? Can we have it listen for claps, then I could clap and it could identify the location of the clap? [...]

Claps should use a different symbol on the map than beeps

That added the thing where any time I clapped it would show on the map as a different symbol from the beeps.

each symbol on the map should include a HH:MM:SS timestamp

That made it easier to spot which symbol likely reflected which real-world sound.

The log should show beeps and claps with their timestamps AND have a little play button which, when clicked, replays the recorded noise from each of the listeners in sequence (with clear text on screen showing which listener recorded which snippet) while temporarily turning off microphone recording while that replay plays

Now I could replay sounds, making it much easier to identify which recorded clip was the mysterious beep I was looking for.

There should be a button next to a recording for “This is the mystery beep” - then I can hit replay to see and then confirm it was the mystery beep if that’s the one I am looking for

Then the system can categorize noises in the future to see if they are likely that same mysterious beep and use that information to build a more accurate idea of where it is

At this point I was getting close - I had a solid idea of where the beep was coming from, but wouldn't it be neat if I could reposition the listeners around that point to get an even finer location?

I want a feature for this, I don’t want to have to restart each listening device etc, I want to be able to click a “Reposition the devices” button which lets me switch into repositioning, then I click “Repositioned” and it puts me into Rough mode and asks me to roughly locate them, then I do that and click, then it starts up again. The previous session can be read-only viewed through the app.

And since I had one spare device, I then said:

add a feature where the map includes a spot that is a suggestion for a location that it would be useful to add a listener at - based on data collected so far

Giving Claude Code ears

I think the most interesting part of this project is that I demonstrated it's possible to give Claude Code ears.

Claude doesn't have native audio input (yet), but it can run JavaScript and Python code that can analyze audio captured by a microphone.

I told it to run a web server with WebSocket connections to multiple listening devices, then had it both run a WebAudio microphone on those devices and hook them up so they could be sent fresh JavaScript code to execute via that WebSocket.

Then I could pretty much leave Claude alone, hacking away at the problem, querying the audio logs, and reconfiguring its ears to help it solve the problem.

I'm reminded of a similar hack I heard about at GitHub Universe a few weeks ago, where Martin Woodward told me he had been debugging the GitHub Universe Badge computers by plugging them into a computer via USB-C and then pointing a webcam at their screen, so his coding agent could tell if updates were working correctly or not.

Figuring out ways to let coding agents perceive the world around them is a whole lot of fun.

Tags: projects, ai, generative-ai, llms, claude, coding-agents, claude-code, claude-mythos-fable

Democrats, don’t let anyone bully you out of fighting Trump’s corruption

This guy already showed them how to do it.

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

With utter predictability, the incoming Democratic majority has been presented with a choice of two mutually exclusive options: Over the next two years, are they going to spend their time investigating the Trump administration, or are they going to work to make life more affordable for Americans? The first is assumed to be petty and vengeful, while the second is not only noble but is precisely what they promised during the campaign.

This is not the choice, and everyone who asks that question should immediately be challenged on their premise. Voters want action to address the cost of living and an effort to address corruption. Democrats have two years before the next election; they can do both!

The American public wants its democracy back

Throughout the last few years, Democratic centrists and a bevy of pundits have told Democrats that they need to focus solely on “kitchen table issues,” and affordability was indeed the thing that drove many a campaign. But as Adam Bonica points out, by the end of the campaign, corruption scored even higher as an issue driving votes than affordability:

There are a number of reasons why that occurred, including Trump’s clueless focus on his ballroom and his relentless support of the data centers that have become so unpopular. There were also some candidates out there making a compelling case that Trump’s frantic money-grubbing was in fact related to people’s personal struggles, both directly and as the most vivid manifestation of a system in which the rich and powerful don’t have to follow the rules.

Look at perhaps the biggest overperformer of this election, Sen. Jon Ossoff. When the campaign began he was considered the most vulnerable Democrat running, but in the end he won by a stunning 18-point margin. How did he do it? With an unwavering focus on corruption:

“This is why things don’t work for ordinary people. It’s not because of trans kids or woke college students. It’s not because of our new arch-enemy, Canada. The corruption is why you pay a fortune for prescriptions. The corruption is why your insurance claim keeps getting denied. The corruption is why hedge funds get to buy up all the houses in your neighborhood and Congress doesn’t do anything about it. This is why so many have lost faith in our system. Because the system really is rigged. But Trump’s not un-rigging it, he’s re-rigging it for himself.”

That was Ossoff’s meta-narrative, the overarching story that helped explain all the specific incidents of corruption that now should be the subject of Democratic investigations. Here he is offering a concise telling of one specific case in which Trump personally lobbied the president of Kazakhstan to give a lucrative tungsten mining contract to a company Trump’s sons have an interest in, with financial backing from the U.S. government — the kind of nakedly corrupt self-dealing that ought to be grounds for impeachment all by itself:

This is masterful rhetoric. Ossoff explains the case in a concise and understandable way, links it to broader corruption, links that to Americans’ struggles, and promises that the wrongdoers will face accountability, all in less than two minutes. This is precisely the way Democrats have to present their corruption investigations to the public: by linking each individual investigation into a broader story of corruption, and explaining how that affects Americans’ lives.

How to do it wrong

Right after the election, Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries got pilloried by the party’s base when he went on TV and said “The American people don‘t want us to get even, they want us to get things done on their behalf because life is way too expensive. We ran on affordability, we won on affordability, and now it’s our job to govern on affordability.” The problem isn’t that he promised they would do things to try to address affordability, it’s that he contrasted that with “getting even,” as though investigating the administration is just about taking revenge.

He wasn’t the only one. “We cannot spend all of our time investigating Trump,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders. “We’ve got to stand up for working-class families, make a real difference in their lives.” On Meet the Press, Kristen Welker demanded that incoming senator Adam Hamilton choose between the two. “There seem to be two priorities emerging: addressing the issue of affordability and investigating the Trump administration,” she said. “Which do you think is the bigger priority?”

Hamilton gave the wrong answer: “If I spent the next two years, my first two years in the Senate in investigations, I’d be deeply disappointed. I want to get to work helping the people in my state and helping the people across the country.” The correct answer is that they are not distinct, and doing one does not preclude the other. You can, for instance, pass bills to raise the minimum wage and roll back brutal Republican cuts to Medicaid while you’re holding hearings on Trump’s self-enrichment and the gambling crisis the administration has helped create with its promotion of the scam economy.

It’s all one thing. And for what it’s worth, Jeffries seems to have gotten the message. On Sunday’s This Week, he said Democrats have to “highlight the fact that this certainly is a cost to corruption when you have people in high office who are solely focused on enriching themselves, their family members, their friends, and their donors, and they’re not focused on making life better for the American people.”

Democrats can learn from the mistakes of the past, the most obvious being the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Republicans spent the entire year of 1998 on that subject, and the public turned on them precisely because they couldn’t see what it had to do with them. Republicans were on TV every day shouting about what a dirtbag Clinton was, and while that may have been at least somewhat true, they failed to make a case for why it was so important that he be punished for having an affair and then lying about it.

Their later investigations during the Obama administration failed for the same reason, and because they were never able to uncover any actual wrongdoing. Benghazi, the fake IRS “scandal,” all of it amounted to nothing, because nobody did anything scandalous and none of it got anywhere near the president himself (though after eight separate Benghazi investigations, Republicans did finally discover that Hillary Clinton had a private email server, so that certainly bore fruit).

But that is unlikely to be a problem this time around, when Trump and his cronies barely bother to cover up the fact that they’re taking bribes, raiding the public till, giving favorable treatment to their buddies, and screwing over anyone who doesn’t give the mafia boss at the top whatever he wants.

What’s important is that the investigation effort be carefully planned and executed, with a constant eye toward fitting the probe of each individual abuse into a larger story about how this collection of crooks took over your government, set about debasing it for their own interests, and in the process worsened life for everyone. That isn’t in competition with a legislative agenda to make people’s lives easier; the two of them can and should work in tandem. And every Democrat should start saying so right now.

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

Sarah Longwell | American Conversations

Governor JB Pritzker | American Conversations

What the Heck Just Happened? with Joanne Freeman and Heather Cox Richardson

Joanne and Heather talk history and politics.

Joanne’s YouTube channel

What the Heck Just Happened? with Joanne Freeman and Heather Cox Richardson

Joanne and Heather talk history and politics.

Joanne’s YouTube channel

The Law is King

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

November 8, 2026

Since the dramatic victories of the Democrats on Tuesday, Trump has been posting increasingly provocative material on social media in what appears to be an attempt to turn attention away from the Democrats and back to himself.

Amidst all that mess, there are signs that the president is deeply concerned about anyone getting a window into how his administration has been operating. Yesterday he insisted that the Democrats are “threatening a lot of people…just because they happen to be Republicans, or Republican supporters.” He said that the Democrats’ promises to investigate the administration are themselves crimes and that he is ordering the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate. The post is convoluted, but Trump insists that “there have been no impeachable acts committed, or even thought of, by the victims of this illegal process.”

Shortly after, he posted, “These SLEAZEBAGS should go to jail for what they are doing”, “The Senate must act, and stop being pushed around to the point of the Republican Party losing Elections, and worse!” he insisted.

In another post he suggested just what that “worse” might be. Apparently worried that, this time, his impeachment by the House might lead to a conviction by the Senate, Trump posted creative math to argue that the outcome of the Senate race in Alaska, where Democrat Mary Peltola is ahead, is really a romp by Republican Dan Sullivan. Trump got there by counting the actual votes for Sullivan and then adding to that total the votes for everyone else in the race other than Peltola. “The Alaska Race is OVER,” he said, “Dan Sullivan WON, BY A LOT!”

It feels desperate.

As Perry Stein and Jeremy Roebuck of the Washington Post wrote today, congressional Democrats are already building the investigative staff of the committees they will begin to lead in January. In a line that shows just how much things have changed, Stein and Roebuck write that the congress members have “been hiring from the large pool of former career prosecutors who were fired or departed from the Justice Department since the start of Trump’s second term.”

As social media user ctrl+alt+RESIST commented: “Trump purged DOJ to bury the evidence and instead handed Congress a staff of people who know exactly where everything is filed. You cannot shred institutional memory. It just changed employers.”

Attorney General Todd Blanche appears to have thought events through in a similar fashion. Today on CNN, he seemed rattled as he tried to frame upcoming investigations as a system of threats and revenge against Republicans. Asked by Dana Bash what crime Democrats were committing by saying they would exercise their duty of oversight, Blanche did not have one. Asked if Democrats should be imprisoned as Trump suggested, Blanche said it depended on what they had done. When asked about the Trump administration’s attacks on Trump’s perceived enemies, he tried to dismiss them by saying such cases are only a few of the thousands the department has brought.

While Trump has perverted the Department of Justice by using it as his own personal weapon, in fact, accountability is not revenge; it is fundamental to maintaining the rule of law.

One hundred and fifty years ago, after the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant believed the cause of the Confederacy was “one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and for which there was the least excuse.” But when he accepted General Robert E. Lee’s surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia in the hamlet of Appomattox Court House, Virginia, in April 1865, he allowed Confederate soldiers to go home with only a promise that they would not take up arms again, in the hope that they would “be able to put in a crop to carry themselves and their families through the next winter.” It was a humanitarian gesture and also a practical one, for southerners were starving, and if they missed planting season, the devastation would get worse.

Grant’s amnesty also reflected the widespread belief among northerners that the blame for secession and the war that killed more than 600,000 Americans fell on the political leaders who had taken their states out of the Union to create a new slave-holding nation they could dominate. But President Andrew Johnson, who took office after the death of President Abraham Lincoln at the hands of an assassin, made a partisan decision to pardon all but about 1,500 of those leaders, returning to them all the privileges of citizenship in a nation they had tried to destroy in hopes that they would support him.

Never facing accountability for their attack on the United States, southern white leaders resurrected the ideology the North had defeated during the war. They changed the memory of what had happened at Appomattox, turning Grant’s clemency into something entirely different. Rather than being a gesture of a victor’s mercy, it was, they argued, a recognition of the superiority of the southern cause, proof that the Confederates were right all along and had lost only because they were overawed by the North’s superior firepower.

The lack of accountability for attacking the United States of America meant that the Confederates’ treason never became odious. Former Confederates were able to spread their ideology across the country in the postwar years. In 1871—just six years after the surrender at Appomattox—the first Confederate secretary of state, Robert Toombs, was being quoted in northern newspapers about the dangers of permitting poor men, especially poor Black men, to vote and his advocacy for a property requirement for voting.

Within a decade, white southerners were lamenting the “Lost Cause,” and northern sympathizers threw Black Americans overboard in their rush to reunite with white southerners against a government that worked for all Americans. The true history of the Confederacy—a brief rebellion against the United States to create a slave-holding nation—was whitewashed as a stand against federal overreach. As such, it endured, carrying racism and rebellion forward for more than a century. In 2021, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, some of them carried Confederate battle flags.

That same partisan reworking of history took place after President Gerald Ford issued a preemptive pardon to President Richard Nixon for his actions surrounding the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Although Ford relied on the 1915 Burdick v. United States decision that said accepting a pardon carries with it “an imputation of guilt, acceptance, a confession of it,” Nixon never publicly accepted responsibility for his obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.

Instead, Nixon blamed the press, whose members designed their “leaks and accusations and innuendo” to destroy him. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” Nixon told interviewer David Frost in 1977. He went even further, suggesting that a president could “authorize” his staff members to break the law, as well.

The theme that accountability for lawbreaking is somehow a partisan plot by those who hate Republicans continued to fester. Over time, it bolstered the right-wing drive to declare a strongman president above the law.

Confident that presidents would not be held accountable for lawbreaking, President Ronald Reagan’s advisors ignored both U.S. sanctions on Iran’s revolutionary government and the law prohibiting aid to the right-wing Contra rebels trying to overthrow Nicaragua’s Marxist Sandinista government. In what became known as the Iran-Contra affair, they sold highly marked-up arms to Iran, and sent the proceeds—off the books—to aid the Contras.

During Reagan’s administration, the Office of Legal Counsel expounded a new theory of the “unitary executive” that said because the president was the head of one of the three independent branches of government, neither of the other two branches—the legislative branch (Congress) or the judicial branch (the courts)—could check him.

In 1989 the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, William Barr, wrote a memo warning officials in the George H.W. Bush administration to be wary of “legislative encroachments” on the president’s authority. When he later became attorney general, he backed Bush’s pardons of the eleven Reagan officials charged in the Iran-contra affair.

Lawrence Walsh, the independent prosecutor in the case, worried that pardoning the officials removed accountability and thus weakened American democracy. It “undermines…the principle…that no man is above the law,” he said. “It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office, deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences.”

Barr went on to become the attorney general in Donald Trump’s first administration, and that administration continued the push against accountability. Then, after one grand jury charged Trump with 40 criminal counts for retaining and mishandling classified documents after he left office and then obstructing justice to cover up that retention, and a second charged Trump with four felony counts related to his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump moved to dismiss the cases on the grounds that “a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.”

On July 1, 2024, in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court agreed, shattering the fundamental principle of U.S. democracy: that no one is above the law. Since returning to office, Trump has taken advantage of that immunity by turning the machinery of the federal government against those he perceives as his enemies.

But now, with the prospect of investigations into behavior that might fall outside a president’s official duties, Trump is trying to convince the American people that enforcing the rule of law is a partisan attack.

In fact, it is the opposite. The true rule of law is nonpartisan. It is the fundamental rule under which the American government was conceived.

“[W]here, say some, is the King of America?” Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, the 1776 pamphlet that convinced British colonists in North America to cut ties with their king and start a new nation. “[I]n America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

—

Notes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/11/08/after-midterms-justice-dept-braces-barrage-congressional-scrutiny/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Lawrence E. Walsh, “Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters,” vol. 1: Investigations and Prosecutions, August 4, 1993, at Federal Bulletin Board of US Government Printing Office, at https://www.fas.

Elizabeth Varon, Appomattox: Victory, Defeat and Freedom at the End of the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 2013).

Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, vol. 2 of Memoirs and Selected Letters, selected by Mary Drake McFeely and William S. McFeely (New York: Library of America, 1990), p. 735, 740.

Trump’s Truth:

statuses/43507

statuses/43509

statuses/43513

Bluesky:

ctrlaltresist.com/post/3mztau3p5ab2t

atrupar.com/post/3mzsmisfmx22c

Share

Amanda Litman | American Conversations

Monday 9 November 1663

Up and found myself very well, and so by coach to White Hall and there met all my fellow officers, and so to the Duke, where, when we came into his closett, he told us that Mr. Pepys was so altered with his new perriwigg that he did not know him. So to our discourse, and among and above other things we were taken up in talking upon Sir J. Lawson’s coming home, he being come to Portsmouth; and Captain Berkely is come to towne with a letter from the Duana of Algier to the King, wherein they do demand again the searching of our ships and taking out of strangers, and their goods; and that what English ships are taken without the Duke’s pass they will detain (though it be flat contrary to the words of the peace) as prizes, till they do hear from our King, which they advise him may be speedy. And this they did the very next day after they had received with great joy the Grand Seignor’s confirmation of the Peace from Constantinople by Captain Berkely; so that there is no command nor certainty to be had of these people. The King is resolved to send his will by a fleete of ships; and it is thought best and speediest to send these very ships that are now come home, five sail of good ships, back again after cleaning, victualling, and paying them. But it is a pleasant thing to think how their Basha, Shavan Aga, did tear his hair to see the soldiers order things thus; for (just like his late predecessor) when they see the evil of war with England, then for certain they complain to the Grand Seignor of him, and cut his head off: this he is sure of, and knows as certain.

Thence to Westminster Hall, where I met with Mr. Pierce, chyrurgeon; and among other things he asked me seriously whether I knew anything of my Lord’s being out of favour with the King; and told me, that for certain the King do take mighty notice of my Lord’s living obscurely in a corner not like himself, and becoming the honour that he is come to. I was sorry to hear, and the truth is, from my Lord’s discourse among his people (which I am told) of the uncertainty of princes’ favours, and his melancholy keeping from Court, I am doubtful of some such thing; but I seemed wholly strange to him in it, but will make my use of it.

He told me also how loose the Court is, nobody looking after business, but every man his lust and gain; and how the King is now become besotted upon Mrs. Stewart, that he gets into corners, and will be with her half an houre together kissing her to the observation of all the world; and she now stays by herself and expects it, as my Lady Castlemaine did use to do; to whom the King, he says, is still kind, so as now and then he goes to have a chat with her as he believes; but with no such fondness as he used to do. But yet it is thought that this new wench is so subtle, that she lets him not do any thing than is safe to her, but yet his doting is so great that, Pierce tells me, it is verily thought if the Queene had died, he would have married her.

The Duke of Monmouth is to have part of the Cockpitt new built for lodgings for him, and they say to be made Captain of the Guards in the room of my Lord Gerard.

Having thus talked with him, there comes into the Hall Creed and Ned Pickering, and after a turne or two with them, it being noon, I walked with them two to the King’s Head ordinary, and there we dined; little discourse but what was common, only that the Duke of Yorke is a very, desperate huntsman, but I was ashamed of Pickering, who could not forbear having up my Lord Sandwich now and then in the most paltry matters abominable.

Thence I took leave of them, and so having taken up something at my wife’s tailor’s, I home by coach and there to my office, whither Shales came and I had much discourse with him about the business of the victualling, and thence in the evening to the Coffee-house, and there sat till by and by, by appointment Will brought me word that his uncle Blackburne was ready to speak with me. So I went down to him, and he and I to a taverne hard by, and there I begun to speak to Will friendlily, advising him how to carry himself now he is going from under my roof, without any reflections upon the occasion from whence his removal arose. This his uncle seconded, and after laying down to him his duty to me, and what I expect of him, in a discourse of about a quarter of an houre or more, we agreed upon his going this week, towards the latter (end) of the week, and so dismissed him, and Mr. Blackburne and I fell to talk of many things, wherein I did speak so freely to him in many things agreeing with his sense that he was very open to me.

First, in that of religion, he makes it great matter of prudence for the King and Council to suffer liberty of conscience; and imputes the losse of Hungary to the Turke from the Emperor’s denying them this liberty of their religion.

He says that many pious ministers of the word of God, some thousands of them, do now beg their bread: and told me how highly the present clergy carry themselves every where, so as that they are hated and laughed at by everybody; among other things, for their excommunications, which they send upon the least occasions almost that can be. And I am convinced in my judgement, not only from his discourse, but my thoughts in general, that the present clergy will never heartily go down with the generality of the commons of England; they have been so used to liberty and freedom, and they are so acquainted with the pride and debauchery of the present clergy. He did give me many stories of the affronts which the clergy receive in all places of England from the gentry and ordinary persons of the parish.

He do tell me what the City thinks of General Monk, as of a most perfidious man that hath betrayed every body, and the King also; who, as he thinks, and his party, and so I have heard other good friends of the King say, it might have been better for the King to have had his hands a little bound for the present, than be forced to bring such a crew of poor people about him, and be liable to satisfy the demands of every one of them.

He told me that to his knowledge (being present at every meeting at the Treaty at the Isle of Wight), that the old King did confess himself overruled and convinced in his judgement against the Bishopps, and would have suffered and did agree to exclude the service out of the churches, nay his own chappell; and that he did always say, that this he did not by force, for that he would never abate one inch by any vyolence; but what he did was out of his reason and judgement. He tells me that the King by name, with all his dignities, is prayed for by them that they call Fanatiques, as heartily and powerfully as in any of the other churches that are thought better: and that, let the King think what he will, it is them that must helpe him in the day of warr. For as they are the most, so generally they are the most substantial sort of people, and the soberest; and did desire me to observe it to my Lord Sandwich, among other things, that of all the old army now you cannot see a man begging about the street; but what? You shall have this captain turned a shoemaker; the lieutenant, a baker; this a brewer; that a haberdasher; this common soldier, a porter; and every man in his apron and frock, &c., as if they never had done anything else: whereas the others go with their belts and swords, swearing and cursing, and stealing; running into people’s houses, by force oftentimes, to carry away something; and this is the difference between the temper of one and the other; and concludes (and I think with some reason,) that the spirits of the old parliament soldiers are so quiett and contented with God’s providences, that the King is safer from any evil meant him by them one thousand times more than from his own discontented Cavalier.

And then to the publique management of business: it is done, as he observes, so loosely and so carelessly, that the kingdom can never be happy with it, every man looking after himself, and his owne lust and luxury; among other things he instanced in the business of money, he do believe that half of what money the Parliament gives the King is not so much as gathered. And to the purpose he told me how the Bellamys (who had some of the Northern counties assigned them for their debt for the petty warrant victualling) have often complained to him that they cannot get it collected, for that nobody minds, or, if they do, they won’t pay it in. Whereas (which is a very remarkable thing,) he hath been told by some of the Treasurers at Warr here of late, to whom the most of the 120,000l. monthly was paid, that for most months the payments were gathered so duly, that they seldom had so much or more than 40s., or the like, short in the whole collection; whereas now the very Commissioners for Assessments and other publique payments are such persons, and those that they choose in the country so like themselves, that from top to bottom there is not a man carefull of any thing, or if he be, he is not solvent; that what between the beggar and the knave, the King is abused the best part of all his revenue.

From thence we began to talk of the Navy, and particularly of Sir W. Pen, of whose rise to be a general I had a mind to be informed. He told me he was always a conceited man, and one that would put the best side outward, but that it was his pretence of sanctity that brought him into play. Lawson, and Portman, and the Fifth-monarchy men, among whom he was a great brother, importuned that he might be general; and it was pleasant to see how Blackburne himself did act it, how when the Commissioners of the Admiralty would enquire of the captains and admirals of such and such men, how they would with a sigh and casting up the eyes say, “Such a man fears the Lord,” or, “I hope such a man hath the Spirit of God,” and such things as that. But he tells me that there was a cruel articling against Pen after one fight, for cowardice, in putting himself within a coyle of cables, of which he had much ado to acquit himself: and by great friends did it, not without remains of guilt, but that his brethren had a mind to pass it by, and Sir H. Vane did advise him to search his heart, and see whether this fault or a greater sin was not the occasion of this so great tryall. And he tells me, that what Pen gives out about Cromwell’s sending and entreating him to go to Jamaica, is very false; he knows the contrary: besides, the Protector never was a man that needed to send for any man, specially such a one as he, twice. He tells me that the business of Jamaica did miscarry absolutely by his pride, and that when he was in the Tower he would cry like a child. This he says of his own personal knowledge, and lastly tells me that just upon the turne, when Monk was come from the North to the City, and did begin to think of bringing in the King, Pen was then turned Quaker. This he is most certain of. He tells me that Lawson was never counted any thing but only a seaman, and a stout man, but a false man, and that now he appears the greatest hypocrite in the world. And Pen the same. He tells me that it is much talked of, that the King intends to legitimate the Duke of Monmouth; and that he has not, nor his friends of his persuasion, have any hopes of getting their consciences at liberty but by God Almighty’s turning of the King’s heart, which they expect, and are resolved to live and die in quiett hopes of it; but never to repine, or act any thing more than by prayers towards it. And that not only himself but all of them have, and are willing at any time to take the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy.

Thus far, and upon many more things, we had discoursed when some persons in a room hard by began to sing in three parts very finely and to play upon a flagilette so pleasantly that my discourse afterwards was but troublesome, and I could not attend it, and so, anon, considering of a sudden the time of night, we found it 11 o’clock, which I thought it had not been by two hours, but we were close in talk, and so we rose, he having drunk some wine and I some beer and sugar, and so by a fair moonshine home and to bed, my wife troubled with tooth ache.

Mr. Blackburne observed further to me, some certain notice that he had of the present plot so much talked of; that he was told by Mr. Rushworth, how one Captain Oates, a great discoverer, did employ several to bring and seduce others into a plot, and that one of his agents met with one that would not listen to him, nor conceal what he had offered him, but so detected the trapan. This, he says, is most true.

He also, among other instances how the King is served, did much insist upon the cowardice and corruption of the King’s guards and militia, which to be sure will fail the King, as they have done already, when there will be occasion for them.

Read the annotations

The Walled Garden Escape

The Walled Garden Escape

The Walled Garden Escape

In our 102nd episode, Lyle moves his mail, contacts, and calendar off Google and finds madness on the other side of the walled garden — Fastmail, two contact lists, a calendar his wife can’t see, Rands’s robot discovering royalties he was never paid, and why none of these services play nicely together (it’s triage, not malice).

We talked about:

Related Important Things episodes:

Enjoy it now, or download for later. Here’s a handy feed or subscribe via Overcast or iTunes.

Links 11/9/26

Links for you. Science:

Silicon Valley promises AI will cure disease. Drugmaker CEOs aren’t buying it.
A Physicist at Israel’s Weizmann Institute Is Manipulating Light to Make Objects Invisible
How Earth Lost a Billion Years of Its History
Some Parts of the Ocean Are Turning a Weird Shade of Blue-Green. Scientists Suspect It’s Plastic
Is America on the brink of an animal-flu pandemic?

Other:

‘I’m a hard yes’: Hakeem Jeffries announces support for Hegseth impeachment
A year after the 100% AI mandate nobody understands our code
Psycho killer
Surge in voter turnout in urban, border counties carried Texas blue wave
It’s Education, Stupid (this ignore the role of religious affiliation; among whites, religious affiliation is a much better predictor than education)
Crowley says he’d sign bill redrawing congressional lines as he looks to first 100 days
Protest erupts at Boyle Heights hospital after ICE transports patient, blocks ambulance entrance
Democrats Want Their Party to Rethink Its Southern Strategy (though it’s worth noting they’ll do much better in off-year elections than presidential year elections)
‘That Stops When I’m Governor’: Dem Texas Governor-Elect Warns Big Tech And Elon Musk
Gina Hinojosa’s Win Was the Most Important of the Entire Midterms
Two Blue States Voted Against Trans Youth In Sports
To Win Back Americans’ Hearts, Israel Should Form a Government With Arab Parties
Meet the man who keeps many of Boston’s historic doors beautiful
U.S. Midterms Will Usher in a Radically Different Israel Policy. Israelis Aren’t Ready (though it really doesn’t discuss how much Republicans are going to blame Israel for Trump’s disastrous Iran policy, which is a whole ‘nother source of trouble)
Progressives Probably Can’t Stop Chuck Schumer From Becoming Senate Majority Leader
A Jewish-Arab Government Is the Answer to Israel’s Most Basic Problems
Mitch McConnell gives unnerving blank stare when asked about midterm results as heath concerns mount
An Anthropic S-1 Colonoscopy
The Confessions of an AI Fraud Kingpin
About that night… Troy Jackson, Susan Collins and the remaking of Maine
Michael Lewis on Elon’s Anti-Moneyball
America’s Backlash Against Oligarchy
The Netflix vs. YouTube Phony Cold War
Hegseth expands National Guard presence in D.C.
On Congress
The Huang Affair: What did they know and when did they know it?
Fox and the GOP were so distracted, they let Annie Andrews win
That’s Sad
The forgotten formula for lovable cities
Know Your Place

I’m Glad to See U.S. Newspapers Run Headlines Like This

HAH! WE MAKE THE FUNNY! This is a headline from the English-language site of the French newspaper Le Monde:

Screenshot 2026-11-07 at 8.16.33 AM

This is a completely accurate headline. Miller is a white supremacist and a reactionary ideologue, but no U.S. paper will ever say that out loud, even though it would inform their readers. Because it still is far worse to call someone racist than it is to be a racist. And because many Serious People would have to admit they are willing to accommodate bigotry.

This, as the kids used to say, is another reason why we can’t have nice things.

Performance evolution of route lookup on Linux

In previous articles, I explained how the Linux kernel implements IPv4 and IPv6 routing tables, and I showed the performance improvement of route lookups from Linux 2.6.32 to 4.16 for IPv4—including the impact of the Meltdown and Spectre mitigations—as well as from Linux 2.6.39 to 4.18 for IPv6. This article updates the numbers through Linux 7.3 and investigates the perpetrator responsible for the performance regressions! 🕵️‍♂️

I ran the following benchmarks on an AMD EPYC 8024P, a Zen 4c CPU, rented from Scaleway, running at 2.4 GHz with CPU boost disabled. I compiled the kernels with GCC 10.2: this version can compile older kernels as well as the current ones.

IPv6

Performance evolution of IPv6 route lookups from Linux 4.14 to
7.3
Performance evolution of IPv6 route lookups. Versions with an asterisk have SRSO mitigation disabled.

I tested four scenarios:

  • a recent full view with about 260,000 prefixes,
  • a full view from 2017 with about 40,000 prefixes,
  • a set of 40,000 /48 prefixes, such that 2 lookups out of 3 match, and
  • a set of 40,000 random /128 prefixes, such that 1 lookup out of 400 matches.

In Linux 4.15, Wei Wang improved the lookup performance by replacing the read-write lock with an RCU and a spinlock in commit 66f5d6ce53e6. In Linux 4.18, David Ahern improved the data structures used by route lookup. In Linux 5.9, Brian Vazquez removed expensive indirect calls in commit 55cced4f813b.

The major 200 ns regression introduced in Linux 6.5 wiped out all these improvements. This version implements a mitigation for "Speculative Return Stack Overflow," a vulnerability affecting AMD processors, in commit fb3bd914b3ec. This mitigation adds about 20 cycles on each function return. It was backported to older kernels (5.10, 5.15, 6.1, and 6.4). To keep the results legible, I disabled the mitigation for these versions with spec_rstack_overflow=off on the kernel command-line.

You can check the vulnerabilities impacting your CPU and their mitigations with lscpu. Some mitigations may depend on the microcode or on the firmware.1

$ lscpu | grep '^Vuln'
Vulnerability Gather data sampling:      Not affected
Vulnerability Indirect target selection: Not affected
Vulnerability Itlb multihit:             Not affected
Vulnerability L1tf:                      Not affected
Vulnerability Mds:                       Not affected
Vulnerability Meltdown:                  Not affected
Vulnerability Mmio stale data:           Not affected
Vulnerability Reg file data sampling:    Not affected
Vulnerability Retbleed:                  Not affected
Vulnerability Spec rstack overflow:      Mitigation; Safe RET
Vulnerability Spec store bypass:         Mitigation; Speculative Store Bypass disabled via prctl
Vulnerability Spectre v1:                Mitigation; usercopy/swapgs barriers and __user pointer sanitization
Vulnerability Spectre v2:                Mitigation; Retpolines; IBPB conditional; IBRS_FW; STIBP always-on; RSB filling; PBRSB-eIBRS Not affected; BHI Not affected
Vulnerability Srbds:                     Not affected
Vulnerability Tsa:                       Vulnerable: Clear CPU buffers attempted, no microcode
Vulnerability Tsx async abort:           Not affected
Vulnerability Vmscape:                   Mitigation; IBPB before exit to userspace

IPv4

Performance evolution of IPv4 route lookups from Linux 4.14 to
7.3
Performance evolution of IPv4 route lookups. Versions with an asterisk have SRSO mitigation disabled.

I tested three scenarios:

  • a recent full view with more than 1,000,000 prefixes,
  • a subset of a full view from 2017 with 500,000 prefixes, and
  • a set of 500,000 contiguous /32 prefixes.

The 30 ns impact of the mitigation for SRSO in Linux 6.5 is smaller than for IPv6 because IPv4 route lookups traverse fewer functions: around 4 function calls for IPv4 compared to 25 for IPv6.

In Linux 5.11, I introduced a regression in commit c0c5a60f0f13 after fixing the behavior of net.ipv4.conf.all.ignore_routes_with_linkdown!2 As a result, the ip_ignore_linkdown() function spends around 5 additional cycles to return a result as it needs to follow three additional pointers. fib_lookup() eventually calls it in the following code:

if (ip_ignore_linkdown(nhc->nhc_dev) &&
    nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_LINKDOWN &&
    !(fib_flags & FIB_LOOKUP_IGNORE_LINKSTATE))
    return false;

If we reorder the conditions, we avoid calling ip_ignore_linkdown() for the most common case where the link isn't down:

if (nhc->nhc_flags & RTNH_F_LINKDOWN &&
    !(fib_flags & FIB_LOOKUP_IGNORE_LINKSTATE) &&
    ip_ignore_linkdown(nhc->nhc_dev))
    return false;

Here's the distribution of lookup times before applying the patch on top of net-next:3

min=128 max=4657 count=994104 95th=134 90th=133 50th=132 mad=0
    value │                         ┊                            count
      128 │                                                        120
      129 │                                                       2232
      130 │▒                                                     25224
      131 │▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░                                       264264
      132 │▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░             516480
      133 │▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░      126864
      134 │▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░      21624

The lighter shade depicts the cumulative distribution function. After applying the patch, the median improved from 132 to 126 cycles:4

min=124 max=208839 count=994104 95th=128 90th=127 50th=126 mad=0
    value │                         ┊                            count
      124 │                                                        576
      125 │▒▒                                                    49440
      126 │▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░                      584904
      127 │▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░       284592
      128 │▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░      45288

Impact of mitigations

To reduce the impact of mitigations, you can disable all of them with mitigations=off, disable only a specific one like with spec_rstack_overflow=off, or protect against only some attack vectors with mitigations=auto,no_user_kernel, starting from Linux 6.17.

The impact is also quite different depending on the CPU. For example, on a Xeon W-2295, an Intel desktop CPU from 2020, the impact of the mitigations is only a few cycles for IPv4, and less than 3% for IPv6. The main contributor is the mitigation for the Indirect Target Selection vulnerability, which is fixed since the Sapphire Rapids architecture.


If we set aside the regressions introduced by the mitigations against CPU attacks, the performance of IPv4 is declining slowly over time while IPv6 has improved in the past and is currently stable. If routing performance is important, you have several options: choose a different CPU like an AMD Zen 5 CPU, a fourth generation Xeon CPU, or maybe an ARM Neoverse V2; disable some or all the mitigations; bypass routing with XDP/eBPF;5 or offload routing to the network card.

Note

Maytham Alsudany reviewed a first draft of this article. Any errors are still mine!


  1. The microcode was out of date on my machine as I forgot to install the amd64-microcode package. As it only impacts TSA, our benchmark is unaffected. Spectre v2 mitigation did not enable automatic IBRS, because of SEV-SNP being enabled in the firmware. With automatic IBRS, the impact of SRSO should be smaller. ↩

  2. Despite ipvX in its title, the commit only changes the behavior of the IPv4 code. The IPv6 version overwrites the value of each device in addrconf_fixup_linkdown(). ↩

  3. Linux 7.5 will be the first stable release including this fix. ↩

  4. At 2.4 GHz, one cycle is about 0.42 ns. ↩

  5. This requires avoiding bpf_fib_lookup(), which relies on the same kernel lookup. ↩

Dragonfly

I'm excited for Dragonfly, because on the list of places in the solar system that I desperately want more pictures from, 'Titan's surface' is right up there at the top with 'Jupiter's atmosphere.'

Monday assorted links

1. What WWII looked like, four and a half minute video.

2. Intellectual Deep Web, YouTube channel.

3. Complete works of Schelling, and no I do not mean Thomas.

4. What the French Left is proposing.

5. How much AI could the CEA manage?

6. Douthat!

7. Andrew Maxfield, Stations of the Cross, vocal music.

The post Monday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

Rubio Warned Officials About Nvidia Chief’s Entanglement With Chinese Spy - the New York Times

Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, Julian E. Barnes, and Tripp Mickle, reporting for The New York Times (gift link):

Mr. Rubio’s memo was circulated to administration officials with high-level security clearances ahead of a trip Mr. Trump took to China in May, the people briefed on the matter said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive material.

Despite his status as an A.I. pioneer and head of one of the world’s most valuable companies, Mr. Huang was initially left off the list of major business and tech executives invited to join Mr. Trump in China. It is unclear whether the exclusion was connected to the memo. By that point, a number of people inside the administration were concerned about Mr. Huang’s influence on the president’s policy of only lightly regulating A.I., people briefed on the matter said.

After Mr. Trump saw media coverage about Mr. Huang being absent from the delegation, the president asked him to join the trip by meeting Air Force One during a layover in Alaska. The president drafted a social media post saying that it was an honor to have “the Great Jensen Huang,” and other business leaders “journeying to the Great Country of China where I will be asking President Xi, a Leader of extraordinary distinction, to ‘open up’ China so that these brilliant people can work their magic.”

This Huang-Huang affair explains a few things that until now didn’t make sense, and Jensen Huang not being invited on that May trip to China — until Trump invited him on the fly at the Alaska layover — is one of them. Also worth noting that on multi-byline stories, The Times puts them in order of who contributed the most to the story. In this case it’s Haberman, who is closest to Trump and the White House:

Asked about Mr. Huang’s admission to his company about his affair with Ms. Huang, Mr. Trump told reporters on Sunday evening that he did not regret his own lack of action.

“No, I don’t think so,” the president said. He added that he believed Mr. Huang should stay on as Nvidia’s chief executive.

“I think he’s an honorable guy. I think he probably has an excuse for it. You have to hear it,” Mr. Trump said.

Trump, you will recall, was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to his hush-money payments to porno star Stormy Daniels, who banged him and (spanked him with a magazine on which he was on the cover) at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe in 2006. That was four months after Melania Trump, his third wife, gave birth to their son Barron. So take “he probably has an excuse for it” with a $130,000 grain of salt.

There’s a Journalism 101 adage that news stories should be written in an “upside down triangle”, with the most important information at the top and the least important at the bottom. Another little inside-baseball tidbit about The Times, however, is that The Times, rather uniquely, often buries the most interesting (but not most important) paragraph at the very end. This story ends thus:

In recent years, Megaspeed, despite having essentially a storefront office and little local footprint, purchased $2 billion worth of Nvidia’s products. Megaspeed builds data centers in Southeast Asia that rent out their computing power to Alibaba, the giant Chinese internet company. U.S. officials suspect Megaspeed has been helping smuggle restricted advanced Nvidia chips into China.

If true, this is politically damaging to both Nvidia and Huang personally, but the context is that Nvidia booked over $300 billion in revenue over the last year.

 ★ 

Jensen Huang Betrayed Nvidia, Not Just His Family

Julian E. Barnes, Tripp Mickle, Paul Mozur, and Maggie Haberman, reporting for The New York Times on Friday:

John Rizzo, an Nvidia spokesman, said that the company does not share classified information with its customers, and that customers do not ask Nvidia to press the U.S. government to change its policies on chip sales to China.

He added that the Chinese government had “consistently promoted its own domestic alternatives in China, including Huawei, and strictly limited imports of our data center products.”

Mr. Rizzo has maintained that Mr. Huang’s interactions with Ms. Huang were “not unusual” and consistent with the kinds of meetings he has with any of Nvidia’s many customers.

Turns out this was not true, unless Jensen Huang is consistently banging many of Nvidia’s customers. And it now looks especially bad that an Nvidia spokesman was effectively vouching for the Chinese government’s integrity when it comes to their interest in circumventing the ban against selling them high-end Nvidia hardware.

Liu Chang, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy, said The Times reporting was “unsubstantiated” and “nothing but smears against China.”

Turns out this was completely substantiated and everything it implies about the Chinese government is true.

Ms. Huang has not responded to multiple attempts to reach her for comment in recent days.

The Times has a photo of Ms. Huang with Mr. Huang at a Taipei party in 2024. She’s straight out of Central Casting for a Chinese honeypot.

The New York Times, back on October 29:

Nvidia said the company that employed Ms. Huang, Megaspeed, was like any other regional customer and that it had previously investigated and debunked claims the Singaporean company was smuggling chips to China. John Rizzo, a spokesman for Nvidia, said: “Jensen’s interactions with Ms. Huang are not unusual or unexpected. Meetings with customers are part of a C.E.O.’s job; Jensen talks with thousands of customer executives every year.”

Jensen Huang’s personal life is his personal life. But he’s made it Nvidia business — an Nvidia spokesman has been repeatedly on the record saying the Huang/Huang relationship was “not unusual”. If you want to cheat on your spouse that’s your business, but it’s irresponsible to allow employees at your company to tell what you know to be lies on your behalf.

Worse would be if it turns out that Megaspeed, the company Alice Huang works (worked?) at, was funneling Nvidia hardware to China in contravention of US national security law. That could make Jensen Huang’s position at Nvidia untenable.

 ★ 

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Was Banging a Chinese Spy, Who Was Feeding Information Back to Beijing

Tripp Mickle, reporting for The New York Times:

Nvidia said on Sunday that it was opening an investigation into Jensen Huang, its chief executive and co-founder, after he acknowledged to the company’s board that he had been intimate with a business executive who U.S. intelligence determined to be a Chinese spy.

Mr. Huang’s relationship with the woman, who is named Alice Huang, became a U.S. government concern after surveillance revealed that she was feeding information directly to Beijing. The revelation raised troubling possibilities because Mr. Huang is one of the most powerful figures in the A.I. revolution as well as an influential ally of President Trump.

In a message to the company, Mr. Huang apologized. “I was unfaithful to my wife,” he said. “My actions hurt her and our children. There is no excuse for what I did. I am deeply sorry.”

Nvidia’s board said that it had “no reason to believe that either national security or Nvidia secrets were compromised,” but that “the board’s inquiry will examine all available information.” It said Mr. Huang “fully supports the review and has committed to cooperating with it.”

When the NYT first broke this story a little over a week ago, they simply described Jensen Huang’s relationship with the Chinese spy, an executive at a Singapore data center company named Alice Huang (no relation), as “a close relationship”. Reading between the lines, though — including the fact that Donald Trump, once briefed on the situation, decided to keep it quiet — it seemed pretty clear what the story was.

 ★ 

CCIA Report Highlights Satellite Connectivity’s Potential to Expand Internet Access and Drive Economic Growth

Washington — The Computer & Communications Industry Association today released Connecting the World: Unlocking the Potential of Satellite Connectivity, a new report examining how satellite technology can expand internet access, […]

The post CCIA Report Highlights Satellite Connectivity’s Potential to Expand Internet Access and Drive Economic Growth appeared first on SpaceNews.

Where’s Cindy?

If you missed it this weekend, check out my piece on the remarkably part-time, almost non-existent Cindy Hyde-Smith campaign. Quite stunning.

NVIDIA’s Perfect Storm Swirl Around Trump and the AI Industry

Last month I had a conversation with a high ranking AI executive who told me that the fundamental reason for the U.S. lead over China in AI development was U.S. access to high-performance NVIDIA processors. The Biden administration placed export controls on those chips targeting China back in 2022. The Trump administration sort of loosened those controls though, for a variety of reasons, that shift in policy hasn’t translated into that much actual change in practice. This struck me at the time: this is a wildly anti-China administration; it’s a wildly pro-AI administration which premises everything on the need to maintain a strategic AI edge over China; but it’s more open to allowing China access to these chips that are central to U.S. dominance in AI? How can that possibly make sense?

This conversation has been on my mind for the last couple weeks as we’ve learned more and more about the spy scandal enveloping NVIDIA co-founder and CEO Jensen Huang. To bring you up-to-date, yesterday, NVIDIA’s board announced that it would investigate Huang’s relationship with Alice Huang (no relation), who U.S. intelligence believes is a Chinese spy. This came shortly after Jensen Huang admitted in an email to NVIDIA employees (immediately made public) that he had carried on an extramarital affair with Alice Huang.

This scandal looks like a very big deal, regardless of the exact details of what information Alice Huang might have gotten from Jensen Huang or what Jensen Huang may have known about her. The precise details of U.S. export controls are too complicated and contradictory for me to focus on here. The key is that U.S. intelligence has known about the relationship and had decided that Alice Huang was a spy something like a year ago. Jensen Huang is a strong advocate of loosening those export controls, though simple business advantage can explain that: China is a huge market for NVIDIA chips. All the key administration players, including the president, were reportedly briefed on this. Last spring, Marco Rubio oversaw the creation of a highly classified memo detailing the case against Alice Huang which was then circulated to top administration officials. Yet no top officials, including the president, took any action. They didn’t take any action against Jensen Huang or compel him to cut off contact with Alice Huang; and Jensen Huang remained one of Trump’s highest level advisors on national AI policy.

Trump’s inattention or disregard is par for the course for everything we know about his attitude toward U.S. intelligence agencies. He sees them as meddlesome intruders on his freedom of action to make “deals,” driven by his own self-interest, whom he castigates as “deep state” enemies. We know this most from his dealings with Russia. But there’s every reason — and a good deal of evidence — to believe it applies across the board. They are a constant reminder and irritant, from within the government, of interests distinct from his own which frequently come into conflict with them.

This story first broke into the public view a week before the election. That story had all the markers of either people in the U.S. intelligence world or perhaps people at the State Department or others in the government disgruntled about Trump’s inattention, going to the Times to try to force the matter. The timing doesn’t seem like a coincidence either. It is impossible to believe that each development over the last two weeks isn’t closely connected to the expectations and then reactions to the 2026 midterm, which have broken Trump’s monopoly of political power in the federal government and signaled the end of the free-for-all (or at least information about what’s happening inside) of the last two years.

This genuinely cinematic but also grave story brings together everything about our current moment. NVIDI is the axle at the center of the AI boom. Data centers are massive warehouses of NVIDIA chips. AI runs on them. NVIDIA has used its exploding stock valuation and cash flow to invest in/prop up key segments of the rest of the AI economy. That practice of the core producer using its mammoth profits to prop up the purchasers of its products has been at the center of bubble worries for at least a year.

What causes a bubble and what triggers its collapse are not the same. An over-extended, over-inflated market is the cause. But the trigger for its end is usually some contingent, semi-random occurrence that triggers the unwinding. It’s like a lit cigarette randomly tossed out a car window onto bone-dry and overgrown brush. We’ve probably found that contingent, semi-random event.

It also goes to the heart of Trumpism. We have very clear reporting that President Trump was briefed on this situation earlier this year and disregarded it. If I’m understanding the reporting, Rubio’s classified memo came after that, an attempt to at least spread awareness of the situation through senior ranks of the administration even if President Trump himself refused to take any action. So apparently President Trump and most other senior leaders were aware of this and either took no action or knew that none was being taken. This applies to Rubio even if, perhaps especially if, he was trying to spread the word. He’s known for at least six months that one of the top two or three CEOs at the center of the U.S. AI industry and a top advisor to the President was having an extramarital affair with a Chinese spy? Did he do anything more than commission that memo last Spring?

Scandals ‘stick’ when they’re messy, not simply because of the gravity of the wrongdoing involved. Here we have the inherently messy and attention-grabbing fact of an extramarital affair with a spy. That will rapidly intersect with the seat-of-the-pants reckless style of Trump’s inner circle, where basic rules are habitually violated and extreme corruption is commonplace. Those facts make it highly unlikely we’ll get to the bottom of this anytime soon. It’s equally hard to imagine Huang being able to remain fully on the job — at least for some period of time — while this story explodes around him. NVIDIA appears to be tightly bound to Huang’s personal decision making. So it’s impossible for him to be removed or step aside of his own accord. But that’s just another path to an equal amount of destabilization and distraction. And remember, NVIDIA really is the cornerstone of the whole AI industry — both because of the superior nature of its technology but also because of how much its own cash flow has been used to prop up numerous other players across the industry.

School choice in San Francisco: plans and politics happen at different speeds

 A report  in PNAS last week on a long-running study of school choice proposals in San Francisco came out almost simultaneously with an announcement that San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) plans to largely step back from school choice and revert to a system of neighborhood schools determined by students' home addresses. Below are the PNAS paper, the SFUSD announcements, and then some links to the history of school choice in SF.

I. Lo, K. Mentzer, M. YahyazadehJeloudar, H. O’Connell, J. Monardo, & I. Ashlagi, Designing school choice for diversity in the San Francisco Unified School District, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 123 (45). November 2, 2026, e2524796123, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2524796123 (2026). 

 "Abstract.  More than 65 years after the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that school segregation is unconstitutional, public schools across the United States are again experiencing rising segregation. In districts like San Francisco, efforts to implement district-wide choice policies have largely failed to reverse these trends. Since 2019, we have collaborated with the San Francisco Unified School District to design a student assignment policy meeting the district’s goals of diversity, predictability, and proximity. We use optimization techniques to develop policies restricting choice to zones. We compare these to district-wide choice policies by estimating a choice model using historical application data and simulating assignment. Our results show multiple policies can reduce school segregation while preserving varying degrees of proximity, choice, and predictability. Zone-based policies with reserves reduce the concentration of racial minority students in high-poverty schools and maintain proximity, but reduce choice. District-wide choice with reserves and distance-based priority can further reduce segregation, but at the cost of predictability. Tradeoffs are necessary as no policy dominates another policy. In addition, we show that spatial segregation indices capture average patterns in these tradeoffs but miss important variation revealed by our simulation framework. Our work informed the design and approval of a zone-based policy in San Francisco in 2020, and supports ongoing policy implementation."

 

##########

Oct. 20, 2026 Message from SFUSD Superintendent Dr. Maria Su to Families: Link to this section

Historic Step Toward a Great Neighborhood School for Every Student 

Oct. 13, 2026 Press Release:  Link to this section

San Francisco Board of Education Approves Resolution to Move SFUSD Toward Neighborhood-Based Student Assignment System


Introduction:  Link to this section

SFUSD is changing how students are assigned to elementary schools. On October 13, 2026, the Board of Education voted to replace the current lottery with a neighborhood-based system. Under the proposed policy, every family would be guaranteed a seat at a school near home, no matter when they apply. Families could still apply to citywide programs, such as language programs and K-8 schools. We are making this change because families have told us the current process feels complicated and unpredictable. Where your child goes to school should not come down to luck.

The Board’s vote sets a direction. It is not the final policy. Over the next few months, we will meet with families in their schools and neighborhoods, in many languages, to work out the details. The Board will hold its final vote on April 13, 2027. Nothing changes for current families. The new system will start with students who enroll in the 2028-29 school year.

A new assignment system is only part of the work. Every child deserves a strong school close to home, so we also plan to invest in schools in every neighborhood, starting with those that have been the most underserved.

###########

San Francisco has been considering and tinkering with school choice for a long time, during a period in which other kinds of political turmoil rocked SF and its schools.  Here (mostly from 2010) and here are some of my earlier posts on school choice in SF. 

End the State Veto on Power Lines

It’s one of the peculiarities of American regulatory history that a natural gas pipeline can cross state lines with a single federal permit, but oil and electricity must run a gauntlet of state approvals. When a power line crosses one state to reach another, for example, the intervening state often imposes exorbitant tolls or, worse, vetoes the project entirely. It’s the holdout problem played out among the states.

In a new paper, Liscow, Shapiro and Williams show that after Congress ended the states’ veto over interstate gas pipelines in 1947, miles built per year rose nearly sixfold. Oil pipelines, which still had to run the state gauntlet, held steady. Lower transaction costs let natural gas flow to where it was most valued, creating a national market.

Interstate gas pipeline mileage before and after the 1947 amendment
Today, as Liscow and Shapiro write in the Washington Post, the issue is electricity:

An interstate power line, however, typically needs approval from every state it crosses. That gives each state a veto over projects in which the benefits often flow mostly to its neighbors.

New England has experienced the consequences. In 2016, Massachusetts attempted to import Canadian hydropower. New Hampshire, which would have hosted the power lines without getting the same influx of cheap energy, rejected it. A second route through Maine was blocked in a referendum and didn’t deliver power until January. Meanwhile, Massachusetts households paid some of the highest electricity prices in the country.

As with natural gas, electricity is cheapest to produce far from where it is most valued, so to get the most from our national resources we need to transmit electricity across the country.

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, which faces a Senate cloture vote on Monday, would let FERC approve an interstate line that a state has blocked or stalled for a year, a big step toward a national market in electricity.

Let the power flow!

The post End the State Veto on Power Lines appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

The economics of honeypots

Of course as an economist I am always wondering what the equilibrium is.  And, in this case, what is the scarce factor?

It seems that in the case under current consideration, the returns to honeypotting are very high for somebody.  Maybe for China, maybe for the shorts, or maybe for parts of the Deep State that seek to shape domestic politics (and they possibly drove the timing of the leak?).

So why are not three potential honeypots sent every day to the most prominent men?  If the guy says no, you do not have to pay them for very long, right?  Or you can just have them try another, different guy.

I can think of a few hypotheses:

1. The number of attractive women with sufficient spy training is actually pretty low.  Furthermore the spy agency has to trust the woman to some degree.

2. The number of attractive women willing to do this is pretty low.  But at what wage?  And in some countries threats to the family, or benefits to the family, can be added to the transaction.

3. It is difficult to access the most prominent men, and that limits the number of honeypots that can be sent.  Furthermore, at some point the honeypot woman has to find time alone with the man, and that is not always easy.

4. In fact three potential honeypots are sent every day to the most prominent men.

5. Competition from the non-honeypot women is so strong the honeypots do not have such a great chance, thus limiting their supply.  The non-honeypot temptresses will sometimes have stronger vetting as well.

6. Some of the most prominent men “go the Epstein route” instead, hoping for delegated vetting and a kind of mutual “hostage-taking,” noting that proved extremely risky as well.

What else?

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

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

AI Security

Two weeks ago, I attended the [un]prompted AI security conference in San Francisco. It was an excellent event: three days of very dense talks about all aspects of AI security. (My talk was about integrous AI, and I will post it when it is online.)

AI security can be divided into three broad topics. It’s important for researchers to understand which one they are working on. And it’s important for us as a community to work on them all. They are: security of AI, security with AI, and security from AI. [un]prompted had good talks about all three.

A trip to upside-down world

Abstract painting of a person with a green face in a pink hat surrounded by floating houses and goats against a colourful sky.

Goats everywhere! Three-hour handstands! Magical doorknobs! Discover a whole new way of looking at a Cubist masterpiece

- by Aeon Video

Watch on Aeon

Equality talk

Black and white photo of a group of men in flat caps and coats, a young man sitting on a brick wall looks on.

In the summer of 1646, the idea of equality gained new and profound depths. We are still catching up with the consequences

- by Teresa M Bejan

Read on Aeon

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.

parse_number() as a SQLite extension: C vs Rust

Research: parse_number() as a SQLite extension: C vs Rust

I was out walking the dog when I got curious about how easy/difficult it would be to write a SQLite C extension that adds a parse_number() function for turning strings like -$1,234.56 or '12.5%' into numeric values that could be summed and sorted.

I fired up regular Claude chat (Opus 5.5) and prompted:

I'm thinking about a SQLite custom function 'parse_number(value)' that strips ',', '$', '£' and '%', handles a leading '-', and returns 'NULL' for anything it can’t parse

Explore the difference between building this as a SQLite extension in C v.s. in Rust - I want to compare performance and code complexity and size of the resulting.so(or whatever) file

This gave me a solid starting point - the Rust extension was 321 KB (using Rusqlite) and 298 KB (using sqlite-loadable-rs), while the C extension was 14 KB. But the Rust extension was faster!

Turns out that's because the Rust equivalent of C's strtod is "twice as fast". So I prompted:

Try writing your own C function for parsing text into a decimal number that catches up to or beats the Rust implementation

And it did, using "Clinger's fast path":

Net cost per row over 2 million rows, lower is better:

first C new C rusqlite sqlite-loadable
Mixed data 67 ns 19 ns 46 ns 41 ns
Integers only 25 ns 16 ns 36 ns 32 ns
Decimals only 106 ns 18 ns 55 ns 47 ns

Finally, I had it rewrite the prototype as a research report to match the others in simonw/research by prompting this:

Clone simonw/research from GitHub and turn your above investigation into a research report as seen in that repository - you can give me a zip file to download that contains your new folder

Here's the resulting report.

Tags: research, c, rust, sqlite, claude

The Web Is More Than Enough, by Paul Ford

My comment on The Web Is More Than Enough, by Paul Ford — Hacker News.

OK, this comment convinced me to give that a shot.

Here's a thing I made in Three.js this morning - a Nudibranch themed Faberge Egg: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026/Hidden-Reef-Egg... (77KB)

I just asked Claude (Opus 5.5 Medium running in regular Claude Chat) to port that to Vanilla JS, in the same thread where it had built it, and got this: https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026/Hidden-Reef-Egg... (98KB)

They aren't identical - you can see what Claude said about that in the transcript (I don't fully understand why it differed): https://claude.ai/share/e56d163e-2793-4677-aa11-191d5058b414

But yeah, it turns out Claude Opus 5.5 is perfectly capable of 3D modeling in Vanilla JS + WebGL without Three.js.

In eyeballing the code I find the Three.js slightly easier to understand myself, but I rarely look at the code for these 3D projects so that isn't a particularly big deal.

Tags: claude, javascript, three-js, hacker-news, generative-ai, ai, llms

Hide your slop PR descriptions behind

Most of the changes I make to my projects these days come in the form of PRs opened for me by Claude Code or Codex. The PR is my unit of work - I use them to bundle commits together, iterating on them until a feature is complete, document decisions and then merge the finished result. Today's coding agents are great at writing PR descriptions.

They're too good at describing the work

The problem is that they are too good. An agent-written PR description is accurate and comprehensive. It describes the problem, the detailed solution, and the steps taken to verify it. That's a lot of information to absorb.

It's not necessarily slop, but it reads like slop!

It's very easy to spot an AI-written PR, and as with other forms of AI writing my instant reaction is best summarized as "I'm not reading all of that". It doesn't matter how accurate or useful the information is, I'm instantly put off by the thought that it will take me longer to read than it took the driving author to write... even when that driving author is me!

I want human editorial judgement. I want someone to have thought just long enough about the PR to give me a human-approved introduction that helps me understand, at a high level, what the PR is for and whether it deserves more of my attention.

I think I've found a low-effort way to do this that feels right.

Hide most of it in a details/summary

The HTML <details><summary> elements render as a collapsed heading (the summary) that can be expanded to view the larger piece of text. The code looks like this:

<details>
  <summary>Claude Opus 5.5</summary>
  <h2>The hook</h2>
  Plugins implement <code>register_agent_reference_types(datasette)</code>...
</details>

When rendered, it looks like this:

Screenshot of a GitHub PR. The text "Claude Opus 5.5" sits next to a little black arrow. Clicking on that text expands a full description inside the PR body.

Crucially, <details><summary> is supported in GitHub Markdown. You can drop those tags directly into an issue comment or PR description and GitHub will hide the details and display just the summary plus an expansion arrow.

I've started using this for my AI-generated pull requests.

The opening paragraph of my PRs will be carefully selected to act as a high-level explanation of what's going on - the shortest text a human can read that will help get them up to speed.

I'll sometimes throw in a screenshot as well, since images are often the best way to quickly illustrate a new feature.

The full agent-written essay then follows in a <details><summary>. I use the model name and often the effort level as that summary, to make it abundantly clear what is going on - "Claude Opus 5.5 Medium" for example.

My PRs don't feel nearly as sloppy now! The information is all still there, but a reader can glance at it and get the top, human-curated information without their eyes glazing over at multiple paragraphs of agent-written details.

I don't always write the introduction myself - sometimes the agent has given me what I need already, hidden away in the avalanche of other text. My promise to the reader is that the short opener will represent my human judgement as to what is definitely worth their time.

Here are some recent examples where I've used this pattern, including the opener I used:

The mnemonic

I used to have trouble remembering the order of the tags - is it <details><summary> or <summary><details>?

Here are two tricks that helped me.

First, and most obviously, the <summary> is clearly the bit where you summarize the details. That's the tag for your line of text that can be clicked to expand - the <details> element must then wrap everything else.

An even better trick is to always refer to these two tags as "details-summary".

"details-summary" is two syllables followed by three syllables. That rolls off the tongue more smoothly than the three-two punch of "summary-details".

Say "details-summary" out loud just a few times and you'll never forget the order of the tags again.

(I still wish GitHub would add a button to their Markdown editor for this - partly to save me painstakingly typing it on my mobile keyboard, and partly to help spread the word to more GitHub users that this feature exists.)

Tags: github, html, markdown, ai, datasette, generative-ai, llms, ai-assisted-programming, llm, coding-agents

Noah, Brad DeLong, and Dan Wang discuss the Anthropic IPO

Many longtime fans of my Hexapodia podcast with Brad DeLong have been begging us to bring it back. Well, here it is! Hexapodia will now be a series of Substack Live conversations that you can tune in to, and which will be recorded as podcasts and sent out as emails.

Our first episode was a little rocky, as I got the time wrong and ended up arriving 20 minutes late. But Dan and Brad are both brilliant people, so you can watch them talk for a while before I show up! The topic of our discussion was the Anthropic IPO, inspired by my post about it last week:

I give the bull case for Anthropic, while Dan and Brad are both more skeptical. I think this quote sums up my side of the argument:

My bull case [for Anthropic] is not envisioning a world where Anthropic rules all businesses, rules 100% of every industry, or close to it. I’m also not envisioning a case where AI replaces human beings in their jobs.

I’m envisioning a change in the capital structure of the efficiently producing economy. I’m envisioning…a world where in order to succeed in any industry, you must create a tie-up with a frontier AI company that offers you access to an internal proprietary frontier model that will be months ahead of any model distilled from it. And…that doing this will require not purchasing services…at arm’s length from that company, but tying up your capital structure with that company so that you become in some sense a subsidiary of that company. I am envisioning that.

So I’m saying that instead of something where…AI is like oil and everyone has to buy oil or the things made downstream from oil…instead of that sort of arm of length world, I’m envisioning a world in which every company in order to succeed must become a subsidiary of Anthropic, OpenAI, [or] Google…and Anthropic is simply the biggest of those fish in a oligopolistic ecosystem of a few conglomerates competing against each other via their little subsidiaries in every single industry at the same time.

Interestingly, some economists at Google Deepmind just released a paper with a model in which this sort of thing happens. From the abstract of Imas, Koh, and Legg (2026):

When will advances in AI lead to economic transformation? We develop a model of how intelligence…matters for organizations….AI expertise is reproducible while humans’ are in fixed supply, and AIs may not face the same human limits on coordination….When AI is more capable than the average human, organizations of complementary humans can nonetheless outperform AI. Increases in AI competence can change the composition of workers within firms and decrease firm size. As AI coordination improves, however, this can break the Coasean ceiling on firm size and the market structure undergoes a phase transition toward large, concentrated AI-heavy firms. [emphasis mine]

I was envisioning a slightly more complex version, in which humans and AI are complements, where humans have private data that AI is better at using, and where one big conglomerate enters every industry but retains human workers. But I think Imas et al.’s model gets at some of the basic dynamics here.

Financial disclosure: I have no current position in Anthropic, but unless something major changes, I will probably buy Anthropic stock when it IPOs. I own stock in TypeSafe, an Anthropic competitor.


Subscribe now

Share

Seb Krier, Ricardian?

Here is the initial post. In the comments Michael Wiebe notes: “So progress per R&D dollar fell by 63%, even while progress per year doubled.”  File under: David Ricardo, underrated.

The post Seb Krier, Ricardian? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

After the Bubble Bursts

The Wile E. Coyote Illusion - by Ian Leslie - The Ruffian

Has AI reached its Wile E. Coyote moment? Ever since the huge boom in AI-related capital expenditures, especially data centers, began, many observers have warned that this boom looks unsustainable. AI is a remarkable technology, which may yield big economic payoffs (although these payoffs still aren’t clear in the data.) But it’s doubtful whether the companies making these huge investments will be able to capture enough of those payoffs to compensate them for the enormous sums they are spending.

If these skeptics are right, we should expect that there will be a Wile E. Coyote moment: the investors and lenders who have been backing AI companies look down, realize that they have run off the edge of a cliff, and the boom plunges to the ground. Such sudden reckonings have happened many times in the past, notably with the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 and the bursting of the housing bubble a few years later.

And in the past few weeks we’ve seen growing signs of nervousness about AI’s financial prospects. Prices of hyperscaler stocks are down 27 percent since their peak; the cost of insurance against default on AI-company bonds has soared. We don’t know for sure that this is a real turning point for the industry, but the vibes have definitely shifted.

Today’s primer won’t try to settle the hotly (and endlessly) debated question of whether AI really is a bubble, let alone whether this is the moment of truth. What I will focus on, instead, is a conditional question: If AI is a bubble, and that bubble is either bursting or likely to burst soon, what are the likely economic consequences? That is, as I’ll explain, a question we can address with a lot of historical evidence. For while AI as a technology is utterly new, burst bubbles have been a recurring economic theme for well over a century, and we know a lot about the macroeconomic aftermath of bubbles.

To preview my conclusions: a burst AI bubble will almost surely cause a recession. The depth of that recession is highly uncertain, although I favor the view that it will be worse than the slump at the end of the 1990s tech boom. But even if the recession is short and shallow, history and theory suggest that recovery from that slump will be painfully slow, that unemployment will remain elevated for multiple years.

Beyond the paywall, I’ll address the following:

1. A brief history of modern recessions

2. Why recovery from burst bubbles is slow

3. Comparing a possible AI bust to the dot-com recession

4. Why the policy response to an AI bust will probably be inadequate to prevent a painful recession

Read more

The Paraguayan bank story

Despite its weaknesses, Paraguay’s young democracy was still able to deliver under stress. Its free, boisterous press was the first to sound the alarm about Peña’s shenanigans. The Central Bank’s supervision chief did his job: he examined ueno’s numbers and recommended blocking the sale of its bad loans to a related company (Peña had appointed him to a different agency four days earlier). Legislators, including most of Peña’s fellow Colorados, moved swiftly to investigate and impeach the president. Prosecutors, who belong to a Public Ministry not always independent of the executive, ordered the arrest of ueno’s top directors the day the Central Bank took over the bank. They ordered Peña’s arrest the minute Congress impeached him—all within less than a week.

One of Paraguayan democracy’s greatest accomplishments has been earning an investment-grade rating for its sovereign debt, from Moody’s in 2024 and S&P in 2025. The macroeconomic and financial management behind it, through the finance ministry and the Central Bank, has brought low inflation and overall stability. As a result, Paraguayans can save, invest, and run their households and businesses like never before, and per capita GDP has grown steadily for three decades. That same framework is now repaying ueno’s small depositors through a deposit guarantee of up to $38,000 per person and, so far, has kept the panic from spreading to other banks. Whether it can also make whole the pension fund and the state agencies with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake is the next test.

Last but not least, there’s a big dog that hasn’t barked in this crisis. Unlike almost all of Paraguay’s previous political crises, the military has been a non-entity. No military leader has stepped forward to offer a solution, the press doesn’t even mention the military, and nobody on the streets expects or wishes a military solution. That’s a major democratic win.

Here is much more from Tomas Mandl, who also has an excellent book on Paraguay.

The post The Paraguayan bank story appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

Lights in the sky

The glowing streak of the Milky Way splashes across the Chilean sky in today’s Picture of the Week. The telescope gazing in admiration is the Danish 1.54-meter telescope, hosted at ESO’s La Silla Observatory. This telescope has previously imaged some of the cosmic marvels we can see in this picture. The Carina Nebula can be seen glittering pink at the bottom of the Milky Way band. And at the top of the image we can see the bright, star-forming Lagoon Nebula.

From La Silla’s location in the southern hemisphere, the bright core of the Milky Way passes directly overhead. The dark patches we see across the glowing centre are caused by clouds of interstellar dust and gas, which absorb light from the galactic centre on its way to Earth.

Do not worry, the green glow we see in this image is not a result of urban light pollution. This is a natural phenomenon known as airglow, caused by interactions between the Sun’s light and molecules in the atmosphere. This faint light is invisible to the human eye but appears in photographs like this one.

The Old Politics is Dying

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

November 7, 2026

In his victory speech on November 3, after winning a U.S. Senate seat in the previously Republican-dominated state of Texas, Senator-elect James Talarico redefined the modern United States by recalling an older era when Americans worked together to defend their country against those who would take all its wealth and power for themselves.

His words were especially piercing in Texas, where billionaire Elon Musk spent at least $225 million in the midterm elections to keep the state government in the hands of Republicans. And yet, voters elected a Democratic governor, a Democratic lieutenant governor, a Democratic attorney general, and a Democratic state house anyway.

“We just took back Texas,” Talarico told the cheering crowd. “We just proved that all the money in the world is no match for the people of Texas. We just showed that a politics of division is no match for a politics of love. And we just sent a message to every billionaire megadonor, every trillionaire megadonor, every corrupt defender of this broken political system in this state, in this country. Power belongs to the people.”

Leaning into his religious faith and his own history as a middle-school teacher of underprivileged students and as the son of a single mother, he told the crowd: “Scripture has taught me, my own life has taught me, always bet on the underdog.”

“We were the underdogs in this race,” he said. “We went up against nearly 40 years of doubt and disillusionment. We went up against more than $300 million, more than any Senate campaign in American history. We went up against all the negative ads, smear campaigns, foreign bots, and AI deep fakes that money can buy. Those attacks were the final howls of a dying establishment, the death rattle of a status quo that knows its days are numbered.

“They played dirty because they were desperate. But we never lost hope. We never lost faith. And against big money and long odds, we took our power back. Always, always, bet on the underdog.

“We built a movement unlike any this state has ever seen. We united Texans from all backgrounds and beliefs onto one team to take on this broken, corrupt political system: first time voters, three time Trump voters, working people from every corner of this state who are fed up and ready for change. This win is for every underdog who’s been counted out and left behind. This win is for every teacher and every nurse, for every farmer and every rancher. For every young person who’s trying to buy a home. For every parent who’s trying to put food on the table.

“This win is for every Texan who’s ever wondered if anyone is listening. I heard you. We heard you, and tonight the world hears you.”

Talarico identified the moment the nation is in as monumental. “This win is not about the Democratic party or the Republican party,” he said. “It’s much bigger than that. There is something broken in America. Our economic system is broken. Our political system is broken. Even our relationships with each other feel broken. That’s because the most powerful people in the world want it that way.”

Talarico rooted his political beliefs in his belief in the commandments to “love God and love neighbor” and noted that “despite our differences, we all want the same things. A safe neighborhood, a good job, a high-quality, well-funded public school, and the ability to see a doctor when we need one.

“But the billionaires who own the social media algorithms, who own the cable news networks, who own the politicians fighting on our screens, they want us at each other’s throats. They want us focused on how we’re different instead of on how we’re the same. They want us looking left and right at each other instead of looking up at them. The real fight in this country is not left versus right. It is top versus bottom.

“The people at the top work so hard to keep us angry and divided because our unity is a threat to their wealth and their power,” he said. “We saw it in this race. We saw it in every billionaire-funded attack ad. The people at the top divide us by party, by race, by gender, by religion, by culture, so we don’t notice that they are picking our pockets, that they are defunding our schools, that they are gutting our healthcare, that they are raising taxes on all of us while they cut taxes for themselves. It is the oldest strategy in the world, divide and conquer. But tonight we sent a crystal clear message to the people at the top. We will not be conquered.”

“[W]e are tired of being pitted against each other,” Talarico continued. “We are tired of being told to hate each other. It has been 10 years of this kind of politics. Politics as blood sport. Politics as trolling and owning. Politics as professional wrestling. It tears families apart. It ends friendships. And it leaves us all feeling terrible all the time. People across the political spectrum are hungry for a different kind of politics. Not a politics of hate, not a politics of fear, not a politics of division, but a politics of love.”

He explained how Democrats had won Texas: “We mobilized our 60,000 volunteers in every corner of the state, and together we delivered bottled water to Sand Branch, a community south of Dallas with no running water. We donated school supplies to an elementary school in El Cenizo, a small town on the border. We collected more than 20,000 pounds of groceries for families in Fort Worth who are struggling under the high cost of living. Before the world changes in ways you see on TV or read about in newspapers, the world changes person to person, neighbor to neighbor.”

“[W]e know how to get there,” he said. “We must get big money out of our politics so no billionaire or trillionaire can buy our elections. We must unrig this economic system that only benefits the top 1%. We must pass universal health care so no one goes bankrupt just because they get sick. We must invest in our teachers and our students so every underdog has a fighting chance. We must end these corrupt forever wars that are driving up prices and killing our brave men and women in uniform.

“And,” he continued, “we must heal the deep spiritual corruption at the root of all of these crises. We must bridge the divides between us and repair the ties that bind us. We forged a new kind of politics here in the Lone Star State. An answer to this decade of division. We showed that when working people come together across every dividing line, we can do extraordinary things. We won this race because people who are desperate for change now are going to get change.

“That old politics is dying,” he told the crowd, “and a new politics is being born through each of us.”

Talarico, who won his race by an astonishing 12 points, accurately identified the extraordinary importance of local and relational organizing to create communities that would elect Democratic candidates in 2026.

He also accurately identified the threat this kind of politics poses to establishment politics, especially to MAGA. President Trump today reinforced his need for division and hatred by offering the job of White House press secretary to Dana White, the chief executive officer of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, whom he described as a “violent Fighter and Warrior.” Trump encouraged White to take the job and bring along a number of his UFC fighters.

“We need these people to defend us against the Lunatic Left,” Trump posted.

—

Notes:

https://fortune.com/2026/11/05/elon-musk-texas-democrats-hinojosa-terafab/

https://apnews.com/article/texas-senate-talarico-paxton-midterm-election-66df71a7c2bfa962cffd4134ef1a0364

https://www.cnn.com/2026/11/07/politics/dana-white-trump-press-secretary

YouTube:

live/cK8wzjBpEoQ

Trump’s Truth:

statuses/43508

Share

Sunday 8 November 1663

(Lord’s day). Up, and it being late, to church without my wife, and there I saw Pembleton come into the church and bring his wife with him, a good comely plain woman, and by and by my wife came after me all alone, which I was a little vexed at. I found that my coming in a perriwigg did not prove so strange to the world as I was afear’d it would, for I thought that all the church would presently have cast their eyes all upon me, but I found no such thing. Here an ordinary lazy sermon of Mr. Mill’s, and then home to dinner, and there Tom came and dined with us; and after dinner to talk about a new black cloth suit that I have a making, and so at church time to church again, where the Scott preached, and I slept most of the time. Thence home, and I spent most of the evening upon Fuller’s “Church History” and Barckly’s “Argeny,” and so after supper to prayers and to bed, a little fearing my pain coming back again, myself continuing as costive as ever, and my physic ended, but I had sent a porter to-day for more and it was brought me before I went to bed, and so with pretty good content to bed.

Read the annotations

Links 11/8/26

Links for you. Science:

Do cats fart? An investigation into the mysteries of feline flatulence
This insidious tropical virus has now reached Switzerland as well
Flesh‑eating screwworm is spreading in the US, threatening livestock and wildlife – hunters can be the first line of defense
Spiders Sleep, But Do They Dream?
Big, Beautiful, And Bulging
The Bull And Male Donkey Who Choose Each Other Again And Again (For Sex)
Oldest Evidence of Getting High on Cannabis Discovered In 2,800-Year-Old Tomb: ‘Absolutely Crazy’

Other:

Make bad things bad again
There Is No Place In A Functional Society For Elon Musk
The Texas GOP Went Too Far, and It Cost the Party Everything
Trumpism Is Failing Because It Is Very, Very Stupid
Jim Hightower’s Moment
Goddamn, That Was Satisfying
Democracy Reform Can Begin Today—But We Need Help
Jay Feely’s Congressional Dreams Have Doinked Off The Uprights
What happened? A revolution
Free Press Dumbass Has An AI Whoopsie
Mississippi Goddamn
More States Banned Trans Kids From Sports This Week
Trump touted his Reflecting Pool success. But new problems are visible.
Farewell To The Cybertruck, A Total Failure
Trump’s Triumphal Arch Hits a Blue Wall
Courting Slur-Users Isn’t A Winning Strategy When They Have Slurs For You
Never Get High on Your Own Supply
Trump ally Loomer was paid thousands for political tweets, people familiar say
Jeffries calls Miller a ‘dangerous xenophobe’ after promotion: ‘Fire him today’
‘There Is One Fight’: American Voters Reject Tech Oligarchy
D.C. Officials Hope the Blue Wave Will End the National Guard Deployment
New Polling on Ousting Schumer: Necessary Policy and Smart Politics
Over 200 democracy scholars call on Congress to end single-member Congressional districts and adopt proportional representation
Let the Investigations Begin!
The Arbogast Fallacy
Actually, Democrats Don’t Have to Sacrifice Trans People or Immigrants to Win
How Stephen Miller’s Fixation on Minnesota’s Somalis Became a Full-Scale Crackdown
The American People Just Kicked Donald Trump’s Ass
Standoff Over D.C. Council Seat Ends Peacefully, Maybe Not Happily
Democrats Crushed Trump. Here’s What They Should Do Next.

w/e 2026-11-08

I was going to go and see Life Without Buildings play in London later in the month, but decided the logistics were getting a bit complicated (and expensive; train, hotel) just for one gig. So I sold the ticket via the approved service, Twickets.

Which was a bit of a pain – having to upload the same PDF three times for some reason – and also required having a PayPal account. I closed mine a while back because I never used it, and this meant I didn’t have to worry about whether emails from “PayPal” were scams or not. So I set up a new account, with a temporary email address, verified my identity with a face scan and driving licence, all to receive about £35. I hope. They’re still verifying me. “You must have a PayPal account to sell a gig ticket,” is another little thing for Burnham to fix, thanks.

Anyway, as some consolation, I’ve bought the recently-released album of 2000 and 2001 Xfm sessions (long before I was even aware of the band):


§ Proper foggy here overnight. Driving home in the dark last night was a very careful, sub-20mph, journey. Even on these familiar, very quiet, country roads it was easy to take a wrong turn or veer too close to the edge.

But today that cleared up and it’s been still, with clear skies, and sunshine illuminating the autumn colours. Had a nice walk round the roads, seeing only three cars in 1h 45m.

A photo looking over a hedge across a field down into a valley covered in green and brown farmland. A few sheep dot the field, and a couple of houses are in the middle distance on the left. The sky is blue with a few fluffy clouds, and most trees are bare or covered in brown autumn leaves.

§ Loft mice update: another two or three caught (they’re all blurring together now), a couple of traps tripped but empty, and one trap disappeared entirely 😬. We put a wildlife camera up there which has mainly reassured us that, despite the surprisingly loud noises, there doesn’t appear to be anything larger than mice up there.


§ In other home news, I was measuring the kitchen when I peeked into the little gap in a cupboard to check the position of the stopcock and realised the pipe was dripping. Who knows how many weeks or months it had been doing that.

I removed the prepper-level stash of tinned food and the wooden shelves from the cupboard and turned the stopcock but that only added a bigger drip from the tap itself, as well as the joint behind it.

I went outside and, aided by a helpful council worker who was spraying cryptic markings on the road in preparation for surface dressing next year, turned off the water using a quarter-turn tap at arms-length in a hole in the verge. Which was a relief but my levels of panic were still quite high, wondering how to actually get this all fixed.

Back inside, the tap had stopped leaking but the pipe was still dripping. There wasn’t room between the leak and the cupboard’s bottom shelf to put anything to catch the water, and the shelf was not going to move. So I used the tools available – a hand jigsaw and a hammer-and-chisel – to hack a hole in the back of the shelf big enough for a saucepan.

A couple of phone calls later and the plumber who lives a few houses away, who we’ve never previously called on, promised to come round the next day. He did, he was lovely, and he replaced a length of pipe and the tap without fuss. Satisfyingly anti-climactic.

We’re leaving the cupboard door open, hoping that however damp whatever things have got back there, they will dry out without permanent damage.


§ I was measuring the kitchen because after years of dithering we’re thinking, again, of maybe “re-doing the kitchen” next year. I needed to make a plan of the room and current layout to send to some designers-and-makers.

I wasn’t sure what to draw the plan in. I’ve used Floorplanner quite a bit for general plans of the house (it’s been surprisingly useful to have a fairly accurate plan of the house available). But it’s a bit hit-and-miss when it comes to furniture and I wanted more control over exactly what measurements to display.

Sweet Home 3D is another one I’d heard of but it seemed like the open source package had been sold and was now pay-for, but maybe you could download the open source version from Sourceforge but maybe it had a virus, and that was all too confusing.

OpenPlan3D is a free, open source, online tool which is really good. It doesn’t seem quite as detailed as Floorplanner but has lots of other nice features, including importing 3D models. I started using that but, again, it wasn’t going to give me the control I wanted over the final output.

So I resorted to the old reliable OmniGraffle, which I used to use for layout out websites and pages and so is my go-to for any kind of diagram. Once I reminded myself how to use it, it worked pretty well. Being rigorous with keeping things divided into organised layers, and locking the ones you’re not working on, is key.


§ We also had a visit from a guy from the heat pump installer, checking everything was OK, and doing a hand-over now we’d had time to try it. He answered lots of questions (many as a result of my dive into Home Assistant) and got the three new, bigger, radiators working – the installers just hadn’t turned a screw on all of the non-TRV ends 🙄


§ On the one hand, it’s very sad that Salon is closing after 31 years. On the other, whenever I came across a link to an article there – once a year? – I was surprised it was still going.

Back in 1998/9, while working at Capital Radio, I used to print out articles from Salon to read over lunch in the tiny canteen upstairs – no smartphones etc. back then – partly to provide an excuse to not have to talk to anyone too much.

At least the Wayback Machine can still provide the Proustian rushes.


§ We watched the seventh Mission: Impossible, Dead Reckoning, this week which was a good one. Nonsense but it just felt more fun, non-stop, than the previous one. Hayley Atwell was great but I wish Pom Klementieff’s relentless character had had more screen time.


§ The to-do list is still too long (too-to-do?) what with one-thing-and-another getting in the way of planned tasks this week, again. Mary is off to Nepal for a month this week, again, so it’ll just be me, the cat, my tasks (and maybe a decorator) here for a while.


Read comments or post one

Sunday assorted links

1. Among the Wagner fanatics.

2. Does AI instead commodify jobs?

3. The digital world is making Islam more diverse (The Economist).

4. “An affair with an economist exposed the calculus of modern dating.” (New Yorker)

5. “How Much Economic Value Do AI Systems Produce per Unit of Energy?”

6. John Gray will be writing a column for Unherd.

7. How France took over basketball (New Yorker).

8. “If existing AI capabilities are widely adopted, they could double research output in some fields.”

9. “Canvas is why students prefer AI over you.“

The post Sunday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

In Case You Missed It…

…a week of Mad Biologist posts:

Who Vets Democratic Politicians?

A Few Election Day Thoughts

In Crushing Blow to Fascism, Voters Repudiate Republicans

One Hilarious, but Instructive, Wrong Prediction About the Election: The Foie Gras Edition

A Great Week for D.C.’s Crime Stats

Central Pacific Tropical Weather Outlook


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


000
ACPN50 PHFO 101128
TWOCP

Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS Central Pacific Hurricane Center Honolulu HI
Issued by NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
200 AM HST Tue Nov 10 2026

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

Active Systems:
The National Hurricane Center is issuing advisories on Tropical
Storm Pena, located several hundred miles south-southwest of
Honolulu, Hawaii.

Tropical cyclone formation is not expected during the next 7 days.

$$
Forecaster Beven
NNNN


datasette #3046: Don't serve link: rel=next HTTP headers to Firefox for HTML pages

datasette #3046: Don't serve link: rel=next HTTP headers to Firefox for HTML pages

I was looking at the Firefox network panel today when I noticed that requests to a Datasette table page were triggering an HTTP prefetch to the next page of rows in that table.

This was happening because Datasette pages serve an HTTP link header like this:

link: <https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures/compound_three_primary_keys?_next=a%2Cd%2Cv>; rel="next"

This is bad. A tiny fraction of the visitors to one of those pages will click the "next" link, which means for everyone else their browser is fetching unnecessary data and the Datasette server is having to render an entire page that then gets thrown away.

I dug in and learned that Firefox has an issue that has been open for 24 years about this behavior...

And one of the early comments on that issue links to my blog post from 2002 complaining about this feature. I hadn't just forgotten that I had written about it, I had forgotten the feature entirely!

Tags: firefox, html, mozilla, datasette

The Pope probably knows this song

The post The Pope probably knows this song appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

 

What I’ve been reading

1. Fredrik deBoer, All in Your Head: Illness as Identity, Trauma as Fashion, and the Desire to be Disordered.  A good book, I am happy to see positions laid out so clearly and starkly.  Is this a radical view, or the mainstream view these days?  Excerpt: “For all of Szasz’s rhetorical flair and provocation, he never offered a plausible account of how a society should treat someone in the throes of severe psychosis, someone who is experiencing visual and auditory hallucinations, operating under intense paranoia, unable to care for themselves, and potentially at risk to themselves or others.”  Here is a good NYT review.  The book is best on mental illness, worst on autism, as the author tries to apply the same hammer all too quickly.

2. Colm Toibin, Homage to Barcelona.  Dates from the early 1990s, but stilll one of the best “single city” books I have read, with Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found being the defining winner of this genre.  The book also has aged very well, with the excesses of tourism being added as a local concern.  A separate point (not mainly at the book, though the book hints at it) is that I had not realized how much Catalonia was one of the very wealthiest parts of Europe circa 1300.

3. Missouri Williams, The Vivisectors.  In the direction of J.G. Ballard and Shirley Jackson, with some Gothic, Hesse, and Hard-Boiled Wonderland tossed in.  There is a weird “The University” in a strange city, and the puzzles multiply.  I found it compelling (good review here) though other reviews are mixed.  It definitely held my attention.

4. Michael Rey and Oriana Zill de Granados, The Havana Syndrome: Secret Weapons, A Government Cover-Up, and the Greatest Spy Mystery of Our Time.  It does seem it is true, it was Russia, and likely it was pulsed microwave weapons.

5. M. John Harrison, The End of Everything.  On the Booker Short List, this broadly resembles science fiction but (again) in the J.G. Ballard direction.  Something has gone wrong in England, aliens of some sort have arrived through what is possibly another dimension, and the infrastructure is starting to crumble…and yet the story remains in the realm of the metaphysical, rather than devolving into science fiction proper.

6. Mathias Énard, Perfecting the Shot.  Inside the mind of a killer assassin, short enough to work and not exhaust the reader with tedium.

And there is Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel N. Rosenberg, Feed the People! Why Industrial Food is Good and How to Make it Even Better.  The book expresses some much-needed sentiments.

Do not forget Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, Equality of Permission: The Politics of Feasible Liberalism.

Fabio Rojas and David de La Torre, Two Visions of the Art World: Competition, Community, and Creative Work, provide a revisionist, anti-Bourdieu account of the art world, stressing its cooperation and community-building as a “dual layer.”

The post What I’ve been reading appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

Related Stories

 

They Voted

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

Atlantic Tropical Weather Outlook


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


000
ABNT20 KNHC 101123
TWOAT

Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
700 AM EST Tue Nov 10 2026

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

Tropical cyclone formation is not expected during the next 7 days.

$$
Forecaster Adams


Eastern Pacific Tropical Weather Outlook


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


000
ABPZ20 KNHC 101128
TWOEP

Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
400 AM PST Tue Nov 10 2026

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

Active Systems:
The National Hurricane Center is issuing advisories on Tropical
Storm Pena, located several hundred miles south-southwest of
Honolulu, Hawaii.

Tropical cyclone formation is not expected during the next 7 days.

$$
Forecaster Beven


Weather Impacts for the Pacific Northwest This Week; Watching the Eastern U.S.