Let's Know Things

This week we talk about radioactive waste, neutrons, and burn while breeding cycles.We also discuss dry casks, radioactive decay, and uranium.Recommended Book: Breakneck by Dan WangTranscriptRadioactive waste, often called nuclear waste, typically falls into one of three categories: low-level waste that contains a small amount of radioactivity that will last a very short time—this is stuff like clothes or tools or rags that have been contaminated—intermediate-level waste, which has been contaminated enough that it requires shielding, and high-level waste, which is very radioactive material that creates a bunch of heat because of all the radioactive decay, so it requires both shield and cooling.Some types of radioactive waste, particularly spent fuel of the kind used in nuclear power plants, can be reprocessed, which means separating it into other types of useful products, including another type of mixed nuclear fuel that can be used in lieu of uranium, though generally not economically unless uranium supplies are low. About a third of all spent nuclear fuel has already been reprocessed in some way.About 4% of even the recyclable stuff, though, doesn’t have that kind of second-life purpose, and that, combined with the medium- and long-lived waste that is quite dangerous to have just sitting around, has to be stored somehow, shielded and maybe cooled, and in some cases for a very long time: some especially long-lived fission products have half-lives that stretch into the hundreds of thousands or millions of years, which means they will be radioactive deep into the future, many times longer than humans have existed as a species.According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, something like 490,000 metric tons of radioactive spent fuel is currently being stored, on a temporary basis, at hundreds of specialized sites around the world. The majority of this radioactive waste is stored in pools of spent fuel water, cooled in that water somewhere near the nuclear reactors where the waste originated. Other waste has been relocated into what’re called dry casks, which are big, barrel-like containers made of several layers of steel, concrete, and other materials, which surround a canister that holds the waste, and the canister is itself surrounded by inert gas. These casks hold and cool waste using natural air convection, so they don’t require any kind of external power or water sources, while other solutions, including storage in water, sometimes does—and often the fuel is initially stored in pools, and is then moved to casks for longer-term storage.Most of the radioactive waste produced today comes in the form of spend fuel from nuclear reactors, which are typically small ceramic pellets made of low-enriched uranium oxide. These pellets are stacked on top of each other and encased in metal, and that creates what’s called a fuel rod.In the US, alone, about 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is created each year, which is just shy of half an olympic sized swimming pool in terms of volume, and in many countries, the non-reuseable stuff is eventually buried, near the surface for the low- to intermediate-level waste, and deeper for high-level waste—deeper, in this context, meaning something like 200-1000 m, which is about 650-3300 feet, beneath the surface.The goal of such burying is to prevent potential leakage that might impact life on the surface, while also taking advantage of the inherent stability and cooler nature of underground spaces which are chosen for their isolation, natural barriers, and water impermeability, and which are also often reinforced with human-made supports and security, blocking everything off and protecting the surrounding area so nothing will access these spaces far into the future, and so that they won’t be broken open by future glaciation or other large-scale impacts, either.What I’d like to talk about today is another potential use and way of dealing with this type of waste, and why a recent, related development in China is being heralded as such a big deal.—An experimental nuclear reactor was built in the Gobi Desert by the Chinese Academy of Sciences Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, and back in 2023 the group achieved its first criticality, got started up, basically, and it has been generating heat through nuclear fission ever since.What that means is that the nuclear reactor did what a nuclear reactor is supposed to do. Most such reactors exist to generate heat, which then creates steam and spins turbines, which generates electricity.What’s special about this reactor, though, is that it is a thorium molten salt reactor, which means it uses thorium instead of uranium as a fuel source, and the thorium is processed into uranium as part of the energy-making process, because thorium only contains trace amounts of fissile material, which isn’t enough to get a power-generating, nuclear chain reaction going.This reactor was able to successfully perform what’s called in-core thorium-to-uranium conversion, which allows the operators to use thorium as fuel, and have that thorium converted into uranium, which is sufficiently fissile to produce nuclear power, inside the core of the reactor. This is an incredibly fiddly process, and requires that the thorium-232 used as fuel absorb a neutron, which turns it into thorium-233. Thorium-233 then decays into protactinium-233, and that, in turn, decays into uranium-233—the fuel that powers the reactor.One innovation here is that this entire process happens inside the reactor, rather than occurring externally, which would require a bunch of supplementary infrastructure to handle fuel fabrication, increasing the amount of space and cost associated with the reactor.Those neutrons required to start the thorium conversion process are provided by small amounts of more fissile material, like enriched uranium-235 or plutonium-239, and the thorium is dissolved in a fluoride salt and becomes a molten mixture that allows it to absorb that necessary neutron, and go through that multi-step decay process, turning into uranium-233. That end-point uranium then releases energy through nuclear fission, and this initiates what’s called a burn while breeding cycle, which means it goes on to produce its own neutrons moving forward, which obviates the need for those other, far more fissile materials that were used to start the chain reaction. All of which makes this process a lot more fuel efficient than other options, dramatically reduces the amount of radioactive waste produced, and allows reactors that use it to operate a lot longer without needing to refuel, which also extends a reactor’s functional life.On that last point, many typical nuclear power plants built over the past handful of decades use pressurized water reactors which have to be periodically shut down so operators can replace spent fuel rods. This new method instead allows the fissile materials to continuously circulate, enabling on-the-fly refueling—so no shut-down, no interruption of operations necessary.This method also requires zero water, which could allow these reactors to be built in more and different locations, as conventional nuclear power plants have typically been built near large water sources, like oceans, because of their cooling needs.China initiated the program that led to the development of this experimental reactor back in 2011, in part because it has vast thorium reserves it wanted to tap in its pursuit of energy independence, and in part because this approach to nuclear energy should, in theory at least, allow plant operators to use existing, spent fuel rods as part of its process, which could be very economically interesting, as they could use the waste from their existing plants to help fuel these new plants, but also take such waste off other governments’ hands, maybe even be paid for it, because those other governments would then no longer need to store the stuff, and China could use it as cheap fuel; win win.Thinking further along, though, maybe the real killer application of this technology is that it allows for the dispersion of nuclear energy without the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. The plants are smaller, they have a passive safety system that disallows the sorts of disasters that we saw in Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island—that sort of thing just can’t happen with this setup—and the fissile materials, aside from those starter materials used to get the initial cycle going, can’t be used to make nuclear weapons.Right now, there’s a fair amount of uranium on the market, but just like oil, that availability is cyclical and controlled by relatively few governments. In the future, that resource could become more scarce, and this reactor setup may become even more valuable as a result, because thorium is a lot cheaper and more abundant, and it’s less tightly controlled because it’s useless from a nuclear weapons standpoint.This is only the very first step on the way toward a potentially thorium-reactor dominated nuclear power industry, and the conversion rate on this experimental model was meager.That said, it is a big step in the right direction, and a solid proof-of-concept, showing that this type of reactor has promise and would probably work scaled-up, as well, and that means the 100MW demonstration reactor China is also building in the Gobi, hoping to prove the concept’s full value by 2035, stands a pretty decent chance of having a good showing.Show Noteshttps://www.deepisolation.com/about-nuclear-waste/where-is-nuclear-waste-nowhttps://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuelhttps://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realitieshttps://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all-the-nuclear-waste-in-the-world/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_managementhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

This week we talk about Venezuela, casus belli, and drug smuggling.We also discuss oil reserves, Maduro, and Machado.Recommended Book: Dungeon Crawler Carl by Matt DinnimanTranscriptVenezuela, which suffered all sorts of political and economic crises under former president Hugo Chávez, has suffered even more of the same, and on a more dramatic scale, under Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro.Both Chávez and Maduro have ruled over autocratic regimes, turning ostensibly democratic Venezuelan governments into governments ruled by a single person, and those they like and empower and reward, over time removing anyone from power who might challenge them, and collapsing all checks and balances within the structure of their government.They still hold elections, then, but like in Russia, the voting is just for show, the outcome predetermined, and anyone who gets too popular and who isn’t favored by the existing regime is jailed or killed or otherwise neutralized; the votes are then adjusted when necessary to make it look like the regime is still popular, and anyone who challenges that seeming popularity is likewise taken care of.As a result of that state of affairs, an unpopular regime with absolute power running things into the ground over the course of two autocrats’ administrations, Venezuela has suffered immense hyperinflation, high levels of crime and widespread disease, ever-increasing mortality rates, and even starvation, as fundamentals like food periodically become scarce. This has led to a swell of emigration out of the country, which has, during the past decade, become the largest ever recorded refugee crisis in the Americas, those who leave mostly flooding into neighboring countries like Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador.As of 2025, it’s estimated that nearly 8 million people, more than 20% of Venezuela’s entire population as of 2017, has fled the country to get away from the government, its policies, its collapsed economy, and the cultural homogeny that has led to so much crime, conflict, and oppression of those not favored by the people in charge.This has also led to some Venezuelans trying to get into the US, which was part of the justification for a proposed invasion of the country, by the US government, under the first Trump administration in 2017.The idea was that this is a corrupt, weak government that also happens to possess the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Its production of oil has collapsed along with everything else, in part because the government is so ineffectual, and in part because of outside forces, like longstanding sanctions by the US, which makes selling and profiting from said oil on the global market difficult.Apparently, though, Trump also just liked the idea of invading Venezuela through US ally Colombia, saying—according to Trump’s National Security advisor at the time, John Bolton—that Venezuela is really part of the US, so it would be “cool” for the US to take it. Trump also later said, in 2023, that when he left office Venezuela was about to collapse, and that he would have taken it over if he had been reelected instead of losing to Joe Biden, and the US would have then kept all the country’s oil.So there’s long been a seeming desire by Trump to invade Venezuela, partly on vibe grounds, the state being weak and why shouldn’t we own it, that kind of thing? But underlying that is the notion of the US being a country that can stomp into weaker countries, take their oil, and then nation-build, similar to what the government seemed to be trying to do when it invaded Iraq in the early 2000s, using 9/11 as a casus belli, an excuse to go to war, with an uninvolved nation that happened to own a bunch of oil resources the US government wanted for itself.What I’d like to talk about today is the seeming resurgence of that narrative, but this time with an, actual tangible reason to believe an invasion of Venezuela might occur sometime soon.—As I mentioned, though previously kind of a success story in South America, bringing people in from all over the continent and the world, Venezuela has substantially weakened under its two recent autocratic leaders, who have rebuilt everything in their image, and made corruption and self-serving the main driver behind their decisions for the direction of the country.A very popular candidate, María Corina Machado, was barred from participating in the country’s 2024 election, the country’s Supreme Court ruling that a 15-year ban on her holding public office because of her involvement with an alleged plot against Maduro with a previous candidate for office, Juan Guaido; Guiado is now in exile, run out of the country for winning an election against Maduro, which Maduro’s government has claimed wasn’t legit, but which dozens of governments recognize as having been legitimate, despite Maduro’s clinging to power after losing.So Machado is accused of being corrupt by Maduro’s corrupt government, and thus isn’t allowed to run for office. Another candidate that she wanted to have run in her place was also declared ineligible by Maduro’s people, so another sub was found, Edmundo González, and basically every outside election watchdog group says that he won in 2024, and handedly, over Maduro. But the government’s official results say that’s not the case, that Maduro won, and that has created even more conflict and chaos in the country as it’s become clearer and clearer that there’s no way to oust the autocrat in control of the government—not through the voting box, at least.This is part of what makes Venezuela an even more appealing target, for the Trump administration, right now, because not only is Maduro incredibly unpopular and running the country into the ground, there’s also a very popular alternative, in the shape of María Corina Machado, who could conceivably take control of things should Maduro be toppled. So there’s a nonzero chance that if someone, like the US military, were to step in and either kill Maduro or run him out of town, they could make a very sweet deal with the incoming Machado government, including a deal that grants access to all that currently underutilized oil wealth.This is theoretical right now, but recent moves by the US government and military suggest it might not remain theoretical for much longer.In mid-November, 2025, the US Navy moved the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to the Caribbean—the USS Gerald R Ford being an aircraft carrier, and the strike group being the array of ships and aircraft that accompany it—it was moved there from the Eastern Mediterranean, where it was moved following the attack on Israel that led to Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip.This, by itself, doesn’t necessarily mean anything; the shifting of aircraft carrier groups is often more symbolic than practical. But the US government has suggested it might us these vessels and aircraft to strike drug manufacturers across South and Central America, and specifically in Venezuela.This is being seen as an escalation of an already fraught moment in the region, because the US has launched a series of strikes against small boats in the area, beginning back in September of 2025.These boats, according to the US government, are drug smuggling vessels, bringing fentanyl, among other drugs, to US shores. So the idea is that the people aboard these boats are criminals who are killing folks in the US by bringing this drug, which is highly addictive and super potent, and thus more likely to kill its users than other opioids, into the country for illegal sale and distribution. So, the claim goes, this is a justified use of force.These strikes have thus far, over the past two months, killed at least 79 people, all alleged by the US government to be drug smugglers, despite some evidence to the contrary, in some cases. The US’s allies have not been happy about these strikes, including allies the government usually relies on to help with drug-related detection and interdiction efforts, including regional governments that take action to keep drugs from shuffling around the region and eventually ending up in the US.Many US allies have also called the strikes illegal. The French foreign minister recently said they violate international law, and the EU’s foreign policy chief said something similar, indicating that such use of force is only valid in cases of self-defense, and when there’s a UN Security council resolution on the matter.Canadian and Dutch governments have been doing what they can to distance themselves from the strikes, without outright criticizing the at times vindictive US government, and some regional allies, like Colombia, have been signaling that they’ll be less cooperative with the US when it comes to drug-related issues, saying that they would no longer share intelligence with the US until they stop the strikes, which they’ve called “extrajudicial executions.”An extrajudicial killing is one that is not lawful; it doesn’t have the backing of a judicial proceeding, and thus lacks the authority typically granted by the proper facets of a government. Lacking such authority, killing is illegal. Given said authority, though, a killing can be made legal, at least according to the laws of the government doing the killing.The argument here is that while governments can usually get away with killing people, only authoritarian regimes typically and regularly to use that power to kill folks without going through the proper channels and thus getting the legal authority to do so.In this case, the facts seem to support the accusations of those who are saying these killings aren’t legally legitimate: the Trump administration has launched these attacks on these vessels without going through the usual channels, and without declaring Congressionally approved war on anyone in particular. They’ve instead claimed that drug cartels are terrorists, and have said that anyone they suspect of smuggling drugs, or who they suspect in any way might be involved with the illegal d

This week we talk about OxyContin, opium, and the British East India Company.We also discuss isotonitazene, fentanyl, and Perdue.Recommended Book: The Thinking Machine by Stephen WittTranscriptOpioids have been used as painkillers by humans since at least the Neolithic period; there’s evidence that people living in the Iberian and Italian Peninsulas kept opium poppy seeds with them, and there’s even more evidence that the Ancient Greeks were big fans of opium, using it to treat pain and as a sleep aid.Opium was the only available opioid for most of human history, and it was almost always considered to be a net-positive, despite its downsides. It was incorporated into a mixture called laudanum, which was a blend of opium and alcohol, in the 17th century, and that helped it spread globally as Europeans spread globally, though it was also in use locally, elsewhere, especially in regions where the opium poppy grew naturally.In India, for instance, opium was grown and often used for its painkilling properties, but when the British East India Company took over, they decided to double-down on the substance as a product they could monopolize and grow into a globe-spanning enterprise.They went to great lengths to expand production and prevent the rise of potential competitors, in India and elsewhere, and they created new markets for opium in China by forcing the product onto Chinese markets, initially via smuggling, and then eventually, after fighting a series of wars focused on whether or not the British should be allowed to sell opium on the Chinese market, the British defeated the Chinese. And among other severely unbalanced new treaties, including the ceding of the Kowloon peninsula to the British as part of Hong Kong, which they controlled as a trading port, and the legalization of Christians coming into the country, proselytizing, and owning property, the Chinese were forced to accept the opium trade. This led to generations of addicts, even more so than before, when opium was available only illicitly, and it became a major bone of contention between the two countries, and informed China’s relationship with the world in general, especially other Europeans and the US, moving forward.A little bit later, in the early 1800s, a German pharmacist was able to isolate a substance called morphine from opium. He published a paper on this process in 1817, and in addition to this being the first alkaloid, the first organic compound of this kind to be isolated from a medicinal plant, which was a milestone in the development of modern drug discovery, it also marked the arrival of a new seeming wonder drug, that could ease pain, but also help control cold-related symptoms like coughing and gut issues, like diarrhea. Like many such substances back in the day, it was also often used to treat women who were demonstrating ‘nervous character,’ which was code for ‘behaving in ways men didn’t like or understand.’Initially, it was thought that, unlike with opium, morphine wasn’t addictive. And this thinking was premised on the novel application method often used for morphine, the hypermedia needle, which arrived a half-century after that early 1800s isolation of morphine from opium, but which became a major driver of the new drug’s success and utility. Such drugs, derived scientifically rather than just processing a plant, could be administered at specific, controllable doses. So surely, it was thought, this would alleviate those pesky addictive symptoms that many people experienced when using opioids in a more natural, less science-y way.That, of course, turned out not to be the case. But it didn’t stop the progression of this drug type, and the further development of more derivations of it, including powerful synthetic opioids, which first hit the scene in the mid-20th century.What I’d like to talk about today is the recent wave of opioid addictions, especially but not exclusively in the US, and the newest concern in this space, which is massively more powerful than anything that’s come before.—As I mentioned, there have been surges in opioid use, latent and externally forced, throughout modern human history.The Chinese saw an intense wave of opioid addiction after the British forced opium onto their markets, to the point that there was a commonly held belief that the British were trying to overthrow and enslave the Chinese by weighing them down with so many addicts who were incapable of doing much of anything; which, while not backed by the documentation we have from the era—it seems like they were just chasing profits—is not impossible, given what the Brits were up to around the world at that point in history.That said, there was a huge influx in opioid use in the late-1980s, when a US-based company called Purdue Pharma began producing and pushing a time-released opioid medication, which really hit the big-time in 1995, when they released a version of the drug called OxyContin.OxyContin flooded the market, in part because it promised to help prevent addiction and accidental overdose, and in part because Purdue was just really, really good at marketing it; among other questionable and outright illegal things it did as part of that marketing push, it gave kickbacks to doctors who prescribed it, and some doctors did so, a lot, even when patients didn’t need it, or were clearly becoming addicted.By the early 2000s, Purdue, and the Sackler family that owned the company, was spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to push this drug, and they were making billions a year in sales.Eventually the nature of Purdue’s efforts came to light, there were a bunch of trials and other legal hearings, some investigative journalists exposed Purdue’s foreknowledge of their drug’s flaws, and there was a big government investigation and some major lawsuits that caused the collapse of the company in 2019—though they rebranded in 2021, becoming Knoa Pharma.All of which is interesting because much like the forced legalization of opium on Chinese markets led to their opioid crisis a long time ago, the arrival of this incredibly, artificially popular drug on the US market led to the US’s opioid crisis.The current bogeyman in the world of opioids—and I say current because this is a fast-moving space, with new, increasingly powerful or in some cases just a lot cheaper drugs arriving on the scene all the time—is fentanyl, which is a synthetic opioid that’s about 30-50 times more potent than heroin, and about 100 times as potent as morphine. It has been traditionally used in the treatment of cancer patients and as a sedative, and because of how powerful it is, a very small amount serves to achieve the desired, painkilling effect.But just like other opioids, its administration can lead to addiction, people who use it can become dependent and need more and more of it to get the same effects, and people who have too much of it can experience adverse effects, including, eventually, death.This drug has been in use since the 1960s, but illicit use of fentanyl began back in the mid-1970s, initially as its own thing, but eventually to be mixed in with other drugs, like heroin, especially low-quality versions of those drugs, because a very small amount of fentanyl can have an incredibly large and potent effect, making those other drugs seem higher quality than they are.That utility is also this drug’s major issue, though: it’s so potent that a small amount of it can kill, and even people with high opioid tolerances can see those tolerances pushed up and up and up until they eventually take a too-large, killing dose.There have been numerous efforts to control the flow of fentanyl into the US, and beginning in the mid-20-teens, there were high-profile seizures of the illicitly produced stuff around the country. As of mid-2025, China seems to be the primary source of most illicit fentanyl around the world, the drug precursor produced in China, shipped to Mexico where it’s finalized and made ready for market, and then smuggled into the US.There have been efforts to shut down this supply chain, including recent tariffs put on Chinese goods, ostensibly, in part at least, to get China to handle those precursor suppliers.Even if that effort eventually bears fruit, though, India seems to have recently become an alternative source of those precursors for Mexican drug cartels, and for several years they’ve been creating new markets for their output in other countries, like Nigeria, Indonesia, and the Netherlands, as well.Amidst all that, a new synthetic drug, which is 40-times as potent as fentanyl, is starting to arrive in the US, Europe, and Australia, and has already been blamed for thousands of deaths—and it’s thought that that number might be a significant undercount, because of how difficult it can be to attribute cause with these sorts of drugs.Nitazenes were originally synthesized back in the 1950s in Austria, and they were never sold as painkillers because they were known, from the get-go, to be too addictive, and to have a bad tradeoff ratio: a little bit of benefit, but a high likelihood of respiratory depression, which is a common cause of death for opioid addicts, or those who accidentally overdose on an opioid.One nitazene, called isotonitazene, first showed up on US drug enforcement agency radars back in 2019, when a shipment was intercepted in the Midwest. Other agencies noted the same across the US and Europe in subsequent years, and this class of drugs has now become widespread in these areas, and in Australia.It’s thought that nitazenes might be seeing a surge in popularity with illicit drugmakers because their potency can be amped up so far, way, way higher than even fentanyl, and because their effects are similar in many ways to heroin.They can also use them they way they use fentanyl, a tiny bit blended into lower-quality versions of other drugs, like cocaine, which can save money while also getting their customers, who may not know what they’re buying,

This week we talk about Mach 1, the Bell X-1, and the Concorde.We also discuss the X-59, the Tu-144, and Boom Supersonic.Recommended Book: Red Team Blues by Cory DoctorowTranscriptThe term “supersonic,” when applied to speed, refers to something moving faster than the speed of sound—a speed that is shorthanded as Mach 1.The precise Mach 1 speed of sound will be different depending on the nature of the medium through which an object is traveling. So if you’re moving at sea level versus up high in the air, in the stratosphere, the speed of sound will be different. Likewise if you’re moving through moist air versus dry air, or moving through water versus moving through syrup, different speed of sound, different Mach 1.In general, though, to give a basic sense of how fast we’re talking here, if an object is moving at sea level through dry air at a temperature of 20 degrees celsius, which is 68 degrees fahrenheit, Mach 1 is about 768 miles per hour, which is about 1,126 feet per second, and 343.2 meters per second.It’s fast! It’s very fast. Again, this is the speed at which sound moves. So if you surpass the speed of sound, if you go supersonic, you will arrive faster than the sound you make while moving.Back in 1947, an experimental American plane called the Bell X-1 broke the sound barrier, surpassed Mach 1, reaching a speed of almost 1,000 miles per hour using a 6,000 pound thrust rocket propulsion system. A later version of the same rocket-powered plane, the Bell X-1A, which was basically the same vehicle, it just had more fuel capacity, allowing the rocket to burn longer, achieved 1,600 miles per hour in 1956.Prior to that, in 1943, British began working on a secret experimental aircraft called the Miles M.52, intending to build a plane capable of traveling 1,000 mph. Interestingly, this project was apparently the result of the British wanting to keep up with a supposed already existing German aircraft capable of achieving that speed, though it’s now believed the intelligence that led the British to believe the Germans had a supersonic-capable plane was the result of a mistranslation—the Germans hit 1,000 km per hour, which is about 621 mph, and still subsonic.Though apparently a success in terms of research and innovation, the Miles M.52 project was cancelled in 1946, due partly to budgetary concerns, and partly because the new government didn’t believe supersonic aircraft were practical, or maybe even feasible.After the existence of this project was revealed to the public, however, criticism for the cancellation mounted, and the design was translated into new, unmanned scale-model experimental versions of the plane which achieved controlled Mach 1.38 supersonic speeds, and both the design and research from this program was shared with the American company, Bell, and all that knowledge informed the development of the aforementioned Bell X-1 supersonic plane.Again, that successful Bell mission was flown in 1947, and in 1961, a Douglas jetliner, a commercial jet, broke the sound barrier during a controlled test dive, and that fed the development of an intended supersonic airliner in the US, though similar research being conducted elsewhere would bear more direct and immediate fruit.In the Soviet Union, a supersonic jetliner called the Tupolev Tu-144 entered service in 1968, and a jetliner co-developed by the British and French, the Concorde, began construction in 1965, and tallied its first flight in March of 1969.The Tu-144 was thus the world’s first commercial supersonic airliner, by a few months, and it also became the first commercial transport to exceed Mach 2, twice the speed of sound, in 1970.The Tu-144 was plagued by reliability issues from the get-go, however, and while performing maneuvers at an air show in Paris in 1973, it disintegrated in midair, which—combined with its high operating costs reduced its long-term market viability, especially internationally. By the mid-1970s, it was primarily operating within the Soviet Union, and after a new variant of the jet crashed in 1978, the Tu-144 program was cancelled in 1983. Existing models continued to be use for niche purposes, like training space program pilots, and for a supersonic research program undertaken by NASA in the late-1990s, but the final Tu-144 flight was in mid-1999, and all surviving aircraft are now on display or in storage.The Concorde has a similar history. Original forecasts for the supersonic airliner market were optimistic, and while the craft seemed to be generally more reliable and less issue-prone than the Tu-144, and it enjoyed a period of fanfare and promotion, as a sort of luxury experience for folks crossing the Atlantic in particular, cutting travel times in half, a major crash in mid-2000, which killed all 109 occupants and four people on the ground, led to the suspension of service until late-2001, and all remaining Concorde aircraft were retired in 2003—about 20 of them are on display throughout North American and Europe, as of the mid-2020s.The costs associated with operating Concorde aircraft, as with the Tu-144, were also quite high, and those costs and other complications led to the cancellation of a would-be supersonic jetliner competitor from Boeing, the 2707, in 1971, before it built any prototypes.What I’d like to talk about today is a renewed enthusiasm for supersonic passenger aircraft, and what’s changed that might make supersonic transport a viable market, today.—In the United States, commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly at supersonic speeds. This is because the sonic booms generated by supersonic flight, which are shockwaves that work a bit like the crack of a bullwhip or the firing of a bullet, but much, much larger, can set off alarms, rattle or shatter windows, and generally create all sorts of chaos on the ground, even in areas not directly under the aircraft that’s breaking the sound barrier.This was true even during the heyday of the Concorde: the craft was only allowed to travel at supersonic speeds over the ocean, because doing so over populated areas was such a pain, and in some cases, a danger.Sonic booms aren’t the only reason supersonic aircraft like the Concorde failed to establish a long-term presence in the airline industry, but they’re a big part of it. It’s just really difficult to work around that kind of persistent issue.This is why a new experimental project by NASA, the X-59 Quesst, with two-s’s, Quesst standing for Quiet SuperSonic Technology, is garnering so much attention. Built by Lockheed Martin, the X-59 is said to dramatically reduce the scale of sonic booms, instead producing what’s been described as a sonic thump, its long, slender nose breaking up the pressure waves that otherwise build up and create that much larger, more impactful shock wave boom, and its engine is on top of the plane rather than underneath it, a design choice that sends the majority of remaining shock wave impacts upward toward the sky, rather than down toward the ground.The X-59 is still just an experimental jet. It’s a single-seater, it’s about twice as long as an F-16 fighter jet, and it can cruise at around 925 miles per hours, which is Mach 1.4.It’s hoped that this new design will allow for the creation of future supersonic jetliners, though, as being able to traverse oceans twice as fast would bring massive economic benefits, in terms of shipping people, but also all kinds of goods. Being able to use these aircraft fully, at their full speed, over land and to and from any airport, would likewise make them more versatile and introduce new benefits and, hopefully, favorable economics.Worth noting here is that this jet is a descendent of that first Bell X-1 plane that broke the sound barrier in 1947; NASA’s X-planes are innovative models meant to push the boundaries of what’s currently possible, and the X-59 is just a more modern version of that initial X-1 conception in many ways.That said, the X-59 has only been successfully flown at low speeds and altitudes at this point. It got a lot of press at the end of October 2025 for successfully completing its first flight, which shows it can fly and land, which is good. But its inaugural flight stuck with a low altitude and just 240 miles per hour; really slow for a jet, and too low for a commercial airliner.The folks behind this project have also said that while they have every reason to believe this design will both work and create a far less impactful sonic boom, they don’t yet know if that boom will actually be tolerable for people on the ground. Simulating such things is different from the experience of them, and they won’t know until they power the thing all the way up and have it break the sound barrier whether the sonic thump will be barely noticeable and tolerable for folks near airports and flight paths, or if it will be better, but still not good enough to make this a viable alternative to existing jets.There are other entities working on similar things right now, including a company called Boom Supersonic that has already flown a piloted demonstration aircraft, the XB-1, at supersonic speeds—Mac 1.122, which is about 750 mph—at an altitude of over 35,000 feet; the first time a non-government-affiliated aircraft has done so.That was back in March of 2024, and the company plans to build a commercial supersonic aircraft that will carry between 64 and 80 passengers at Mach 1.7, on hundreds of global routes; they say they already have a large number of orders for this passenger aircraft they intend to build, and they say to begin with, they’ll be able to produce 66 of them per year from their factory in North Carolina. They say that they’ll have the first full-scale prototype of that passenger aircraft, called the Overture, in 2027, and they’re aiming to put that craft into service beginning in 2029 or 2030.They’re not the only private company aiming to produce supersonic aircraft for various purposes, either. The promise of moving people and thi

This week we talk about robots, call center workers, and convenience stores.We also discuss investors, chatbots, and job markets.Recommended Book: The Fourth Consort by Edward AshtonTranscriptThough LLM-based generative AI software, like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, are becoming more and more powerful by the month, and offering newfangled functionality seemingly every day, it’s still anything but certain these tools, and the chatbots they power, will take gobs of jobs from human beings.The tale that’s being told by upper-management at a lot of companies makes it seem like this is inevitable, though there would seem to be market incentives for them to both talk and act like this is the case.Companies that make new, splashy investments in AI tech, or which make deals with big AI companies, purporting to further empower their offerings and to “rightsize” their staff as a consequence, tend to see small to moderate bumps in their stock price, and that’s good for the execs and other management in those companies, many of whom own a lot of stock, or have performance incentives related to the price of their stock built into their larger pay package.But often, not always, but quite a lot of the time, the increased effectiveness and efficiencies claimed by these higher-ups after they go on a firing spree and introduce new AI tools, seem to be at least partly, and in some cases mostly attributable to basically just threatening their staff with being fired in a difficult labor market.When Google executives lay off 5 or 10% of their staff on a given team, for instance, and then gently urge those who survived the cull to come to the office more frequently rather than working from home, and tell them that 60 hours a week is the sweet spot for achieving their productivity goals, that will tend to lead to greater outputs—at least for a while. Same as any other industry where blood has been drawn and a threat is made if people don’t live up to a casually stated standard presented by the person drawing that blood.Also worth mentioning here is that many of the people introducing these tools, both into their own companies and into the market as a whole, seem to think most jobs can be done by AI systems, but not theirs. Many executives have outright said that future businesses will have a small number of people managing a bunch of AI bots, and at least a few investors have said that they believe most jobs can be automated, but investing is too specialized and sophisticated, and will likely remain the domain of clever human beings like themselves.All of which gestures at what we’re seeing in labor markets around the globe right now, where demands for new hires are becoming more intense and a whole lot of low-level jobs in particular are disappearing entirely—though in most cases this is not because of AI, or not just, but instead because of automation more broadly; something that AI is contributing to, but something that is also a lot bigger than AI.And that’s what I’d like to talk about today. The rapid-speed deployment, in some industries and countries, at least, of automated systems, of robots, basically, and how this is likely to impact the already ailing labor markets in the places that are seeing the spearpoint of this deployment.—Chatbots are AI tools that are capable of taking input from users and responding with often quite human-sounding text, and increasingly, audio as well.These bots are the bane of some customers who are looking to speak to a human about some unique need or problem, but who are instead forced to run a gauntlet of AI-powered bots. The interaction often happens in the same little chat window through which they’ll eventually, if they say the right magic words, reach a human being capable of actually helping them. And like so many of the AI innovations that have been broadly deployed at this point, this is a solution that’s generally hated by customers, but lauded by the folks who run these companies, because it saves them a lot of money if they can hire fewer human beings to handle support tickets, even if those savings are the result of most people giving up before successfully navigating the AI maze and reaching a human customer support worker.In India right now, the thriving call center industry is seeing early signs of disruption from the same. IT training centers, in particular, are experimenting with using audio-capable AI chatbots instead of human employees, in part because demand is so high, but also, increasingly, because doing so is cheaper than hiring actual human beings to do the same work.One such company, LimeChat, recently said that it plans to cut its employee base by 80% in the near-future, and if that experiment is successful, this could ripple through India’s $283 billion IT sector, which accounts for 7.5% of India’s GDP. Hiring growth in this sector already collapsed in 2024 and 2025, and again, while this shift seems to be pretty good for the balance books of the companies doing less hiring and more firing as they deploy more AI systems, it’s very not good for the often younger people who take these jobs, specializing in call center IT work, only to find that the market no longer demands their skill sets.Along the same lines, but in a perhaps more surprising industry, some convenience stores in Japan are deploying robots to manage their back rooms, where the products that end up available out front are unloaded, tallied, and shelved.These robots, which are basically just arms on poles, sometimes attached to wheeled bases, for moving around, sometimes not, are operated by AI, but are also continuously monitored by human employees in the Philippines. Each worker, who can be paid a lot less than an entry-level, young Japanese person would expect to be paid, monitors about 50 machines at a time, and steps in, using virtual reality gear to control the robots, if one of them gets stuck or drops something; which apparently happens about 4% of the time.This is akin to offshoring of the kind we’ve seen since the early 2000s, when the dawn of technological globalization made China the factory of the world and everything shifted from a model of local production and the stockpiling of components, to a last-minute, supply-chain oriented model that allowed companies to move all their manufacturing and some of their services to wherever it could be done the cheapest.Many people and companies benefitted from this arbitrage to some degree, though many regions have dried up as a result of this shift, because, for instance, former company towns where cars were produced no longer have the resources to keep infrastructure from degrading, and no longer have enough jobs to keep young people from moving away; brain drain can become pretty intense when there’s no economic reason to stay.This reality is expected to become more widespread, even beyond former manufacturing hubs, because of the deployment of both AI systems, which can be subbed-in for many remote jobs, like call center work, programming, and the like, but also because of increasingly sophisticated and capable robots, which can do more automated work, which in turn allows them to be monitored, sometimes remotely, like those Japanese convenience store robots, for a fraction of the price of hiring a human being.This shift is expected to be especially harrowing for teens hoping to enter the labor market in entry-level jobs, as responsibilities like shelf-stocking and product scanning and the loading and unloading of materials are increasingly automatable, as robots capable of doing this work are developed and deployed, and perhaps even more importantly, as systems that augment that automatability are developed and deployed.In practice, that means coming up with shipping processes and other non-tangible systems that lean into the strengths of today’s automated systems, while reducing the impact of their weaknesses.Amazon is in prime position to do exactly this, as they’ve already done so much to rewire global shipping channels so that they can deliver products as rapidly as possible, to as many places as possible. As a result, they control many of the variables within these channels, which in turn means they can tweak them further, so that they’re optimized to work with Amazon’s specialized automated systems, rather than just human ones.The company has stated, in internal documents, that it plans to automate 75% of its total operations, and it currently has nearly 1.2 million employees. That’s triple what it employed in 2018, and it’s expected that the automated systems it has already and will soon deploy will allow it to hire 160,000 fewer people than planned by 2027.Even though the company expects to sell twice as many products by 2033, then, it expects to hire 600,000 fewer people by that same year. And it’s so confident in its ability to make this happen that it’s already making plans to rebuild its image in the aftermath of what’s expected to be a really difficult period of people hating it. It’s planning significant branding efforts, meant to help it seem like a good corporate citizens, including sponsored community events and big donations to children’s programs.It’s also intending to frame this shift as an evolution in which robots are amplifying the efforts of human employees. Rather than calling their automated systems robots, they might call them ‘cobots,’ for instance.Amazon has contended that the internal documents in which these plans were outlined, those documents acquired and reported upon by the New York Times, are incomplete and not an accurate representation of what Amazon plans, and they said those branding efforts are not a response to hate related to their automation efforts, they just like spending money on nice things for communities.The net-impact of existing efforts of this kind, though, is to deplete local job markets where these big companies dominate, and to make the jobs that survive a lot higher-end, requiring more techn

This week we talk about entanglements, monopolies, and illusory money.We also discuss electrification, LLMs, and data centers.Recommended Book: The Extinction of Experience by Christine RosenTranscriptOne of the big claims about artificial intelligence technologies, including but not limited to LLM-based generative AI tech, like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, is that they will serve as universal amplifiers.Electricity is another universal amplifier, in that electrifying systems allows you to get a lot more from pretty much every single thing you do, while also allowing for the creation of entirely new systems.Cooking things in the kitchen? Much easier with electricity. Producing things on an assembly line? The introduction of electricity allows you to introduce all sorts of robotics, measuring tools, and safety measures that would not have otherwise been available, and all of these things make the entire process safer, cheaper, and a heck of a lot more effective and efficient.The prime argument behind many sky-high AI company valuations, then, is that if these things evolve in the way they could evolve, becoming increasingly capable and versatile and cheap, cooking could become even easier, manufacturing could become still faster, cheaper, and safer, and every other aspect of society and the economy would see similar gains.If you’re the people making AI, if you own these tools, or a share of the income derived from them, that’s a potentially huge pot of money: a big return on your investment. People make fortunes off far more focused, less-impactful companies and technologies all the time, and being able to create the next big thing in not just one space, but every space? Every aspect of everything, potentially? That’s like owning a share of electricity, and making money every time anyone uses electricity for anything.Through that lens, the big boom in both use of and investment in AI technologies maybe shouldn’t be so surprising. This represents a potentially generational sea-change in how everything works, what the economy looks like, maybe even how governments are run, militaries fight, and so on. If you can throw money into the mix, why wouldn’t you? And if that’s the case, the billions upon billions of dollars sloshing around in this corner of the tech world make a lot of sense; it may be curious that there’s not even more money being invested.Belief in that promise is not universal, however.A lot of people see these technologies not as the next electricity, but maybe the next smartphone, or perhaps the next SUV.Smartphones changed a whole lot about society too, but they’re hardly the same groundbreaking, omni-powerful upgrade that electricity represents.SUVs, too, flogged sales for flailing car companies, boosting their revenues at a moment in which they desperately needed to sell more vehicles to survive. But they were just another, more popular model of what already came before. There’s a chance AI will be similar to that: better software than came before, for some people’s use-cases—but not revolutionary, not groundbreaking even on the scale of pocketable phone-computers.What I’d like to talk about today are the peculiar economics that seem to be playing a role in the AI boom, and why many analysts and financial experts are eyeballing these economics warily, worrying about what they maybe represent, and possibly portend.—The term ‘exuberance,’ in the context of markets, refers to an excitement among investors—sometimes professional investors, sometimes casual investors, sometimes both—about a particular company, technology, or financial product type.The surge in interest and investment in cryptoassets during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, including offshoot products like NFTs, was seemingly caused by a period of exuberance, sparked by the novelty of the product, the riches a few lucky insiders made off these products, and the desire by many people—pros and consumer-grade investors—to get in on that action, at a moment in which there wasn’t as much to do in the world as usual.Likewise, the gobs of money plowed into early internet companies, and the money thrown at companies laying fiberoptic cable for the presumed boom in internet customers, were, in retrospect, at least partly the consequence of irrational exuberance.In some cases these investors were just too early, as was the case with those cable-laying companies—the majority of them going out of business after blowing through a spectacular amount of money in a short period of time, and not finding enough paying customers to fund all that expansion—in others it was the result of sky-high valuations that were based on little beyond the exuberance of investors who probably should have known better, but who couldn’t get past their fear of missing out on the next big thing.In that latter case, that flow of money into early dotcom startups did fund a few winners that survived the eventual bursting of that bubble, but the majority of companies tagged with those massive valuations went out of business in part because their valuations were based in part on optimism, hot air, and illusory financials.Which is to say, their financials were based on a lot of money being added to their account sheets and tallied in the places investors would see those numbers, but the numbers didn’t mean what most people thought they meant.A company could receive tens of millions of dollars in orders, for instance, but that money and those orders might never be received and fulfilled, or that money might be mostly illusory: maybe it was borrowed from another company to spend on advertising, and that money would then go right back out the door, to the company from which it was borrowed, to pay for their ad services.That kind of arrangement could be beneficial, as the company doing the borrowing might give up a relatively small number of shares in exchange for money, which looks good on its balance sheet, especially if the money is given at a high valuation, even if that money was mostly just a loan from a company providing ad services, with the full knowledge that money would then be spent on their own ad services. And the ad company giving the money could usually afford to buy in at a high valuation, because it knows it will get that money right back, and when it does, it will get to record that money as income on its own balance sheets.So Company A gets millions of dollars from Company B, that money is then paid to Company B for some type of service, and both companies get to record favorable figures on their accounting sheets, as if real sales took place and real outside money changed hands, despite it being a circular move, with very little or no actual value being created.These sorts of relationships are also often good for investors in companies that do this sort of thing, because it makes their investments, the companies they’ve bought into, look even more valuable.Check it out, Company A, which I own shares in, is worth more than it was last month because of all the business it’s conducting, and because this other company bought into it at a higher price per share than I paid! Even though that increase in valuation is predicated on circular financing, the numbers still go up, and they go up for everyone involved, so there’s little reason to crack down on this not illegal, but shady behavior, and even less reason to want anyone else to know about it, because then they might not add their own money to the circular money-cycling, number-increasing machine.The major concern amongst some analysts right now is that the AI boom, especially in the United States, might be essentially this kind of circular cycle, but much larger than previous versions of the same.In the US right now, investment in AI infrastructure like data centers accounts for a huge portion of overall growth—the numbers vary, depending on who you ask and what numbers they look at, but some say that about 90% of total US economic growth, and around 80% of US stock market growth, are predicated on these sorts of investments this past year. Without these investments, the US economy would be basically flat, or worse, and the US stock market would be flailing as well.This situation isn’t ideal whatever the specifics, as too much reliance on just one industry, or one small collection of industries dominated by just a handful of companies and their investors, makes for a precarious financial foundation.If anything goes wrong with just one company, the whole house of cards could collapse. And if anything goes wrong with the industry, things could get even worse, and fast. All that investment, all that construction, all those employees and all that money sloshing around could disappear, could stop being spent, could make all those numbers fall and fall and fall more or less overnight.If this industry is in fact in a bubble, and if it’s being propped up by this kind of circular financing, where companies are fluffing up their own and each other’s accounting books by rotating the same bundle of money and on-paper money from company to company to company, that would portend pretty bad things for the US economy and market, if anyone involved stumbles, even just a little.This is why recent deals between the biggest players in this space are raising so many eyebrows, and causing so much sweat to bead on so many foreheads.In September of 2025, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI announced it had formalized a $100 billion investment deal with AI chipmaker Nvidia, the latter expanding on its existing investment in the former. In October, OpenAI announced it was purchasing billions of dollars worth of AI hardware from Nvidia-rival AMD, and that it’s taking a 10% stake in the company.Microsoft is already heavily invested in OpenAI, to the tune of $13 billion; it takes 49% of OpenAI’s profits, and gets more than that until its original investment is paid back. Microsoft also accounted for nearly 20% of Nvidia’s annualized reven

This week we talk about trade wars, TACO theory, and Chinese imports.We also discuss negotiation, protectionism, and threat spirals.Recommended Book: More Than Words by John WarnerTranscriptIn January of 2018, then first-term US President Trump announced a slew of tariffs and trade barriers against several countries, including Canada, Mexico, and those in the European Union.The most significant of these new barriers and tariffs were enacted against China, though, as Trump had long claimed that China, the US’s most important trade partner by many measures, was taking advantage of the US market; a claim that economists tepidly backed, as while some of the specifics, like those related to intellectual property theft on the part of China, were pretty overt, the Chinese government fairly brazenly gobbling up IP and technology from US companies that do business in the country before hobbling those US interests in China and handing that IP and technology off to their own, China-born copies, claims about a trade deficit were less clear-cut—most of those sorts of claims seemed to be the result of a misunderstanding about how international trade works.That said, Trump had made a protectionist stance part of his platform, so he kicked off his administration by imposing a package of targeted tariffs against specific product categories from China, including things like solar panels and washing machines. Those were followed by more tariffs on steel and aluminum—from a lot of countries, not just China—and this implementation of trade barriers between the US and long-time trade partners, which had mostly enjoyed barrier-free trade up till that point, kicked off a trade war, with the Trump administration announcing, out of nowhere, new tariffs or limitations, and the country on the pointy end of that new declaration announcing their own counter, usually something the US sells to their country, while in the background, both countries tried to negotiate new trade terms on the down-low.There was a lot of tit-for-tatting in those first couple years of the first Trump administration, and they led to a lot of negotiations between the US government and these foreign governments, which in turn led to the lifting of many such barriers, though the weaponization of barriers continued, with the administration, for instance, announcing a tariff on all imports from Mexico until the Mexican government was able to halt all illegal immigration coming into the US; negotiation ended that threat, too, but this early salvo upset a lot of the US’s long-time allies, while also making it clear that Trump intended to open negotiations with these sorts of threats, whenever possible—which had the knock-on effect of everyone taking the threats pretty seriously, as they were often incredibly dangerous to specific industries, while also taking them less seriously because it was obvious they were intended to be a negotiating tactic.When Trump left office, a bunch of international relationships had been scarred by this approach to trade deals, and when Biden replaced him, he dropped most of the new tariffs against long-time allies, but kept most of the China tariffs in place, especially those related to green technologies like electric vehicles and semiconductors, the local-made versions of which were becoming a big focus for the Biden administration. The administration then went on to expand upon those tariffs, against China, in some cases.What I’d like to talk about today is how this approach to trade protectionism and negotiation has ballooned under the second Trump administration, and what a new threat against China by Trump might mean for how the relationship between these two countries evolves, moving forward.—Trump’s second administration opened with an executive order that declared a national emergency, claiming that the Chinese were trafficking drugs, especially synthetic opioids like fentanyl, into the US, and that this allowed criminals to profit from destroying the lives of US citizens.This declaration allowed him to unleash a flurry of tariffs against China, first imposing 10% on all Chinese imports, then increasing that to 20% in March of 2025.China retaliated, imposing tariffs of 15% on mostly US energy products, like coal and natural gas, and on some types of agricultural machines, while also engaging in some legal pressure against US companies, like Google. They followed this up with tariffs against meat and dairy products, and suspended US lumber import rights, and disallowed three US firms from selling soybeans to China.The US reciprocated, and China reciprocated back. There was a period of spiraling broad tariffs and import bans in the mid-2025 between the US and China, which led to an aggregate baseline tariff on Chinese imports of 104%, which was followed with an aggregate Chinese baseline tariff against US goods of 84%. The US then upped theirs to 145%, and China raised theirs to 125%.Again, vital to understanding this spiral is that the Trump administration made pretty clear that they were doing this mostly as a negotiating tactic. There were claims that they could solve the US deficit by raising tariffs so high that the funds from those tariffs would pay off the country’s debt, but that’s generally not considered to be realistic. Instead, the consensus view is that Trump likes to play negotiating hardball, likes to step into negotiations with the upper-hand, being able to say, give me what I want and I’ll reduce the pain you’re experiencing, basically, and this play against China was another attempt to make that kind of advantage stick.China, for its part, seemed like it was done with the posturing at that point, though: it announced, after its retaliatory tariffs reached 125%, that it would simply ignore all further increases on the US government’s side, because the whole thing is just kind of a joke and it’s beneath them to keep playing this game.Not long after that, Trump announced that the tariffs against China would come down substantially, but not to zero; Trump said this was decided after discussions with China, and Chinese officials said they hadn’t been in contact with the Trump administration about any of this—which is something that seems to happen quite a bit with the Trump administration.During this period of spiraling trade barriers, China was able to establish better and more open trade agreements with other nations in Southeast Asia, including South Korea and Japan. China also reduced it US Treasury holdings, reducing its exposure to the US economy at a moment in which the US government was betting big on policy that many economists considered to be ham-handed at best, completely nonsensical, delusional, and harmful at worst.During that spiral, before things cooled off, China also began applying protections on locally sourced and refined rare earths, which are a category of mineral that are vital for modern electronics and things like solar panels, batteries, semiconductors, and electric vehicles.China makes and owns the rights to the vast majority of the current global supply of these materials, mining about 70% of them and controlling about 90% of global processing. And cutting them off, or even truncating their flow, is considered to be a huge strategic threat. The US has been slowly investing in alternative supplies for such things, but many of them are difficult or expensive to produce in the proper volume, and it’ll likely be a decade or more before those alternative sources can be properly exploited, replacing the volume currently imported from China.Back in June, China granted permits to US businesses that would be allowed to import rare earths, but that supply remained tenuous—a bit of a counter to Trump’s ongoing tariff threats that could seemingly arise out of nowhere, messing up everyone’s plans. The Chinese seemed to want to leverage this supply in the same way, and keeping things limited while issuing a few permits meant the flow could kind of continue, but could also be slowed or cut off, again, at a moment’s notice.In early October, the Chinese government announced new curbs on the export of rare earths and related technologies, just three weeks before a scheduled meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. These new curbs further limited what could be imported to the US, even if there were intermediary nations involved, and also tightened their grip on anything related to mining, smelting, recycling, and producing products, like powerful magnets, from such materials.It’s worth mentioning here, too, that these sorts of materials are increasingly vital for the production of high-tech military goods. If the US were to lose access to sufficient volumes of them, the US military would have a very hard time making missiles, replacing satellite components, building tanks and drones—it would give China a significant advantage, probably for years, in terms of upgrading and maintaining their military hardware.Despite that, and despite the US government’s claims that it intended to replace Chinese sources of these materials, theoretically limiting Chinese leverage in these upcoming talks, progress in that department has been minimal, so far; about a billion dollars worth of investment in rare earths supply chains were announced over the past year or so, but further investment is considered to be unlikely in the near-future, and it’ll be a while before these investments will pay off, if they ever do.Shortly after that announcement by the Chinese, President Trump threatened to enforce a new 100% tariff on Chinese imports, beginning on November 1, or potentially even sooner, raising tariff levels to just shy of what they were back in April of 2025, at the peak of the US-China trade protectionism threat-spiral.He also said he didn’t see any reason to meet with Xi if they were going to limit rare earths in this way, but later clarified that the meeting hadn’t been cancelled, and said that he set the implemen

This week we talk about Electronic Arts, 3DO, and the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund.We also discuss Jared Kushner, leveraged buyouts, and loot boxes.Recommended Book: Bandwidth by Dan CarusoTranscriptElectronic Arts, often shorthanded as EA, was founded in 1982 in California by a former Apple employee named Trip Hawkins, who also went on to found the ill-fated 3DO company, which made video game hardware, and the somewhat more prolific, but also ultimately ill-fated casual game developer Digital Chocolate.EA, though, has been an absolutely astounding success. It’s business model was predicated on the premise of selling video games directly to retailers, rather than going through intermediaries. This allowed them to gain more market share than their competitors right off the bat, and it helped them glean higher margins than their competitors from each direct sale, too.EA also established an early reputation for treating its developers really well. They were the first gaming company to feature their developers in advertising and to give them platforms, promoting them as video game artists, basically, and it shared the profits netted from those direct sales with these develops—which in turn meant all the best developers really wanted to work for EA, which led to a beneficial cycle where they created better and better, and more and more financially successful games.In the late-80s, they started deviating from this model somewhat, scooping up a collection of successful independent game development studios and deviating, at times, from the creative lead’s vision when releasing their games. They also refocused a fair bit of their resources on franchises, like the immensely successful, as it turned out, Madden NFL series, and they branched out into producing games for the console market, including the still-new Nintendo Entertainment System, in 1990.That same year, EA went public on the NASDAQ, the company got new leadership when Hawkins decided to refocus on his far less successful 3DO hardware startup, and in an interesting twist, the arrival of the Sony Playstation in North America caused EA to drop support for 3DO hardware in the mid-90s so it could refocus on Playstation games, which were a lot more lucrative.By the mid-90s, EA had an astonishingly large and successful software library, including franchises like the aforementioned Madden games and the FIFA soccer games, but also celebrity-tied games like Shaq Fu, and military shooters like Jungle and Urban Strike.By the early-2000s, EA was making exclusive licensing deals with the NFL and ESPN, in order to stave off newfound sports game competitors, and it was the only video game company to consistently make a profit, most others experiencing feast and famine cycles, with periodic wins, but a whole lot of losses they had to cover with the profits from those wins. EA, in contrast, had a reliable stable of profit-sources, and it thus had a whole lot of leverage in terms of attracting and retaining talent, but also getting big names and brands on board, for collaborative projects.What I’d like to talk about today is what happened to EA during and following the 2008 economic crisis, and how and why it recently became an acquisition target for Saudi Arabia.—In 2008, when the global economy was collapsing, EA suffered a bad holiday sales season and fired 1,100 employees and closed 12 of their facilities early the following year. Later in 2009, the company announced the firing of another 1,500 employees, which was about 17% of their total workforce at the time, and in 2010 they acquired a gaming company that focused on mobile games, which were becoming increasingly popular, now that many people had touch-capable smartphones, which brought hot new franchises like Angry Birds under their brand umbrella.On the strength of that acquisition and all those downsizings, in early 2011, EA announced that it hit $3.8 billion in revenue in the financial year for the first time, and in early 2012, it announced it surpassed $1 billion in digital revenue during the previous year, which was a huge figure that early in the digital media landscape. It used some of those profits to scoop up another mobile-first gaming company, adding properties like Plants vs Zombies and Peggle to their library.EA completed another mass-firing in 2013, dismissing 10% of their employees under what they called a reorganization, around the same time they announced an exclusive license with Disney that would allow them to develop Star Wars games.Their stock value boomed in the following years, as a result of those cost-savings measures, and those new relationships, and emboldened by record-high stock valuations, in the mid-20-teens, the company started releasing big-name games, like Star Wars Battlefront 2, with random-content loot boxes and other sorts of microtransactions.This did not go over well with players, who decried these in-game purchasing options as ‘pay to win’ mechanics, as players could pay more money to get better characters and equipment, and a lot of the content, even after paying for the expensive games, was still locked behind paywalls, requiring more payments to unlock that content. A bunch of gaming journalists cried foul on this shift as the game careened toward its full release, as did a whole lot of early players, and Disney complained, too, so by the time it hit shelves, the game’s loot system was substantially changed, but that whole controversy spooked investors, and led to an 8.5% stock value drop in just a single month, knocking $3.1 billion from the company’s valuation. As a result of that controversy, EA also became the face for a larger legal and legislative debate about in-game purchases and how it’s kinda sorta like gambling, from that point forward.Soon after, EA experienced a series of bad quarters, including a huge drop of 13.3% to its valuation when a major entry in one of their larger franchises, Battlefield V, was released late, and received very mixed reviews when it was released, which led to a million fewer sold copies than anticipated. The game was also lagging in terms of gameplay behind smaller, nimbler competitors, including then-burgeoning Fortnite.The company saw an overall boost with the surprise success of Apex Legends, and the COVID-19 pandemic boosted sales dramatically for a while, since everyone was staying home, which allowed EA to gobble up a few more competing companies with successful franchises, and they knocked out a few more successful Star Wars games, as well.In early 2021, Saudi Arabia’s public investment funds bought 7.4 million shares of EA for about $1.1 billion, which flew under the radar for most gamers, but that’ll be important in a moment.Later that year, the company experienced a massive hack, a lot of its data, including the source code for games, stolen and sold on the dark web. EA bought some more competitors, but word on the street in 2022 was the the higher ups at EA were quietly shopping the company around, themselves looking to be acquired by a larger entity, on the scale of Apple or Disney.In early 2023, the company announced more mass-layoffs and launched another internal reorganization. It gutted several of its most popular gaming sub-brands, including BioWare, it cancelled an upcoming Star Wars game, and it announced that it would be shifting away from licensing agreements and refocusing on EA-owned IP.The pattern of layoffs leading to better financial fortunes didn’t pay off this time, though. In early 2025, EA divulged that it expected to underperform in the coming year, several of its big-name titles not doing as well as expected; the company cast blame on the market, but players and journalists pointed at the company’s gutting of its big-name studios, and the firing of many of its veteran developers to explain the reduced sales.EA had another mass-firing in April of this year, and followed by another in May, which paralleled an announcement that they would no longer be moving forward with a big, planned Black Panther game.In late September of 2025, EA announced that it had reached a deal, worth $55 billion, to go private, no longer selling shares on the stock market, with the financial assistance of a group of investors, which included Affinity Partners, which is led by Jared Kushner, US President Trump’s son-in-law, Silver Lake, which is a US-based private equity firm that helps make these sorts of big sales happen, and the aforementioned Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund.This deal isn’t done yet, it still needs to get regulatory approval and a successful vote by stockholders, but it seems likely to go through, since the US regulatory environment is pretty lax at the moment, and because Kushner is involved, it’s unlikely President Trump will take a personal disliking to it.But the big story here seems to be that Saudi Arabia is buying up not just a video game company, but one of the biggest and most successful video gaming companies in the world, which, although it’s lost a lot of fan-credibility over the years, still owns some massively influential intellectual property and has just a stunning number of relationships and connections throughout the media world, alongside its huge valuation.If the sale does go through, and we should know for sure by sometime around June 2026, it would be the largest-ever leveraged buyout, which means the purchase was completed by using borrowed money that was borrowed against the asset being purchased; so those investors have taken out debt against EA itself, which is an increasingly common means of buying a large asset on the cheap, but it also typically burdens that asset with a simply astounding amount of debt which must then be recouped, often by selling off undervalued assets.When this happens to a newspaper, for instance, the buyer will often sell off the paper’s real estate and fire all their employees, to make money and pay off that debt, and in this case, there’s a chance

This week we talk about Article 4, big sticks, and spheres of influence.We also discuss Moldova, super powers, and new fronts.Recommended Book: More Everything Forever by Adam BeckerTranscriptThe North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was originally formed in 1949 in the wake of World War 2 and at the beginning of the Cold War.At that moment, the world was beginning to orient toward what we might think of as the modern global order, which at the time was predicated on having two superpowers—the US and the Soviet Union—and the world being carved up into their respective spheres of influence.NATO was formed as the military component of that protection effort, as the Soviets (and other powers who had occupied that land in the past) had a history of turning their neighbors into client states, because their territory provides little in the way of natural borders. Their inclination, then, was to either invade or overthrow neighboring governments so they could function as buffers between the Soviet Union and its potential enemies.The theory behind NATO is collective security: if anyone attacks one of the member nations, the others will come to their aid. Article 5 of the NATO treaty says that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all members, and while this theoretically would be applied against any would-be attacker, it was 100% created so that the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies knew that if they attacked, for instance, Norway, the other NATO nations—including, importantly, the United States, which again, was one of just two superpowers in the world at that point, all the other powers, like the UK and France having been devastated by WWII—would join in their defense.NATO, today, is quite a bit bigger than it was originally: it started out with just 12 countries in Europe and North America, and as of 2025, there are 32, alongside a handful of nations that are hoping to join, and are at various points along the way to possibly someday becoming member states.What I’d like to talk about today are recent provocations by the Soviet Union’s successor state, Russia, against NATO, and what these provocations might portend for the future of the region.—In early 2014, Russia invaded—in a somewhat deniable way, initially funding local rabble-rousers and using unmarked soldiers and weapons—the eastern portion of Ukraine, and then annexed an important Black Sea region called Crimea. Then in early 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, massing hundreds of thousands of military assets on their shared border before plunging toward Ukraine’s capitol and other vital strategic areas.Against the odds, as Ukraine is small and poor compared to Russia, and has a far smaller military, as well, Ukrainians managed to hold off the Russian assault, and today, about 3.5 years later, Ukraine continues to hold Russia off, though Russian forces have been making incremental gains in the eastern portion of the country over the past year, and Russian President Putin seems convinced he can hold the Donbas region, in particular, even if peace is eventually declared.At the moment, though, peace seems unlikely, as Russian forces continue to grind against increasingly sophisticated and automated Ukrainian defenses, the invading force, in turn, bolstered by North Korean ammunition and troops. Ukraine’s exhausted soldiery is periodically and irregularly bulwarked by resources from regional and far-flung allies, helping them stay in the game, and they’re fleshing out their locally grown defense industry, which has specialized in asymmetric weaponry like drones and rockets, but Russia still has the advantage by pretty much any metric we might use to gauge such things.Over the past three weeks, concerns that this conflict might spill over into the rest of Europe have been heightened by Russian provocations along the eastern edge of the NATO alliance.Russia flew drones into Poland and Romania, fighter jets into Estonia, and aggressively flew fighters over a Germany Navy frigate in the Baltic Sea. Article 4 of the NATO treaty was invoked, which is the lead-up invocation to an eventual invocation of Article 5, which would be a full-fledged defense, by the bloc, against someone who attacked a NATO member.And that’s on top of Russia’s persistent and ongoing efforts to influence politics in Moldova, which held an election over the weekend that could serve as a foot in the door for Russian influence campaigns and Russia-stoked coups within the EU, or could become one more hardened border against such aggressions, depending on how the election pans out. The final results aren’t in as of the day I’m recording this episode, but there are fears that if the pro-Russian parties win, they’ll turn the country—which is located on Ukraine’s borders, opposite Russia—into another Russian puppet state, similar to Belarus, but if the pro-Russian parties don’t do well, they’ll try to launch a coup, because Russian disinformation in the country has been so thorough, and has indicated, in essence, if they lose, the process was rigged.All of which is occurring at a moment in which NATO’s most powerful and spendy member, by far, the US, is near-universally pulling out of international activities, the second Trump administration proving even more antagonistic toward allies than the first one, and even more overt in its disdain for alliances like NATO, as well. It’s probably worth noting here, too, that part of why things are so hectic in Moldova is that the US government has stopped pressuring social networks to tamp down on overt misinformation and propaganda from Russia-aligned groups, and that’s led to significant fog of war for this most recent election.Considering the US’s recent unreliability, and in some cases complete absence regarding NATO and similar alliances and pacts, it’s perhaps prudent that NATO member states have recently agreed to up their individual spending on defense, all of these states meeting or exceeding their pre-2025-summit goal of 2% of GDP, that target increasing to 5% by 2035.This is notable in part because it’s something Trump demanded, and that demand seems to have worked and probably been a good idea, but this is also notable because of what it represents: a cessation of leadership by the US in this alliance.The US has long been the big stick wielded by its European allies, and this administration basically said, hey, you need to make your own big sticks, you may not have access to our weapons and support anymore. And while it will still take a while to both get their funding up to snuff and to spend those funds appropriately, outfitting their defenses and shoring up their numbers, this would seem to be a step in that direction—though there’s simmering concern that it might be too little, too late.That concern is mostly held by Russia-watchers who have noted a big pivot by Russia’s leadership, and in the Russian economy.Over the past 3.5 years since it invaded Ukraine, that invasion taking a lot longer than they thought it would, Russia has shifted into a total war stance, its entire economy becoming reliant on its continued invasion of Ukraine.Should that invasion end or ebb, or should it continue to fail to give the Russian government enough successes, so it can brag about how well it’s doing to its citizenry and oligarchs, it would probably need another target—another front in the war that it can open to justify the continued churning-out of weapons and soldiers, and the continued spending of a huge chunk of its GDP toward the military. Lacking that churn, it’s economy would be in even worse straits than it’s in, today, and lacking that cause, it’s possible support for the government could collapse.It’s also been posited that it could be a disaster Putin’s regime if too many Russian veterans, wounded and traumatized from their time on the front lines in Ukraine, were to arrive back in Russia all at once. That’s the sort of situation that could lead to an uprising against the government, or bare minimum a lot of turmoil that they don’t want to deal with. Having another front, another battle to send them to, would solve that problem; it would be an excuse to keep them fighting external enemies, rather than looking for internal ones.Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, recently said that NATO and the EU have declared a “real war” against Russia by participating in the conflict; by providing arms and financial support for Ukraine.This is, of course, a silly thing to say, though it is the kind of statement an aggressor makes when they want to make themselves sound like the victim, and want to justify moving on to victimize someone else. You attacked us for no reason! We are thus completely within our rights to defend ourselves by attacking you; we are in the right here, you’re the bad guys.This could be just saber-rattling, and it usually is. Lavrov says things like this all the time, and it’s almost always state-sanctioned bluster. The drone and jet flyovers, likewise, could be meant to send a signal to the EU and NATO: back off, this is not your fight, but if you continue supporting Ukraine, we’ll make it your fight, and we think we can beat you.It’s also possible, though, that these actions are meant to test NATO defenses at a moment in which the US is largely absent from the region, China and Russia have never been tighter, including in supporting each other’s regional goals and militaries, and in which Russia seemingly has many reasons, mostly internal, to expand the scope of the conflict.Show Noteshttps://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/pistorius-russian-jet-flew-over-142629311.html?guccounter=1https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/world/europe/russian-fighter-jets-estonia-nato.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/07/business/russia-disinformation-trump.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/world/europe/poland-drones-russia-nato.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukra

This week we talk about corruption, influencers, and pro-monarchy protests.We also discuss Nepalese modern history, Gen Z, and kings.Recommended Book: Superagency by Reid Hoffman and Greg BeatoTranscriptThe Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, usually referred to as just Nepal, is a country located in the Himalayas that’s bordered to the northeast by China, and is otherwise surrounded by India, including in the east, where there’s a narrow sliver of India separating Nepal from Bhutan and Bangladesh.So Nepal is mostly mountainous, it’s landlocked, and it’s right in between two burgeoning regional powers who are also increasingly, in many ways, global powers. Its capital is Kathmandu, and there are a little over 31 million people in the country, as of 2024—more than 80% of them Hindu, and the country’s landmass spans about 57,000 square miles or 147.5 square kilometers, which is little smaller than the US state of Illinois, and almost exactly the same size as Bangladesh.Modern Nepal came about beginning in the mid-20th century, when the then-ruling Rana autocracy was overthrown in the wake of neighboring India’s independence movement, and a parliamentary democracy replaced it. But there was still a king, and he didn’t like sharing power with the rest of the government, so he did away with the democracy component of the government in 1960, making himself the absolute monarch and banning all political activities, which also necessitated jailing politicians.The country was modernized during this period, in the sense of building out infrastructure and such, but it was pulled backwards in many ways, as there wasn’t much in the way of individual liberties for civilians, and everything was heavily censored by the king and his people. In 1990, a multiparty movement called the People’s Movement forced the king, this one ascended to the throne in 1972, to adopt a constitution and allow a multiparty democracy in Nepal.One of the parties that decided to enter the local political fray, the Maoist Party, started violently trying to shift the country in another direction, replacing its parliamentary system with a people’s republic, similar to what was happening in China and the Soviet Union. This sparked a civil war that led to a whole lot of deaths, including those of the King and Crown Prince. The now-dead king’s brother stepped in, gave himself a bunch of new powers, and then tried to stomp the Maoist Party into submission.But there was a peaceful democratic revolution in the country in 2006, at which point the Maoists put down their arms and became a normal, nonviolent political party. Nepal then became a secular state, after being a Hindu kingdom for most of their modern history, and a few years later became a federal republic. It took a little while, and there was quite a bit of tumult in the meantime, but eventually, in 2015, the Nepalese government got a new constitution that divided the country into seven provinces and made Nepal a federal democratic republic.What I’d like to talk about today is what has happened in the past decade in Nepal, and how those happenings led to a recent, seemingly pretty successful, series of protests.—In early 2025, from March through early June, a series of protests were held across Nepal by pro-monarchy citizens and the local pro-monarchy party, initially in response to the former King’s visit, but later to basically just show discontentment with the current government.These protests were at least partly politically motivated, in the sense of being planned and fanned into larger conflagrations by that pro-monarchy party—not truly grassroots sort of thing—but they grew and grew, partly on the strength of opposition to the police response to earlier protests.That same distaste carried through the year, into September of 2025, when the Nepalese government announced a ban on 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Youtube, because the companies behind these platforms ostensibly failed to register under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology’s new rules that required, among other things, they have local liaisons that the government could meet with in person, and complain to if a given network failed to remove something they didn’t like quickly enough.The general sense about that ban is that while this failure to properly register was used as justification for shutting down these networks, which are incredibly popular in the country, the real reason the government wanted to shut them down at that moment was that a trend had emerged online in which the rich and powerful in the country, and especially their children, many of whom have become online influencers, were being criticized for their immense opulence and for bragging about their families’ vast wealth, while everyone else was comparably suffering.This became known as the Nepobaby or Nepo Kid trend, hashtag Nepobaby, which was a tag borrowed from Indonesia, and the general idea is that taxpayer money is being used to enriched a few powerful families at the expense of everyone else, and the kids of those powerful families were bragging about it in public spaces, not even bothering to hide their families’ misdeeds and corruption.This, perhaps understandably, led to a lot more discontent, and all that simmering anger led to online outcries, the government tried to stifle these outcries by shutting down these networks in the country, but that shut down, as is often the case in such situations, led to in-person protests, which started out as peaceful demonstrations in Kathmandu and surrounding areas, but which eventually became violent when the police started firing tear gas and rubber bullets at the crowds, causing 19 deaths and hundreds of injuries.The ban was implemented on September 4 and then lifted, after the initial protests, on September 8, but the government’s response seems to have made this a much bigger thing than it initially was, and maybe bigger than it would have become, sans that response.It’s worth mentioning here, too, that a lot of young people in Nepal rely on social media and messaging apps like Signal, which was also banned, for their livelihood. Both for social media related work, and for various sorts of remittances. And that, combined with an existing 20% youth unemployment rate, meant that young people were very riled up and unhappy with the state of things, already, and this ban just poured fuel on that flame.On that same note, the median age in Nepal is 25, it’s a relatively young country. So there are a lot of Gen Zers in Nepal, they’re the generation that uses social media the most, and because they rely so heavily on these networks to stay in touch with each other and the world, the ban triggered a mass outpouring of anger, and that led to huge protests in a very short time.These protests grew in scope, eventually leading to the burning of government buildings, the military was called in to help bring order, and ultimately the Home Minister, and then the Prime Minister, on September 8 and 9, respectively, resigned. A lot of the burning of government buildings happened after those resignations; protestors eventually burned the homes of government ministers, and the residences of the prime minister and president, as well.The protestors didn’t have any formal leadership, though there were attempts during the protests by local pro-monarchy parties and representatives to position the protests as pro-King—something most protestors have said is not the case, but you can see why that might have worked for them, considering those pro-monarchy protests earlier this year.That said, by September 10, the military was patrolling most major cities, and on the 11th, the president, head general, and Gen Z representatives for the protestors met to select an interim leader. They ended up using Discord, a chat app often used by gamers, to select a former Supreme Court Justice, Sushila Karki, as the interim prime minister, and the first woman to be prime minister in Nepalese history. Parliament was then dissolved, and March 5 was set as the date for the next election. Karki has said she will remain in office for no more than six months.As of September 13, all curfews had been lifted across Nepal, the prime minister was visiting injured protestors in hospitals, and relative calm had returned—though at least 72 people are said to have been killed during the protests, and more than 2,000 were injured.There are currently calls for unity across the political spectrum in Nepal, with everyone seeming to see the writing on the wall, that the youths have shown their strength, and there’s a fresh need to toe the new line that’s been established, lest the existing parties and power structures be completely toppled.There’s a chance that this newfound unity against government overreach and censorship will hold, though it’s important to note that the folks who were allegedly siphoning resources for their families were all able to escape the country, most without harm, due to assistance from police and the military, and that means they could influence things, from exile or after returning to Nepal, in the lead-up to that March election.It’s also possible that the major parties will do more to favor the huge Gen Z population in Nepal from this point forward, which could result in less unemployment and freer speech—though if the King and the pro-monarchy party is able to continue insinuating themselves into these sorts of conversations, positioning themselves as an alternative to the nepotism and corruption many people in the area have reasonably come to associated with this type of democracy, there could be a resurgent effort to bring the monarchy back by those who have already seen some success in this regard, quite recently.Show Noteshttps://restofworld.org/2025/nepal-gen-z-protest/https://apnews.com/article/nepal-ban-social-media-platform-3b42bbbd07bc9b97acb4df09d42029d5https://apnews.com/articl

This week we talk about stablecoins, crypto assets, and conflicts of interest.We also discuss the crypto industry, political contributions, and regulatory guardrails.Recommended Book: Throne of Glass by Sarah J. MaasTranscriptA cryptocoin is a unit of cryptocurrency. A cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency that uses some kind of non-central means of managing its ledger—keeping track of who has how much of it, basically.There have been other types of digital currency over the years, but cryptocurrencies often rely on the blockchain or a similarly distributed means of keeping tabs on who has what. A blockchain is a database, often public, of users and a list of those users’ assets that’s distributed between users, and it makes use of some kind of consensus mechanism to determine who actually owns what.Some cryptocurrencies ebb and flow in value, and are thus traded more like a stock or other type of non-fixed, finite asset. Bitcoin, for instance, is often treated like gold or high-growth stocks. NFTs, similarly, create a sort of artificial scarcity, producing unique digital goods by putting their ownership on a blockchain or other proof-of-ownership system.Stablecoins are also cryptocurrencies, but instead of floating, their value growing and dropping based on the interest of would-be buyers, they are meant to maintain a steady value—to be stable, like a national currency.In order to achieve this, the folks who maintain stablecoins often use reserve assets to prop up their value. So if you produce a new stablecoin and want to issue a million of them, each worth one US dollar, you might accumulate a million actual US dollars, put those in a bank account, show everybody the number of dollars in that bank account, and then it’s pretty easy to argue that those stablecoins are each worth a dollar—each coin is a stand-in for one of the dollars in the bank.In a lot of cases, the people issuing these coins aim for this approach, but instead of doing a direct one-for-one, dollar for coin system, they’ll issue a million coins that are meant to be worth a dollar apiece, and they’ll put one-hundred-thousand dollars in a bank account, and the other 900,000 will be made up of bitcoin and stocks and other sorts of things that they can argue are worth at least that much.As of mid-2025, about $255 billion worth of stablecoins have been issued, and about 99% of them have been pegged to the US dollar; Tether’s USDT, Binance’s BUSD, and Circle’s USDC are all tethered to the USD, for instance, though other currencies are also used as peg values, including offerings by Tether and Circle that are pegged to the Euro.Stablecoins that are completely or mostly fiat-backed, which means they have a dollar for each coin issued in the bank somewhere, or close to that, tend to be on average more stable than commodity or crypto-backed stablecoins, which rely mostly or entirely on things like bitcoin or gold tucked away somewhere to justify their value. Which makes sense, as while you can argue, hey look, I have a million dollars worth of gold, and I’m issuing a million coins, each worth a dollar, that asset’s value can change day-to-day, and that can make the value of those coins precarious, at least compared to fiat-backed alternatives.Because stablecoins are not meant to change in value, they’re not useful as sub-ins for stocks or other sorts of interest-generating bets, like bitcoin. Instead, they’re primarily used by folks who want to trade cryptoassets for other sorts of cryptoassets, for those who want to avoid paying taxes, or want to otherwise hide their wealth, and for those who want to transfer money in such a way that they can avoid government sanctions and/or tariffs on those sorts of transfers.What I’d like to talk about today is a new US federal law, the GENIUS Act, which was heavily pushed by the crypto industry, and which looks likely to make stablecoins a lot more popular, for better and for worse.—The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act, or GENIUS Act, was introduced in the Senate by a Republican senator from Tennessee in May of 2025, was passed in June with a bipartisan vote of 68-30—the majority of Republicans and about half of Democratic senators voting in favor of it—and after the House passed it a month later, President Trump signed it into law on July 18.Again, this legislation was heavily pushed by the crypto industry, which generously funded a lot of politicians, mostly Republican, but on both sides of the aisle, in recent years, as it serves folks who want a broader reach for existing stablecoins, and who want to see more stablecoins emerge and flourish, as part of a larger and richer overall crypto industries.Folks who are against this Act, and other laws like it that have been proposed in recent years, contend that while it’s a good idea to have some kind of regulation in place for the crypto industry, this approach isn’t the right one, as it basically gives the tech world free rein to run their own pseudo-banks, without being subject to the same regulations as actual banks.Which isn’t great, according to this argument, as actual banks have to live up to all sorts of standards, most of them oriented around protecting people from the folks running the banks who might otherwise take advantage of them. Those regulations are especially cumbersome in the wake of the 2008 Great Recession, because that severe global economic downturn was in large part caused by exactly these sorts of abuses: bankers going wild with lending mis-labeled assets, those in charge of these banks pocketing a whole lot of money, lots of people losing everything, and lots of institutions going under, leaving those people and the government with the bill, while the folks who did bad things mostly got off scott free.The goal of these bank regulations is to keep that kind of thing from happening again, while also keeping banks from overtly taking advantage of their customers, who often don’t know much about the banking options and assets they’re being sold on.Allowing tech companies to do very similar things, but without those regulations, seems imprudent, then, because, first, tech companies have shown themselves to be not just willing, but often thrilled to grab whatever they can and get slapped on the wrist for it, later, moving fast and breaking things, basically, and then paying the fines after they’ve made a fortune, and if they’re allowed to step into this space without the same regulations as banks, that gives them a huge competitive advantage over actual financial institutions.It’s a bit like if there were a food company that was allowed to dodge food industry regulations, as was thus able to cut their flour with sawdust and sell it to people at the same price as the real thing. People would suffer, their competition, which sells actual flour would suffer, because they wouldn’t be able to compete with a company that doesn’t play by the same rules, and the companies that sell the inferior products without anyone being able to stop them would probably get away with it for a while, before then closing up shop, pocketing all that money, and starting over again with a different name.This is how things work in a lot of countries with weak regulatory systems, and it creates so much distrust in the economic sphere that things cost more, the quality of everything is very low, and it’s nearly impossible to ever punish those who cause and perpetuate harm.That’s at the root of many arguments against the GENIUS Act: concerns that a lack of consumer protections will lead to a situation in which we have growing systemic risk, caused by tech entities taking bigger and bigger risks with other people’s money, like in the buildup to the 2008 recession, while simultaneously more legit institutions are elbowed out, unable to compete because they have to spend more and work harder to adhere to the regulations that the new players can ignore.It’s worth mentioning here, too, that the Trump family has issued their own cryptocoins, and reportedly already profited to the tune of several billion dollars as a result of that issuance, that the Trumps have their own stablecoin, which they’re promoting as an upgrade to the US dollar, that the early backers of these coins include foreign governments and their interconnected companies, like the Emirati-backed MGX, that the Trump children have their own crypto-asset companies, including one that’s listed on the Nasdaq, and which is profiting from the increasing popularity and legalization of the industry in the US, and that Trump’s media company, which owns Truth Social, also has a multi-billion-dollar bitcoin portfolio, alongside a whole lot of other crypto-coins, which the president has been pushing, and his family has been promoting overseas, using his name and office.All of which points at another conflict of interest issue here, that the president and his family seem to be self-enriching at an incredibly rapid pace and at a very high level, in part by pushing this and similar legislation.People in the crypto industry lavishly spent on his campaign, and they are entwined with his family’s business interests, which makes it difficult to separate what might be good for the country, in an objective way, from what’s good for Trump and his family, in the sense of using the office to grow wealthier and wealthier—and that’s true both in the sense that crypto-assets allegedly allow his family to take bribes in a fairly anonymous and deniable way, but also in the sense that people who buy his memecoins and buy into his stablecoin ventures and buy more bitcoin and similar assets that he already holds, also increase the value of his existing assets, and using the office of the presidency to enrich oneself in that way is the sort of thing they never really made illegal because they didn’t think anyone would be brazen or shameless enough to do it.There’s a lot going on here, then, and while there

This week we talk about cyberespionage, China, and asymmetrical leverage.We also discuss political firings, hardware infiltration, and Five Eyes.Recommended Book: The Fourth Turning Is Here by Neil HoweTranscriptIn the year 2000, then-General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Jiang Zemin (jong ZEM-in), approved a plan to develop so-called “cyber coercive capabilities”—the infrastructure for offensive hacking—partly as a consequence of aggressive actions by the US, which among other things had recently bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade as part of the NATO campaign in Yugoslavia.The US was a nuclear power with immense military capabilities that far outshone those of China, and the idea was that the Chinese government needed some kind of asymmetrical means of achieving leverage against the US and its allies to counter that. Personal tech and the internet were still relatively young in 2000—the first iPhone wouldn’t be released for another seven years, for context—but there was enough going on in the cyber-intelligence world that it seemed like a good point of leverage to aim for.The early 2000s Chairman of the CCP, Hu Jintao, backed this ambition, citing the burgeoning threat of instability-inducing online variables, like those that sparked the color revolutions across Europe and Asia, and attack strategies similar to Israel’s Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran as justification, though China’s growing economic dependence on its technological know-how was also part of the equation; it could evolve its capacity in this space relatively quickly, and it had valuable stuff that was targetable by foreign cyberattacks, so it was probably a good idea to increase their defenses, while also increasing their ability to hit foreign targets in this way—that was the logic here.The next CCP Chairman, Xi Jinping, doubled-down on this effort, saying that in the cyber world, everyone else was using air strikes and China was still using swords and spears, so they needed to up their game substantially and rapidly.That ambition seems to have been realized: though China is still reportedly regularly infiltrated by foreign entities like the US’s CIA, China’s cybersecurity firms and state-affiliated hacker groups have become serious players on the international stage, pulling off incredibly complex hacks of foreign governments and infrastructure, including a campaign called Volt Typhoon, which seems to have started sometime in or before 2021, but which wasn’t discovered by US entities until 2024. This campaign saw Chinese hackers infiltrating all sorts of US agencies and infrastructure, initially using malware, and then entwining themselves with the operating systems used by their targets, quietly syphoning off data, credentials, and other useful bits of information, slowly but surely becoming even more interwoven with the fabric of these systems, and doing so stealthily in order to remain undetected for years.This effort allowed hackers to glean information about the US’s defenses in the continental US and in Guam, while also helping them breach public infrastructure, like Singapore’s telecommunications company, Singtel. It’s been suggested that, as with many Chinese cyberattacks, this incursion was a long-game play, meant to give the Chinese government the option of both using private data about private US citizens, soldiers, and people in government for manipulation or blackmail purposes, or to shut down important infrastructure, like communications channels or electrical grids, in the event of a future military conflict.What I’d like to talk about today is another, even bigger and reportedly more successful long-term hack by the Chinese government, and one that might be even more disruptive, should there ever be a military conflict between China and one of the impacted governments, or their allies.—Salt Typhoon is the name that’s been given to a so-called '“advanced persistent threat actor,” which is a formal way of saying hacker or hacker group, by Microsoft, which plays a big role in the cybersecurity world, especially at this scale, a scale involving not just independent hackers, but government-level cyberespionage groups.This group is generally understood to be run out of the Chinese Ministry of State Security, or MSS, and though it’s not usually possible to say something like that for certain, hence the “generally understood” component of that statement, often everyone kind of knows who’s doing what, but it’s imprudent to say so with 100% certainty, as cyberespionage, like many other sorts of spy stuff, is meant to be a gray area where governments can knock each other around without leading to a shooting war. If anyone were to say with absolute certainty, yes, China is hacking us, and it’s definitely the government, and they’re doing a really good job of it, stealing all our stuff and putting us at risk, that would either require the targeted government to launch some sort of counterstrike against China, or would leave that targeted government looking weak, and thus prone to more such incursions and attacks, alongside any loss of face they might suffer.So there’s a lot of hand-waving and alluding in this sphere of diplomacy and security, but it’s basically understood that Salt Typhoon is run by China, and it’s thought that they’ve been operating since at least 2020.Their prime function seems to be stealing as much classified data as they can from governments around the world, and scooping up all sorts of intellectual property from corporations, too.China’s notorious for collecting this kind of IP and then giving it to Chinese companies, which have become really good at using such IP, copying it, making it cheaper, and sometimes improving upon it in other ways, as well. This government-corporation collaboration model is fundamental to the operation of China’s economy, and the dynamic between its government, it’s military, its intelligence services, and its companies, all of which work together in various ways.It’s estimated that Salt Typhoon has infiltrated more than 200 targets in more than 80 countries, and alongside corporate entities like AT&T and Verizon, they also managed to scoop up private text messages from Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s presidential campaigns in 2024, using hacks against phone services to do so.Three main Chinese tech companies allegedly helped Salt Typhoon infiltrate foreign telecommunications companies and internet service providers, alongside hotel, transportation, and other sorts of entities, which allowed them to not just grab text messages, but also track people, keeping tabs on their movements, which again, might be helpful in future blackmail or even assassination operations.Those three companies seem to be real-deal, actual companies, not just fronts for Chinese intelligence, but the government was able to use them, and the services and products they provide, to sneak malicious code into all kinds of vital infrastructure and all sorts of foreign corporations and agencies—which seems to support concerns from several years ago about dealing with Chinese tech companies like Huawei; some governments decided not to work with them, especially in building-out their 5G communications infrastructure, due to the possibility that the Chinese government might use these ostensibly private companies as a means of getting espionage software or devices into these communications channels or energy grids. The low prices Huawei offered just wasn’t worth the risk.The US government announced back in 2024 that Salt Typhoon had infiltrated a bunch of US telecommunications companies and broadband networks, and that routers manufactured by Cisco were also compromised by this group. The group was also able to get into ISP services that US law enforcement and intelligence services use to conduct court-authorized wiretaps; so they weren’t just spying on individuals, they were also spying on other government’s spies and those they were spying on.Despite all these pretty alarming findings, in the midst of the investigation into these hacks, the second US Trump administration fired the government’s Cyber Safety Review Board, which was thus unable to complete its investigation into Salt Typhoon’s intrusion.The FBI has since issued a large bounty for information about those involved in Salt Typhoon, but that only addresses the issue indirectly, and there’s still a lot we don’t know about this group, the extent of their hacking, and where else they might still be embedded, in part because the administration fired those looking into it, reportedly because the administration didn’t like this group also looking into Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, and Salt Typhoon’s potential interference with the 2024 presidential election, both of which Trump won.The US government has denied these firings are in any way political, saying they intend to focus on cyber offense rather than defense, and pointing out that the current approach to investigating these sorts of things was imperfect; which is something that most outside organizations would agree on.That said, there are concerns that these firings, and other actions against the US’s cyberthreat defensive capabilities, are revenge moves against people and groups that have said the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden, was the most secure and best-run election in US history; which flies in the face of Trump’s preferred narrative that he won in 2020—something he’s fond of repeating, though without evidence, and with a vast body of evidence against his claim.The US has also begun pulling away from long-time allies that it has previously collaborated with in the cyberespionage and cyberdefense sphere, including its Five Eyes partners, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.Since Tulsi Gabbard was installed as the Director of National Intelligence by Trump’s new administration, US intelligence services have been instructed to w

This week we talk about the RSF, coups, and the liberal world order.We also discuss humanitarian aid, foreign conflicts, and genocide.Recommended Book: Inventing the Renaissance by Ada PalmerTranscriptIn 2019, a military government took over Sudan, following a successful coup d'état against then-President Omar al-Bashir, who had been in power for thirty years. al-Bashir’s latter years were plagued by popular demonstrations against rising costs of living and pretty abysmal living standards, and the government lashed out against protestors violently, before then dissolving local government leaders and their offices, replacing them with hand-picked military and intelligence officers. After he responded violently to yet another, even bigger protest, the military launched their coup, and the protestors pivoted to targeting them, demanding a civilian-run democracy.Just two months later, after unsuccessful negotiations between the new military government and the folks demanding they step aside to allow a civilian government to take charge, the military leaders massacred a bunch civilians who hosted a sit-in protest. Protestors shifted to a period of sustained civil disobedience and a general strike, and the government agreed to hold elections in 2022, three years later, and said that they would investigate the massacre their soldiers committed against those protestors. They also established a joint civilian-military unity government that would run things until the new, civilian government was eventually formed.In late-2021, though, the Sudanese military launched another coup against the unity government, and that council was dissolved, a state of emergency was declared, and all the important people who were helping the country segue back into a democracy were arrested. A new military-only junta was formed, incorporating the two main military groups that were running things, at that point.In 2023, those two military bodies that were working together to run Sudan via this military junta, the Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary group that were made into a sort of official part of the country’s military, while remaining separate from it, and the official Sudanese army, both started aggressively recruiting soldiers and taunting each other with military maneuvers. On April 15 that year, they started firing on each other.This conflict stemmed from the Sudanese military demanding that the RSF dissolve itself, all their people integrating into the country’s main military apparatus, but some kind of stand-off seemed to be a long time coming, as the RSF started its recruiting efforts earlier that year, and built up its military resources in the capital as early as February. But as I mentioned, this tinderbox erupted into a shooting war in April, beginning in the capital city, Khartoum, before spreading fast to other major cities.So what eventually became a Sudanese civil, which at this point has been ongoing for nearly 2.5 years, began in April of 2023, was long-simmering before that, is between two heavily armed military groups that ran the country together for a few years, and which both claim to be the rightful leaders or owners of the country, and they’re fighting each other in heavily populated areas.This war was also kicked off and is now sustained in part by ethnic conflicts between the main belligerents, which includes the aforementioned Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces, but also the Sudan Liberation Movement, which governs a fairly remote and self-sufficient mountainous area in the southern part of the country, and the al-Hilu movement, which supports the RSF’s efforts in the region.What I’d like to talk about today is what’s happening on the ground in Sudan, in the third year of this conflict, and at a moment when the world’s attention seems to have refocused elsewhere, major governments that would have previously attempted to stop the civil war have more or less given up on doing so, and the Sudanese civilians who have been pulled into the conflict, or who have been forced to flee their homes as a consequence of this war, have been left without food, shelter, or any good guys to cheer for.—Sudan has been plagued by coups since it gained independence from the UK and Egypt in 1956; it’s seen 20 coup attempts, 7 of them successful, including that most recent one in 2019, since independence.This region also has a recent history of genocide, perhaps most notably in the western Darfur region, where an estimated quarter of a million people from a trio of ethnic groups were killed between 2003 and 2005, alone, and something like 2.7 million people were displaced, forced to flee the systematic killings, strategically applied sexual violence, and other abuses by the Sudanese military and the local, rebel Janjaweed militias, which were often armed by the government and tasked with weeding out alleged rebel sympathizers in the region.This new civil war is on a completely different scale, though. As of April of 2025, two years into the conflict, it’s estimated that about 12.5 million people have been displaced, forced from their homes due to everything being burned down or bombed, due to threats from local military groups, killing and assaulting and forcibly recruiting civilians to their cause, and due to a lack of resources, the food and water and shelter all grabbed by these military forces and denied to those who are just trying to live their lives; and that’s true of locally sourced stuff, but also humanitarian aide that makes it into the country—it’s grabbed by the people with guns, and the people without guns are left with nothing.More than 3.3 million Sudanese people are estimated to have fled the country entirely, and recent figures show that around 25 million people are facing extreme levels of hunger, on the verge of starving to death, including about five million children and their mothers who are essentially wasting away. There are reports of people eating leaves and charcoal, just to get something in their stomachs, and photo evidence of these unmoving crowds of skeletal people who are desperate to get anything, any kind of nutrition at all, any clean water, still make it out of the country, though less and less, as it’s becoming more difficult for reporters to make it into and out of the area, safely, and the internet and other communication services, where they’re still available, are often shut down.Aid agencies have said that this civil war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and even the US government, which especially right now has been very hesitant to say anything about foreign conflicts, has made it pretty clear that they consider this to be a genocide; there are conscious, intentional, obviously planned efforts to systematically wipe out different ethnic groups, and to cleanse areas of hated political and religious rivals, but this genocide is being carried out at the exact moment that many of the world’s major, wealthy governments, which historically would have tried to step in and remedy the situation in some way—often ham-handedly, sometimes by supporting one side or the other to try to gain influence in the region, but almost always by also airdropping food and medical goods and other resources into the area to try to help civilians—these governments are mostly pulling back from those sorts of efforts.Some analysts and regional experts have suggested that this points toward a new normal in the global geopolitical playing field; the so-called liberal world order that helped organize things, that established rules and norms from the end of WWII onward, and which incentivized everyone playing nice with each other, not invading each other, not committing genocide, and focusing on trade over war, is falling apart, the United States in particular deciding to stop funding things, stop participating, deciding to antagonize the allies that helped it maintain this state of affairs, and to basically drop anything that seems to much like a responsibility to people not in the United States. And a lot of other governments are either scrambling to figure out what that means for them, or deciding that they can afford to do something of the same. China, for instance, while stepping in to fill some of those voids, strategically, has also pulled back on some of its humanitarian efforts, because it no longer needs to invest as much in such things to compete with the US, which no longer seems to be competing in that space at all, with rare exceptions.Conflicts in Africa, also with rare exceptions, also just tend to get less attention than conflicts elsewhere, and there are all sorts of theories as to why this might be the case, from simple racism to the idea that areas with more economic potential are more valuable as allies or supplicants, so wealthy nations with the ability to do something will tend to focus their resources on areas that are more strategically vital or wealth-generating, so as to recoup their investment.Whatever the specifics and rationales, though, Sudan has long been conflict-prone, but this civil war seems to be locking the area into a state of total war—where nothing is off the table, and terror against civilians, and to a certain degree wiping out one’s enemies completely, salting the earth, killing all the civilians so they can never threaten your force’s dominance again, is becoming fundamental to everyone’s military strategy—and that state of total war, in addition to be just horrific all by itself, also threatens to roil the rest of the area, including the far more globally integrated and thus well supported and funded Horn of Africa region, which is strategically vital for many nations, due to its adjacency to the Middle East and several vital ports, and the Sahel, which is a strip of land that stretches across the continent, just south of the Sahara desert, and which in modern history has been especially prone to military coups and periods of violence, at times ve

This week we talk about General Motors, the Great Recession, and semiconductors.We also discuss Goldman Sachs, US Steel, and nationalization.Recommended Book: Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek ThompsonTranscriptNationalization refers to the process through which a government takes control of a business or business asset.Sometimes this is the result of a new administration or regime taking control of a government, which decides to change how things work, so it gobbles up things like oil companies or railroads or manufacturing hubs, because that stuff is considered to be fundamental enough that it cannot be left to the whims, and the ebbs and eddies and unpredictable variables of a free market; the nation needs reliable oil, it needs to be churning out nails and screws and bullets, so the government grabs the means of producing these things to ensure nothing stops that kind of output or operation.That more holistic reworking of a nation’s economy so that it reflects some kind of socialist setup is typically referred to as socialization, though commentary on the matter will still often refer to the individual instances of the government taking ownership over something that was previously private as nationalization.In other cases these sorts of assets are nationalized in order to right some kind of perceived wrong, as was the case when the French government, in the wake of WWII, nationalized the automobile company Renault for its alleged collaboration with the Nazis when they occupied France.The circumstances of that nationalization were questioned, as there was a lot of political scuffling between capitalist and communist interests in the country at that time, and some saw this as a means of getting back against the company’s owner, Louis Renault, for his recent, violent actions against workers who had gone on strike before France’s occupation—but whatever the details, France scooped up Renault and turned it into a state-owned company, and in 1994, the government decided that its ownership of the company was keeping its products from competing on the market, and in 1996 it was privatized and they started selling public shares, though the French government still owns about 15% of the company.Nationalization is more common in some non-socialist nations than others, as there are generally considered to be significant pros and cons associated with such ownership.The major benefit of such ownership is that a government owned, or partially government owned entity will tend to have the government on its side to a greater or lesser degree, which can make it more competitive internationally, in the sense that laws will be passed to help it flourish and grow, and it may even benefit from direct infusions of money, when needed, especially with international competition heats up, and because it generally allows that company to operate as a piece of government infrastructure, rather than just a normal business.Instead of being completely prone to the winds of economic fortune, then, the US government can ensure that Amtrak, a primarily state-owned train company that’s structured as a for-profit business, but which has a government-appointed board and benefits from federal funding, is able to keep functioning, even when demand for train services is low, and barbarians at the gate, like plane-based cargo shipping and passenger hauling, becomes a lot more competitive, maybe even to the point that a non-government-owned entity may have long-since gone under, or dramatically reduced its service area, by economic necessity.A major downside often cited by free-market people, though, is that these sorts of companies tend to do poorly, in terms of providing the best possible service, and in terms of making enough money to pay for themselves—services like Amtrak are structured so that they pay as much of their own expenses as much as possible, for instance, but are seldom able to do so, requiring injections of resources from the government to stay afloat, and as a result, they have trouble updating and even maintaining their infrastructure.Private companies tend to be a lot more agile and competitive because they have to be, and because they often have leadership that is less political in nature, and more oriented around doing better than their also private competition, rather than merely surviving.What I’d like to talk about today is another vital industry that seems to have become so vital, like trains, that the US government is keen to ensure it doesn’t go under, and a stake that the US government took in one of its most historically significant, but recently struggling companies.—The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was a law passed by the US government after the initial whammy of the Great Recession, which created a bunch of bailouts for mostly financial institutions that, if they went under, it was suspected, would have caused even more damage to the US economy.These banks had been playing fast and loose with toxic assets for a while, filling their pockets with money, but doing so in a precarious and unsustainable manner.As a result, when it became clear these assets were terrible, the dominos started falling, all these institutions started going under, and the government realized that they would either lose a significant portion of their banks and other financial institutions, or they’d have to bail them out—give them money, basically.Which wasn’t a popular solution, as it looked a lot like rewarding bad behavior, and making some businesses, private businesses, too big to fail, because the country’s economy relied on them to some degree. But that’s the decision the government made, and some of these institutions, like Goldman Sachs, had their toxic assets bought by the government, removing these things from their balance sheets so they could keep operating as normal. Others declared bankruptcy and were placed under government control, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were previously government supported, but not government run.The American International Group, the fifth largest insurer in the world at that point, was bought by the US government—it took 92% of the company in exchange for $141.8 billion in assistance, to help it stay afloat—and General Motors, not a financial institution, but a car company that was deemed vital to the continued existence of the US auto market, went bankrupt, the fourth largest bankruptcy in US history. The government allowed its assets to be bought by a new company, also called GM, which would then function as normal, which allowed the company to keep operating, employees to keep being paid, and so on, but as part of that process, the company was given a total of $51 billion by the government, which took a majority stake in the new company in exchange.In late-2013, the US government sold its final shares of GM stock, having lost about $10.7 billion over the course of that ownership, though it’s estimated that about 1.5 million jobs were saved as a result of keeping GM and Chrysler, which went through a similar process, afloat, rather than letting them go under, as some people would have preferred.In mid-August of this year, the US government took another stake in a big, historically significant company, though this time the company in question wasn’t going through a recession-sparked bankruptcy—it was just falling way behind its competition, and was looking less and less likely to ever catch up.Intel was founded 1968, and it designs, produces, and sells all sorts of semiconductor products, like the microprocessors—the computer chips—that power all sorts of things, these days.Intel created the world’s first commercial computer chip back in 1971, and in the 1990s, its products were in basically every computer that hit the market, its range and dominance expanding with the range and dominance of Microsoft’s Windows operating system, achieving a market share of about 90% in the mid- to late-1990s.Beginning in the early 2000s, though, other competitors, like AMD, began to chip away at Intel’s dominance, and though it still boasts a CPU market share of around 67% as of Q2 of 2025, it has fallen way behind competitors like Nvidia in the graphics card market, and behind Samsung in the larger semiconductor market.And that’s a problem for Intel, as while CPUs are still important, the overall computing-things, high-tech gadget space has been shifting toward stuff that Intel doesn’t make, or doesn’t do well.Smaller things, graphics-intensive things. Basically all the hardware that’s powered the gaming, crypto, and AI markets, alongside the stuff crammed into increasingly small personal devices, are things that Intel just isn’t very good at, and doesn’t seem to have a solid means of getting better at, so it’s a sort of aging giant in the computer world—still big and impressive, but with an outlook that keeps getting worse and worse, with each new generation of hardware, and each new innovation that seems to require stuff it doesn’t produce, or doesn’t produce good versions of.This is why, despite being a very unusual move, the US government’s decision to buy a 10% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion didn’t come as a total surprise.The CEO of Intel had been raising the possibility of some kind of bailout, positioning Intel as a vital US asset, similar to all those banks and to GM—if it went under, it would mean the US losing a vital piece of the global semiconductor pie. The government already gave Intel $2.2 billion as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law under the Biden administration, and which was meant to shore-up US competitiveness in that space, but that was a freebie—this new injection of resources wasn’t free.Response to this move has been mixed. Some analysts think President Trump’s penchant for netting the government shares in companies it does stuff for—as was the case with US Steel giving the US government a so-called ‘golden share’ of its company in exch

This week we talk about flesh-eating screwworms, weeds, and the US cattle industry.We also discuss genetic modification, procreation, and tsetse flies.Recommended Book: 1177 BC by Eric H ClineTranscriptThe term ‘autocidal control‘ refers to a collection of techniques that are meant to control populations of some type of living thing, animal or plant, by disrupting their procreationary capacity.So rather than attempting to control pest by spraying poisons all over the place, or controlling plants you consider to be invasive weeds by launching huge weed-pulling efforts in the afflicted areas, you might instead figure out how to keep this current generation of pests and weeds from having as many offspring as they might otherwise have, and then repeat the process with the next generation, and the next, and so on, until the unwanted species is either eradicated in the relevant region, or reduced to such a small number that its presence is no longer such a big deal.There are all kinds of approaches one might take in trying to achieve this sort of outcome.Experimental genetic modification measures, for instance, have been tried in, so far at least, limited ways, the idea being to either make the disliked species less competitive in some way (by making them slower, and thus more likely to be eaten by predators, maybe), or by making them less likely to have offspring, or less likely to have fit offspring—the next generation becomes super slow and clumsy, or they’re carriers of a gene that keeps them from procreating as much, or at all.That approach seems like it could be effective, and there are quite a few efforts, globally, that’re working to refine and perfect it with mosquito species in particular, specifically the ones that are carriers of malaria-causing parasites and similar maladies that cause immense harm to local human (and other mammal) populations.There have also been attempts to spray mating grounds with pheromones that disrupt mating behavior, or to use what’s called the Autodissemination Augmented by Males, or ADAM approach, which has been used to decent effect in some trials, and which involves basically just sprinkling a bunch of male mosquitos with pesticide, releasing them into mosquito mating grounds, and then having them deliver those pesticides to the females they mate with.All of these efforts are meant to reduce populations via some procreationary mechanism, while also attempting to ameliorate some of the other issues associated with other, widely used pest- and weed-control approaches. Most of which rely on some kind of chemical being introduced into the right environment, that chemical helping to kill or disrupt these populations, but in many cases also leading to unwanted, and often initially unforeseen side effects, like those chemicals messing with other species, getting into the groundwater and possibly being associated with maladies in humans, and so on.What I’d like to talk about today is another approach, the sterile insect technique, why it’s become so popular in recent decades, and how it’s being used, today, to address a burgeoning population of a pest that was previously eliminated in North America using this technique, but which has recently become a problem, once more.—The New World screwworm fly is thus named because its larvae, its baby offspring, are planted in warm-blooded animals. These offspring eat not just dead tissues, like the maggots of other flies, but healthy tissues as well.These maggots are often deposited near wounds, like cuts or scrapes, but also injuries caused by the castration or dehorning of cattle, or orifices and other sensitive areas with soft tissue, like the corner of a host’s eye.They don’t typically infest humans, but it does happen, and they’re most likely to be found on wild and domesticated mammals, the females of the species depositing somewhere between 250 and 500 eggs in the flesh of their hosts, the maggots screwing their way deeper into their host’s flesh as they grow, burrowing and eating for the next three to seven days, at which point they fall off and enter the next stage of their lifecycle. By that point the host may already be dead, depending on the extent of the damage these things manage to cause in the interim.These flies were originally found across the Americas and on some Caribbean islands, and they have long been a headache for cattle ranchers in particular, as they will sometimes infect one cow or goat, and then work their way through the entire herd in relatively short order, causing enough damage to seriously injure or kill a whole lot of the rancher’s stock.As a result, humans have been trying to get rid of these things for ages, but nothing seemed to make much of a dent in their populations until the emergence of what’s called the sterile insect technique, which is exactly what it sounds like: a method of autocidal control that involves sterilizing members of the species, usually the males, and then releasing them back into the population.Variations on this concept were developed by a few different researchers in a few different places around the world in the lead-up to WWII, but just after that conflict, scientists working at the US Department of Agriculture realized that they could use x-rays to reliably sterilize male screwworm flies, and that if they did this to a large number of them, then released those males into the local population of screwworm flies, to the point where there are more sterilized males than non-sterilized ones, that would serve to dramatically reduce the size of the next generation. If you then repeat this over and over again, you can eventually wipe out the species in a given region, as they successfully showed in the early 1950s by eradicating all the screwworms on Sanibel Island in Florida.The same technique was then used to kill all the screwworms on the island of Curacao, off the coast of Venezuela—that kill-off achieved in just seven weeks. Over the next few decades, sterilized male flies were then released across other afflicted US states, and both Mexico and Belize were able to kill all their screwworms in the 1980s, followed by Central America in the 1990s.This approach was also applied to other pests, almost always those that either spread disease to humans, or threatened local industries, like cattle or agricultural industries.For instance, tsetse flies, carriers of a parasite that causes sleeping sickness, were entirely or almost entirely eradicated from Tanzania, Zanzibar, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Uganda between the 1940s and late-1990s, Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, the carriers of dengue and yellow fever, were sterilized by a bacteria called Wolbachia in Queensland, Australia, in the late-20-teens, which reduced the populations of this disease-carrier in trial areas by 80%, and Japan eradicated the melon fly, an agricultural pest, in 1993.This approach to pest-control has become so popular that dozens of facilities have been set up in countries around the world, exclusively to breed and sterilize different species, which can then be shipped to where they will be released. The first of these facilities was built in Mexico in the 1960s, where Mexican fruit flies were bred and then shipped for release in Texas.It’s maybe fitting then that a new round of construction is happening, today, intending to combat the renewed presence of screwworms in Mexico, which have been making their way up into Texas via these two nations’ cattle industries.The US Department of Agriculture recently announced that it will be building a sterile screwworm fly facility in Texas, which has suffered due to the US’s recent decisions to halt the import of cattle from across the border in Mexico due to issues with screwworms hitching a ride on that cattle stock, and thus infiltrating US herds. The government tried several times to drop this cessation of imports, as the US cattle industry is pretty reliant on those imports, but each time they tried, new screwworm infestations were found, and the import halt was put back into place.US cattle populations are already at their lowest level in decades, and that’s impacting meat and dairy prices, while also putting other warm-blooded animals in the afflicted regions, especially Texas, at risk.The folks behind the new facility have said they hope to be up and running in relatively short order, aiming to be releasing sterile male New World screwworms into the wild within a year. This deployment will operate in tandem with other, more direct efforts, like fly traps and parasite-sniffing dogs stationed at ports of entry.The concerns here are not just theoretical: screwworms alone cause an estimated $1.5 billion in damage each year, and the cost of implementing a sterilization program of this kind usually adds up to something like a billion dollars, spread across decades; not a bad return on investment.These programs are not universally effective, though, as in some rare cases non-irradiated males have accidentally been shipped to their intended mating location, temporarily inflating rather than deflating population numbers. And while these programs are relatively cheap to operate on scale, the cost of producing enough sterilized males to make such an effort effective can be prohibitive when aimed at smaller regions, or when attempted by governments or agencies without the budget to see what can sometimes be a long-term project through.That said, this approach does seem to work very well when done correctly, and while its ecosystem impact is not zero, as, for instance, predators who eat these pests might suddenly find themselves without one of their staple food sources, which can lead to knock-on effects across the food web, it does seem to be one of the least foodweb ripple-producing approaches, as genetic modifications can theoretically lead to far more elaborate unforeseen consequences, and the widespread spraying of chemicals has semi-regularly led to die-offs and mala

This week we talk about tech bubbles, building moats, and infrastructure investment.We also discuss capital expenditure, data centers, and employee compensation.Recommended Book: The Art of Gathering by Priya ParkerTranscriptMany technology booms have early periods in which innovators have a first-mover advantage, and a lot of what happens in their industry is informed by the decisions those innovators make.After that—depending on the technology, but this is common enough to be considered a trend—after that there tends to be a period of build-out and consolidation amongst the people and business entities that survived that initial, innovation-focused throw-down.In the context of personal computers, this moment saw computer-makers like Microsoft and Apple scramble to pivot from figuring out what an operating system should look like and whether or not to use mice to navigate user interfaces, to a period in which they were rushing to scale-up the manufacture of now-essential, but previously comparably rare components: suitable screens for their monitors, chips that could power their increasingly graphical machines, and the magnetic materials necessary to produce floppy disks and spindle-based hard drives.There’s an initial period in which new ideas and approaches provide these entities with a moat that protects them against competition, in other words, but then the game they’re playing changes, the rules are more fully understood and to some degree locked into place and agreed upon, and instead of competing for the biggest, most brazen new ideas, they lock onto one set of ideas that seemed to be the best of what’s available at that moment and build on those, iterating them at a regular cadence, but focusing especially on scaling them.So at this second stage, they’re investing in the ability to out-produce their competition in some way, so they can eventually bypass that competition and (they hope) safely increase their prices and make a profit, as opposed to just larger and larger revenues with equal or greater expenses, continuing to be reliant on investor injections of capital, rather than generating their own surplus returns.By many analysts’ and insiders’ estimates, we’ve just entered that second stage in the generative AI industry. That’s the sort of AI that generates text and images and code and such, and it’s increasingly becoming a sort of commodity, rather than a new, hot things that few companies can offer the market.What I’d like to talk about today are the increasingly massive financial figures associated with this industry’s shift to that second stage of development, and why some of those insiders and analysts are voicing fresh concerns that this could all lead to a bubble, and possibly an historically large one.—There are many ways we could measure the growth of the AI industry over the years.The US market size, for instance, which is a measure of the value of AI-oriented companies based on how much shares of their company cost or would cost on the open market, has ballooned from just over $100 billion in 2022 to an estimated $174 billion in 2025. That figure is expected to grow at a not quite 20% compound annual growth rate through 2034, which, if accurate, would put this market, in the US alone, at more than $850 billion.Another metric we might use is that of capital expenditure, or capex, in this corner of the tech industry, which refers to the amount of money AI companies are using to buy, upgrade, or maintain their long-term assets, like new computer chips or the data centers they fill with those chips.The seven most valuable US tech companies—Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, NVIDIA, and Broadcom (that last spot formerly held by Tesla, which was dropped from this designation in late-2024)—just those seven companies have spent $102.5 billion on capex this last financial quarter (and most of that was from just four of them, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon, the remainder only spending something like $6.7 billion).That’s a staggering amount of money, and due to a recent drop in consumer demand—the money individual US citizens spend on things like food and clothes and smartphones and cars and all the other things people buy—AI-related capex, spending by these massive US tech companies, has added more to GDP growth than consumer spending for the past two quarters.All the things all the people in the US bought over the past two quarters did not cost as much, in aggregate, as what these companies spent during the same period, on new and existing assets. That’s pretty wild.And it’s the consequence, partly, of the shift in these companies’ focus from providing goods and services that relied heavily on people—salary and stock compensation, basically, which is not a capex expense, because its spent on employees, not stuff—to spending heavily on all that infrastructure that they believe will be required to help them compete with those other companies that are also frantically investing in the same.Whomever can built the biggest, baddest, most reliable and powerful data centers, and can get the AI-optimized chips to fill them, will have an advantage over their opponents in the new, developing tech world paradigm, it’s thought, so they’re pumping gobs of resources into exactly those sorts of assets, hoping to get ahead, build an insurmountable advantage, and put their competition out of business—or failing that, to establish themselves as the AI Coca-Cola, versus their opposition’s AI Mr. Pip.Similar dynamics are playing out elsewhere, especially in China, where the market could reach a value approximating today’s US AI market in 3-5 years, and several times that, up to $1.4 trillion, by 2030—though like all of these figures, it depends on how we choose to measure these sorts of things, including what counts as an AI company, and in China, several of their major AI players are heavily involved in automation, robotics, which itself is expected to be a $5 trillion industry in that country by 2050.Europe’s market is comparably smaller, as is its overall tech industry, but the AI market is now just shy of 15% of its total tech sector, up from 12% in 2022, and AI startups are attracting about a quarter of all VC funding in the bloc right now—so they’re starting from a less spendy start, but like pretty much everywhere the necessary knowledge and manufacturing base exists at the moment, the European AI market is growing a lot faster than anyone would have expected even just five years ago.And there are real-deal innovations coming out of this tech; these investments are flooding into AI companies because these technologies, this version of them, the generative AI stuff, has completely rewired the programming world, AI bots and agents helping coders achieve a lot more, faster, and non-coders make things they wouldn’t have been able to build lacking these tools, imperfect as many of those tools are, under the hood.We’re also seeing an explosion of other sorts of generated content, and the injection of these tools that make such content into Hollywood studios and consulting firms and government agencies, and everything in between, is causing equal parts panic and excitement, depending on whether you’re one of the people who feels like they might be laid off soon, replaced by software, or if you’re someone who profits from all those layoffs, and the payments from the companies that hope to save money by conducting them, replacing their comparably expensive employees with cheaper AI tools.Things have gotten so wild that Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has started offering compensation packages ranging from $200 million to more than a billion dollars to top AI talent. Meta’s AI spending is already massive, and could hit $72 billion this year, but the company has said it could hit $100 billion in 2026, while Microsoft’s leadership suggested their 2025 spending of $30 billion could balloon to $120 billion in 2026.OpenAI recently offered their employees large bonuses, in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars range, to counter those sorts of overtures from the likes of Meta, but there’s a lot of money flying around from all direction right now, much of it aimed at more AI infrastructure, or the relatively few people on the planet who understand this tech well enough to make a competitive difference in this industry.That’s…a lot of money. There’s just so much spending happening, so many resources sloshing around in this one space right now, and all this investment is predicated on the idea that AI will change everything, we’re stepping into a new paradigm, and those who control the AI, will basically own the next game. So they’re all trying to set things up so they win the next game, or at least have the best hand possible when it arrives.There have been increasingly loud arguments, made by long-time generative AI critics, but also, more recently, ardent AI boosters, that we might be running up against a wall of what these things can do for us; this version of the AI concept, at least.And these arguments got louder with OpenAI’s release of their long-teased GPT-5 model, which some expected to be true AGI, human-grade, flexible, omni-capable intelligence, while others thought it might be a mono-focused superintelligence of some kind: the perfect coder, the perfect image generator, something like that.What users got was not that. It seems to be better at some things, still not great at others.This was an incredibly expensive model to produce—the training costs alone are estimated to be something like a half-billion dollars, and that’s just a portion of the total costs of creating this sort of model—and what OpenAI served up, instead of something groundbreaking, was a slightly better, though in some ways seemingly the same or worse version of what everyone’s been playing with for years, now.There’s room for disagreement on this, as while there are some more objective tests for measuring models’ capabilities

This week we talk about surge pricing, Walmart, and the Robinson-Patman Act.We also discuss personal data, AC settings, and Delta’s earnings call.Recommended Book: How the World Became Rich by Mark Koyama and Jared RubinTranscriptThe US Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 is also called the Anti-Price Discrimination Act, and it was passed to make it illegal for a product supplier to charge different prices to different customers.So a company that makes candy bars wouldn’t be allowed to charge one price to most of their customers, all the smaller and mid-sized convenience stores and mom-and-pop grocery stores, for instance, and then a lower price to the big stores, the Walmarts and Amazons of the world.The concern was that these larger players, which at the time this law was passed were burgeoning grocery stores like A&P, would be able to achieve a monopolistic position in the market for these goods, these slightly lower prices giving them one more advantage over their smaller competitors.During the four decades or so of this Act’s enforcement, small grocery stores has prices that were, on average, about 1% higher than those offered by their large competitors, and the eight largest grocery store chains only captured about 25% of all grocery sales in the US—essentially every city and town of any size had at least one small grocery store, and most had several of them, during this period. It was a very competitive market.During the Reagan administration in the 80s, though, enforcement was abandoned, as the folks in charge of that enforcement were convinced this Act was holding back growth; they saw it as a handout to small businesses at the expense of big business, so while it technically remained on the books, they just stopped enforcing it, and the big businesses in these spaces got the message pretty quickly.Walmart was the first big business to really lean into the new powers afforded them by this fresh governmental stance, and that led to it becoming the country’s largest grocery store chain by 2001, and other big grocery brands, like Kroger and Safeway, began to do the same, consolidating all their buying so they could put in huge orders like Walmart was able to put in, and that allowed them to demand lower prices, which in turn allowed them to dramatically increase profits and gobble up their smaller competition.All of which led to the emergence of food deserts across the country, a term that was coined in 1995 to refer to areas where there are simply no grocery stores within a reasonable distance of relatively large populations of people, because smaller grocery stores can no longer compete, even when they’re the only player in town; folks have to travel to the larger chain stores, and have no real options closer to home, which can result in food precariousness, and situations in which the only nearby food options are unhealthy ones—the snacks at gas stations, for instance.This same general pattern played out across all retail spaces, including pharmacies and bookstores and athletic supply stores, and between 1982 and 2017, the total market share of independent retailers in the US dropped from 53% to 22%.Which in some ways is great at the federal level, as—and this is what the Reagan administration seemed to want, back in the 80s—big businesses can grow a lot faster and bigger than small businesses, and that can lead to outsized GDP numbers, and other such macro-scale figures.Unfortunately, while independent retailers tend to keep nearly half of the revenue they pull in within their local community, major chains only keep something like 14% in the local community—so the shift from independent to chain retailers has had a deleterious impact on communities across the US, in the sense of having less competition, having food and other sorts of product deserts, and in terms of tax revenues and overall economic wealth being sapped from these areas and moved to other places, creating some relatively few winners and a whole lot of losers, in the process.What I’d like to talk about today is another type of variable pricing, this one more directly aimed at consumers, and enabled, at least in its modern incarnation, by big data and the devices we use every day.—Dynamic pricing refers to changing the price of goods or services based on all sorts of variables.Demand or surge pricing, for instance, might see the price of a bus ticket or rideshare ride with Uber cost more during rush-hour, the idea being that there are only so many bus seats and only so many available rideshare rides to go around, and when everyone’s either trying to get to work or get home from work, there will be a lot more people wanting these finite number of seats and rides than there are seats and rides available.Upping the prices, then, is a means of determining who wants these things the most, because they’re willing to pay at times massively inflated prices for something that would cost far less in an hour or two, once the rush has subsided.Similar price-inflation occurs during peak energy-use periods, and energy companies usually explain this price-bump by suggesting that it encourages their customers to use more energy when it’s abundant and cheap, and to use less of it when it’s scarce and expensive.On very hot days when everyone is using their air conditioners to stay cool, then, inflated energy prices might encourage them to be less aggressive with their AC settings, keeping their indoor temperatures at a more reasonable level, which in turn ensures there’s more energy available for everyone and less risk of brownouts or blackouts.This pricing strategy is often seen by those on the receiving end of such price-bumps, as price gouging, which refers to companies taking advantage of temporary variables to massively inflate their prices, at times to abusive levels that they can justify by pointing at those variables and a desire to moderate supply and demand.So if there’s a big convention in town, local hotels can argue that they’re doubling or tripling their prices because there are not enough rooms for everyone who wants rooms on those days, but this could also be construed as a money-grab, these hotel companies knowing that some people won’t be able to avoid paying for a place to stay during the convention they have to attend, so they’re taking advantage of customers who have no choice but to pay up.We saw similar dynamics play out globally during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, when folks who had high-quality masks on hand were able to charge incredible sums for those masks because production hadn’t yet scaled up, so they were relatively scarce and thus precious, and these people and companies with the right product at the right time knew they could get away with charging many times the actual sticker-price of that product, because some people would feel they had no choice but to pay it.Each situation of this kind will feel reasonable and suitable for the supply-demand situation to some, and completely unreasonable and abusive to others, and it’s possible to have a bit of both in many such situations—the companies in question actually want to manage a scarce supply of something, but are also keen to make as much money as possible while doing it.Dynamic pricing has become even more common in online marketplaces like Amazon, where it’s not just holidays or events or the sudden emergence of global pandemics that can impact demand and thus, the prices retailers can get away with charging would-be customers.Amazon has algorithms that keep track of what competitors are charging for the goods they offer, what sort of demand the market is seeing for said goods, what inventory looks like—if they have a lot or very few of something available to sell—and all sorts of other factors that might reasonably impact the price of a product, even a little bit.As of 2024, the price of a product listed on Amazon changes several times a day, in some cases every 10 minutes, and they make about 2.5 million prices changes every single day, adjusting for those aforementioned micro-scale variables, on a product-by-product basis, but also adjusting their entire catalog so that relatively uncommon goods have higher prices, but common goods have lower prices, which means customers shopping around will tend to see Amazon’s lower-priced goods more often than the higher-priced ones, which in turn can adjust their perception of the company and its marketplace in a favorable, lower-price direction.Amazon also has access to just a silly amount of data about their customers, some of it scooped up while we surf their sites, and some bought from other data-aggregators. And this allows Amazon, just like most tech companies and retailers, these days to track our behavior, watching what we click on, how long we linger on different products or product types, noticing our searches and contextualizing all of it with where we live, what we’ve purchased in the past, and so on.The company isn’t very transparent about how it uses all this personal data, but while it’s been been speculated that they might adjust prices based on our individual profiles, most evidence suggests they mostly use it to determine what we’re shown—what products are promoted to us, basically, as opposed to setting prices based on what it thinks we’ll pay, as individuals.The same generally seems to be true of other retailers right now, though there are concerns that this might change at some point in the near-future, as new technologies, some based on AI, enable the more-rapid and sophisticated crunching of data, and the consequent individualization of prices, even in person.US airline Delta, for instance, recently announced that it would be using AI to help it boost profits by charging different customers different prices for the same airline seat.These prices would be based on their customer profile, which means all the data scooped up by Delta from various sources, including things like past purchases, regular flight

This week we talk about lobbying, Steam, and adult-themed games.We also discuss cultural influence, extreme ideologies, and itch.io.Recommended Book: Limitarianism by Ingrid RobeynsTranscriptIn mid-July of 2025, Valve, the company behind the gaming platform Steam, announced that it was tightening its adult-only content guidelines, its not-safe-for-work content, basically, following pressure by the payment processing companies it works with.Its new policy even says that “content that may violate the rules and standards set forth by Steam’s payment processors and related card networks and banks, or internet network providers” is not allowed on Steam’s network, which in practice means these games will be more difficult to find and purchase, because of Steam’s prominence in the non-console gaming space.About a week later, the founder of Itch.io, another gaming marketplace that’s similar in some ways to Steam, as it allows creators to sell their games to folks who use the platform, but which is a bit smaller and more focused on indie games, said that itch.io would likewise be removing NSFW, adult-themed games from its catalog, due to concerns that the payment processors they work with have communicated to their company.In no uncertain terms, he said itch.io wouldn’t be able to operate without these payment processors, so they had to “prioritize our relationships with our payment partners and take immediate steps toward compliance.”The folks whose games were removed from itch.io as part of this purge were given no warning, and many critics of the decision have pointed to similarities between this gaming-world censorship, as they see it at least, and what happened back in 2018, when social platform Tumblr banned pornographic content, the company’s owner citing pressure from credit card companies as the rationale for that decision—a decision that led to a huge exodus of users from the platform and a whole lot of criticism from creators, users, and folks who keep tabs on censorship-related issues.There’s been a lot of the same in response to these moves by itch.io, Steam, and similar platforms which have recently decoupled themselves from certain types of adult content, and statements from these companies seems to be illustrative of what’s happening here: they’re completely reliant on these payment processing companies to exist, because without them they can’t easily accept money for what they’re selling. Thus, they’d better comply with what these companies tell them to do, or else.There have been claims from some folks who have watched this sort of purge occur in other corners of the web over the years that credit card companies are anti-porn and anti-anything-NSFW because the chargeback rate is huge in these spaces—something like 10-times the number of chargebacks, which is what happens when customers say they didn’t buy something, and in some cases then get their money back, after the fact, compared to the next-highest facet of the payment processing industry. And that’s both a pain and potentially expensive.Others have pointed out that these sorts of purges tend to be political in nature: the groups that push payment processors to adopt these stances are typically vehemently anti-porn, either ultra-conservative or radical-feminist in nature—two ideologies that are oppositional in many ways, but they loop back around when it comes to some topics and have similar, burn it all down ideas about adult content; we don’t approve, so let’s get rid of all this stuff that we don’t approve of by whatever means necessary.In most cases this means lobbying to get influence in various political spheres, including with politicians who control various governments’ relationships with these payment processors. If they can get the ear of those who make the rules to which these payment processors must adhere, they can then threaten the payment processors—who in many countries, though especially the United States, have pretty sweet deals that allow them to more or less collect a tax on every payment made for everything across every sector—saying, well, we can push our friends in the government to take those sweetheart deals away. So unless you want to suffer that consequence, push these customers of yours to take down this stuff we don’t like.What I’d like to talk about today are some similar and overlapping movements that are beginning to see censorship-related success across these and other aspects of the web, and the seeming purpose behind these pushes to censor and purge and create the apparatuses by which censorship and purges can be more thoroughly performed.—One of the big concerns about banning certain types of games is that games are just content, and if you’re able to find a reliable means of banning one type of content, you can then, in theory at least, using that same lever to ban other types of content, like books, articles, films, and so on. Some of the stuff banned on itch.io were essentially just books, in fact.If you can reliably ban any type of content, you can shape the information ecosystem to reflect one world view, and that’s the sort of thing that tends to distort entire societies, creating an artificial, unreflective view of the world that adheres to the beliefs, values, and perspectives of one group while ignoring or putting down, or even outlawing the beliefs, values, and perspectives of others.It’s easy to miss that when talking about the banning of adult-themed video games, and many of the games that were banned on Steam and itch.io contained themes like incest and rape—taboo themes that many people have ideological issues with, not just standard-fair pornography, whatever that even means these days.That said, this same general approach has been used to great effect by interest groups using the same general language, that we need to protect women, or we need to protect the children, won’t someone think of the children, to ban books that feature any kind of queer content, or adult-adjacent themes; nothing pornographic, but themes that don’t line up, often, with a particularly conservative, Christian, no-sex-before-marriage ideology.So if you’re in that interest group and have those beliefs, these sorts of bans make a certain kind of sense if you want to enforce those beliefs on others and ensure the media ecosystem reflects your beliefs and nothing else, but if you don’t share those beliefs, well, this lever could be used to ban all the stuff you want to see and learn about and consider, and can be very oppressive.The group behind the recent Steam and itch.io bans, Collective Shout, is run by an Australian political activist named Melinda Tankard Reist who describes herself as an advocate for women and girls and a pro-life feminist. And she’s dedicated herself, among other things, to banning adult films, blocking musical artists from performing in Australia if their work contains lyrics she doesn’t approve of, and to removing pornographic games from platforms like Steam, alongside games that contain LGBTQ characters or have references to domestic violence, including those that present content meant to help people who have suffered domestic violence recover from that experience.A very specific ideology, then, that she has dedicated her life to enforcing on the larger media ecosystem, and thus, society as a whole.There’s a parallel and in some cases interrelated movement happening globally right now, especially in the UK and US, but in some other countries, too, to varying degrees, oriented around age-gating online content.The British government, for instance, recently approved the Online Safety Act of 2023, which they’ve said is intended to protect children from pornographic content on the internet.This law is enforced by an age-gate, which means requiring that people who want to access such content prove they are old enough to access it, usually by uploading their government issued ID, taking a selfie, which is then assessed to see if they’re obviously old enough, or uploading something like a bank card that a child wouldn’t have.This law punishes online platforms that don’t implement these sorts of age-gate systems, though apparently they’re incredibly ineffective and easy to bypass, as all you have to do is use a VPN to make it look like you’re in another country, and the age-gates go away; that loophole might eventually disappear, as this is something that is still being rolled out, but that’s the general concept and intention here.The problem with these sorts of age-gates, as noted by all sorts of activists across the political spectrum, is that what’s appropriate and not appropriate is often being determined by people with views and beliefs that are in some way radical and different from that of the average person where these laws are being passed—usually those with more conservative, and thus constrictive ideas about what should be allowed—and that means, again, the informational ecosystems in these places are being reshaped to match that of these extremist people, who either found themselves in the right political positions, or who have over time purchased influenced with the politicians who are helping to make these laws.The situation is similar in some parts of the US, where age-gating laws are beginning to see implementation in conservative states like Texas, where First Amendment challenges to a recently passed age-gate law were rebuffed by the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of those passing the law; the US Supreme Court has a large conservative majority right now, and relationships with some of the folks pushing these laws, so this isn’t terribly surprising.That law, HB1181, which is one of many currently in the works or recently passed in the US, 21 states have a law similar to this, as of mid-2025, and it will require websites with adult content implement age-gating filters to prove users are 18 or older, or, as in the UK, they will be punished.Also as in the UK, there are relatively simple

This week we talk about the PKK, Turkey, and the DEM Party.We also discuss terrorism, discrimination, and stateless nations.Recommended Book: A Century of Tomorrows by Glenn AdamsonTranscriptKurdistan is a cultural region, not a country, but part of multiple countries, in the Middle East, spanning roughly the southeastern portion of Turkey, northern Iraq, the northwestern portion of Iran, and northern Syrian. Some definitions also include part of the Southern Caucasus mountains, which contains chunks of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.So this is a sprawling region that straddles multiple nations, and it’s defined by the presence of the Kurdish people, the Kurds, who live all over the world, but whose culture is concentrated in this area, where it originally developed, and where, over the generations, there have periodically been very short-lived Kurdish nations of various shapes, sizes, and compositions.The original dynasties from which the Kurds claim their origin were Egyptian, and they governed parts of northeastern African and what is today Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. That was back in the 8th to 12th century, during which Saladin, who was the sultan of both Egypt and Syria, played a major historical role leading Muslim military forces against the Christian Crusader states during the Third Crusade, and leading those forces to victory in 1187, which resulted in Muslim ownership of the Levant, even though the Crusaders continued to technically hold the Kingdom of Jerusalem for another hundred years or so, until 1291.Saladin was Kurdish and kicked off a sultanate that lasted until the mid-13th century, when a diverse group of former slave-soldiers called the mamluks overthrew Saladin’s family’s Ayyubid sultanate and replaced it with their own.So Kurdish is a language spoken in that Kurdistan region, and the Kurds are considered to be an Iranian ethnic group, because Kurdish is part of a larger collection of languages and ethnicities, though many Kurds consider themselves to be members of a stateless nation, similar in some ways to pre-Israel Jewish people, Tibetan people under China’s rule, or the Yoruba people, who primarily live in Nigeria, Benin, and Togo, but who were previously oriented around a powerful city-state in that region, which served as the central loci of the Ife Empire, before the Europeans showed up and decided to forcibly move people around and draw new borders across the African continent.The Kurds are likewise often politically and culturally powerful, and that’s led to a lot of pushback from leaders in the nations where they live and at times operate as cultural blocs, and it’s led to some very short-lived Kurdish nations these people have managed to establish in the 20th century, including the Kingdom of Kurdistan from 1921-1924, the Republic of Ararat from 1927-1930, and the Republic of Mahabad, which was formed as a puppet state of the Soviet Union in 1946 in northwestern Iran, following a Soviet push for Kurdish nationalism in the region, which was meant to prevent the Allies from controlling the region following WWII, but which then dissolved just a few months after its official formation due to waning support from the Kurdish tribes that initially helped make it a reality.What I’d like to talk about today is the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, and why their recently declared ceasefire with Turkey is being seen as a pretty big deal.—The Kurdistan Worker’s Party, depending on who you ask, is a political organization or a terrorist organization. It was formed in Turkey in late-1978, and its original, founding goal was to create an independent Kurdish state, a modern Kurdistan, in what is today a small part of Turkey, but in the 1990s it shifted its stated goals to instead just get more rights for Kurds living in Turkey, including more autonomy but also just equal rights, as Kurdish people in many nations, including Turkey, have a long history of being discriminated against, in part because of their cultural distinctiveness, including their language, manner of dress, and cultural practices, and in part because, like many tight-knit ethnic groups, they often operate as a bloc, which in the age of democracy also means they often vote as a bloc, which can feel like a threat to other folks in areas with large Kurdish populations.When I say Kurdish people in Turkey have long been discriminated against, that includes things like telling them they can no longer speak Kurdish and denying that their ethnic group exists, but it also includes massacres conducted by the government against Kurdish people; at times tens of thousands of Kurds were slaughtered by the Turkish army. There was also an official ban on the words Kurds, Kurdistan, and Kurdish by the Turkish government in the 1980s, and Kurdish villages were destroyed, food headed to these villages was embargoed, and there was a long-time ban on the use of the Kurdish language in public life, and people who used it were arrested.As is often the case in such circumstances, folks who support the Kurdish Worker’s Party, which is often shorthanded as the PKK, will tell you this group just pushes back against an oppressive regime, and they do what they have to to force the government to backtrack on their anti-Kurdish laws and abuses, which have been pretty widespread and violent.The PKK, in turn, has been criticized for, well, doing terrorist stuff, including using child soldiers, conducting suicide bombings, massacring groups of civilians, engaging in drug trafficking to fund their cause, and executing people on camera as a means of sowing terror.Pretty horrible stuff on both sides, if you look at this objectively, then, and both sides have historically justified their actions by pointing at the horrible things the other side has done to them and theirs.And that’s the context for a recent announcement by the leader of the PKK, that the group would be disarming—and very literally so, including a symbolic burning of their weapons in a city in northern Iraq, which was shared online—and they would be shifting their efforts from that of violent militarism and revolution to that of political dialogue and attempting to change the Turkish government from the inside.Turkish President Erdogan, for his part, has seemed happy to oblige these efforts and gestures, fulfilling his role by receiving delegates from the Turkish, pro-Kurd party, the DEM Party, and smilingly shaking that delegate’s hand on camera, basically showing the world, and those who have played some kind of role in the militant effort against the Turkish government, that this is the way of things now, we’re not fighting physically anymore, we’re moving on to wearing suits and pushing for Kurdish rights within the existing governmental structures.The founder of the PKK, Abdullah Ocalan, got in on the action, as well, releasing a seven-minute video from prison, which was then broadcast by the PKK’s official media distribution outlet, saying that the fighting is over. This was his first appearance on camera in 26 years, and he used it to say their effort paid off, the Kurds now have an officially recognized identity, and it’s time to leverage that identity politically to move things in the right direction.Erdogan’s other messages on the matter, to the Kurdish people, but also those who have long lived in fear of the PKK’s mass-violence, have reinforced that sentiment, saying that the Kurds are officially recognized as a political entity, and that’s how things would play out from this point forward—and this will be good for everyone. And both sides are saying that, over and over, because, well, child soldiers and suicide bombings and massacres conducted by both sides are really, really not good for anyone.By all indications, this has been a very carefully orchestrated dance by those on both sides of the conflict, which again, has been ongoing since 1978, and really picked up the pace and became continuous and ultra-violent, in the 1980s.There was an attempted peace process back in the 20-teens, but the effort, which included a temporary truce between 2013 and 2015, failed, following the murder of two Turkish police officers, the PKK initially claiming responsibility, but later denying they had any involvement. That led to an uptick in military actions by both groups against the other, and the truce collapsed.This new peace process began in 2024 and really took off in late-February of 2025, when that aforementioned message was broadcast by the PKK’s leader from prison after lawmakers from the pro-Kurdish DEM Party worked to connect him and the Turkish government, and eventually helped negotiate the resulting mid-May of 2025 disarmament.Turkey’s military leaders have said they will continue to launch strikes against PKK-affiliated groups that continue to operate in the region, and the PKK’s disarmament announcement has been embraced by some such groups, while others, like the Syrian Democratic Forces, which is tied to the PKK, but not directly affiliated with them, have said this truce doesn’t apply to them.Most governments, globally, have heralded this disarmament as a major victory for the world and Turkey in particular, though the response within Turkey, and in Kurdish areas in particular, has apparently been mixed, with some people assuming the Turkish government will backtrack and keep the DEM Party from accomplishing much of anything, and worrying about behind-the-scenes deals, including a reported agreement between Erdogan’s government and the DEM Party to support Erdogan’s desire to transform the Turkish presidential system, which would grant him more direct control and power, and allow him to run for another term in office, while others are seemingly just happy to hear that the violence and fear might end.Also notable here is that a lot of Turkey’s foreign policy has revolved around hobbling and hurting the PKK for decades, including Turkey’s initial hindering of

This week we talk about AI therapy chatbots, delusions of grandeur, and sycophancy.We also discuss tech-triggered psychosis, AI partners, and confident nonsense.Recommended Book: Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore by Robin SloanTranscriptIn the context of artificial intelligence systems, a hallucination or delusion, sometimes more brusquely referred to as AI BS, is an output usually from an AI chatbot, but it can also be from another type of AI system, that’s basically just made up.Sometimes this kind of output is just garbled nonsense, as the AI systems, those based on large language models, anyway, are essentially just predicting what words will come next in the sentences they’re writing based on statistical patterns. That means they can string words together, and then sentences together, and then paragraphs together in what seems like a logical and reasonable way, and in some cases can even cobble together convincing stories or code or whatever else, because systems with enough raw materials to work from have a good sense of what tends to go where, and thus what’s good grammar and what’s not, what code will work and what code will break your website, and so on.In other cases, though, AI systems will seem to just make stuff up, but make it up convincingly enough that it can be tricky to detect the made up component of its answers.Some writers have reported asking AI to provide feedback on their stories, for instance, only to later discover that the AI didn’t have access to the stories, and they were providing feedback based on the title, or based on the writer’s prompt—the text the writer used to ask the AI for feedback. And their answers were perhaps initially convincing enough that the writer didn’t realize the AI hadn’t read the pieces they asked them to criticize, and the AI systems, because most of them are biased to sycophancy, toward brown-nosing the user and not saying anything that might upset them, or saying what it believes they want to hear, they’ll provide general critique that sounds good, that lines up with what their systems tell them should be said in such contexts, but which is completely disconnected from those writings, and thus, not useful to the writer as a critique.That combination of confabulation and sycophancy can be brutal, especially as these AI systems become more powerful and more convincing. They seldom make the basic grammatical and reality-based errors they made even a few years ago, and thus it’s easy to believe you’re speaking to something that’s thinking or at the bare-minimum, that understands what you’re trying to get it to help you with, or what you’re talking about. It’s easy to forget when interacting with such systems that you’re engaged not with another human or thinking entity, but with software that mimics the output of such an entity, but which doesn’t experience the same cognition experienced by the real-deal thinking creatures it’s attempting to emulate.What I’d like to talk about today is another sort of AI-related delusion—one experienced by humans interacting with such systems, not the other way around—and the seeming, and theoretical, pros and cons of these sorts of delusional responses.—Research that’s looked into the effects of psychotherapy, including specific approaches like cognitive behavioral therapy and group therapy, show that such treatments are almost aways positive, with rare exceptions, grant benefits that tend to last well past the therapy itself—so people who go to therapy tend to benefit from it even after the session, and even after they stop going to therapy, if they eventually stop going for whatever reason, and that the success rate, the variability of positive impacts, vary based on the clinical location, the therapist, and so on, but only by about 5% or less for each of those variables; so even a not perfectly aligned therapist or a less than ideal therapy location will, on average, benefit the patient.That general positive impact is part of the theory underpinning the use of AI systems for therapy purposes.Instead of going into a therapist’s office and speaking with a human being for an hour or so at a time, the patient instead speaks or types to an AI chatbot that’s been optimized for this purpose. So it’s been primed to speak like a therapist, to have a bunch of therapy-related resources in its training data, and to provide therapy-related resources to the patient with whom it engages.There are a lot of downsides to this approach, including the fact that AI bots are flawed in so many ways, are not actual humans, and thus can’t really connect with patients the way a human therapist might be able to connect with them, they have difficulty shifting from a trained script, as again, these systems are pulling from a corpus of training data and additional documents to which they have access, and that means they’ll tend to handle common issues and patient types pretty well, but anything deviating from that is a toss-up, and, as I mentioned in the intro, there’s a chance they’ll just make stuff up or brown-nose the patient, saying things it seems like the patient wants to hear, rather than the things the patient needs to hear for their mental health.On the upside, though, there’s a chance some people who wouldn’t feel comfortable working with a human therapist will be more comfortable working with a non-human chatbot, many people don’t have physical access to therapists or therapy centers, or don’t have insurance that covers what they need in this regard, and some people have other monetary or physical or mental health issues that makes therapy inaccessible or non-ideal for whatever reason, and these systems could help fill in the gaps for them, giving them something imperfect, but, well, 80% of what you need can be a lot better than 0% of what you need. In theory, at least.That general logic is a big part of why the therapy AI bot boom has been so substantial, despite the many instances of human patients seemingly being driven to suicide or other sorts of self-harm after interacting with these bots, which in some cases were later found to either nudge their patients in that direction, or support their decisions to do so. And that’s alongside the other issues associated with any app that sends the user’s information to a third location for processing, like the collection of their data for marketing and other purposes.The therapy chatbot industry is just one corner of a much larger conversation about what’s become known as ChatGPT Psychosis, which is shorthand for the delusions some users of these AI chatbots, those made by ChatGPT and those made by other companies, begin to have while interacting with these bots, or maybe already had, but then have amplified by their interactions with these systems.The stories have been piling up, reported in the Times, in Rolling Stone, and in scientific journals, and the general narrative is that someone who seems to be doing fine, but who’s maybe a little depressed or unhappy, a little anxious, but nothing significant, at least to those around them, starts interacting with a chatbot, then gets really, really absorbed in that interaction, and then at some point those around this person realize that their friend or child or spouse or whomever is beginning to have delusions of grandeur, believing themselves to be a prophet or god, or maybe they’re starting to see the world as just an intertangled mess of elaborate, unbacked conspiracy theories, or they come to believe the entire world revolves around them in some fundamental way, or everyone is watching and talking about them—that genre of delusion.Many such people end up feeling as if they’re living inside nihilistic and solipsistic nightmares, where nothing has meaning and they’re perhaps the only entity of any importance on the planet—everyone else is just playing a minor role in their fantastical existence.Different chatbots have different skins, in the sense that their outputs are tailored in different ways, to have a different valence and average personality. Some chatbots, like ChatGPT’s GPT-4o, have had their sycophancy setting set so high that it rendered them almost completely useless before it was eventually fixed—early users reported feeling unsettled by their interactions with this bot when it was first released, because it was such a shameless yes-man, they couldn’t get any useful information from it, and all the language it used to deliver the information it did provide made them feel like they were being manipulated by a slavish underling.For some people, though, that type of presentation, that many compliments and that much fawning attention, will feel good, or feel right.Maybe they’re disempowered throughout their day in countless subtle and overt ways, and having someone—even if that someone isn’t real—speak to them like they’re important and valuable and smart and attractive and perhaps even the most important person in the world, maybe that feels good.Others maybe feel like they have hidden potential that’s never been appreciated, and if the chatbot they’re referencing for all sorts of answers about things, and which seems to have most of those answers, and is thus a believable source of good, correct information, starts to talk to them as if they’re the messiah, well, maybe they start to believe they are important, are some kind of messiah: after all, it’s right about so many other things, so why not this thing? It’s something which many of us, to greater or lesser degrees, at least, possibly not always to that extreme, would be psychologically primed to believe, at least on some level, because it feels good to feel important, and so many social narratives, in some cultures at least, make this seem like something that does happen and might someday happen to us.This effect might be even more pronounced in people who have underlying conditions, like depression or anxiety, and even more so those with conditions like schizophrenia that leave