Podcast appearances and mentions of Amy Klobuchar

Senator Mark Kelly talks with Jen Psaki about Donald Trump's deeply unpopular war against Iran and the effort the Trump administration is putting into covering up and spinning the truth even though the war and its effects are apparent to any American paying attention. Terry Moran, former ABC News anchor, talks with Jen about Donald Trump's war on the media and a new low in his intimidation tactics. Donald Trump's evasion and inaction on accountability for ICE abuses, including shooting Americans dead in the street, is only making Americans more angry and less patient. Senator Amy Klobuchar discusses with Jen Psaki. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

McShane and Fitz open Razor Wire (July 18, 6:32 PM) with a smug “I told you so,” arguing years of warnings about China influencing America are now backed by newly released/declassified intel, whistleblower claims, and reporting that China's 2020 influence operations were suppressed while Russia's were amplified. They blast “the big three” networks for refusing to air Trump's speech, call mainstream outlets propaganda, and replay clips of Democrats (Harris, Schiff, Clinton, Klobuchar, etc.) previously warning voting machines are hackable—then note Trump made similar claims with NSA/FBI documentation. They mock fear-driven headlines like “explosive diarrhea,” debate the SAVE Act and Slotkin calling it “rigging,” reject suspending elections, and demand arrests. Between beer reviews, they riff on Lindsey Graham's death theories, Iran/Strait of Hormuz strategy, crypto legislation, Pentagon testosterone screening, a deadly “sandbox/dynamite tree,” and a wild “Russian spy” honeypot clip.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/razor-wire-news--5683729/support.www.razorwirenews.com

Cam Cooksey is back from a month of travels (Deadwood, the Lupos for the 4th, then Clearwater Beach) and still on island time, sunburned and peeling, but ready for a good time. He kicks off with a fun first: paying for a Steak 'n Shake 1776 meal with Bitcoin Lightning, then eases into a warm, patriotic celebration of America's 250th. Expect Cam's signature positive spin on the news. He covers Trump's endorsement jab at Amy Klobuchar, the fight for AI and data center dominance against China, and a cryptic look at public private partnerships in national defense (with General Raisin Cain and a Pennsylvania "arsenal of freedom" speech). There's a throwback TikTok flex, a nostalgic Trump tribute video, and a closing MAHA reflection arguing America could feed every family real food, and maybe the world, on a fraction of its farmland. Faith, abundance, and coexistence tie it all together. The American of the Week returns next week.

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president

Lt. Ryan Neville joins The Amber May Show to break down the Charlie Kirk pretrial hearing from the perspective of a Marine veteran and law-enforcement officer with more than 20 years of experience. Then, Amber examines President Trump's election-security press conference and the declassified intelligence released by the White House. The show also features past clips of Democrats, including Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, warning that voting machines could be hacked. What changed, and why did election-machine concerns become partisan? Amber also reviews the Muskegon voter-registration investigation, the questions surrounding GBI Strategies, and the evidence that now demands a closer look. Plus, Chevron is moving into major Iraqi oil fields while studying a new oil route that could bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Could this weaken Iran's influence and reshape global energy markets? Today's show follows the evidence, asks the hard questions, and examines what happens next. Join Me On Telegram https://t.me/theambermayshow Podcast Like A PRO https://podcast-like-a-pro.trainercentralsite.com Promocode Amber Discord https://discord.gg/kUsDba4zRj https://discord.com/channels/1331829063400034435/1331829063869792308 The Amber May Show Theme Song https://suno.com/song/87e27080-4ddb-47f7-8722-b00b251e6c84 Get AMAZING Amber May Merchandise https://www.ambermayshow.com/amazing-products Follow Me on Pickax https://pickax.com/?referralCode=gb4e11n&refSource=copy Get all your My Pillow Products at a DISCOUNT www.mypillow.com/amber Use Promo Code AMBER and save up to 66% off Promo code-AMBER 800-957-2123 Get Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and SAVE Dr Stella Immanuel https://marketplace.drstellamd.com/amber-may Use Promo Code AmberMay and save Become An Affiliate with Dr Stella https://rehoboth-medical-cli.trackdesk.com/sign-up?referralAccountId=1f8c94aa-933e-4aa8-ac5b-5a8d9a0d4508 Save Money When Using A Patient Advocate In The Medical System https://www.graithcare.com/?ref=Amber Take Control of Your Health & Healing! Get the full celebration of solutions that happened at Healing For The A.G.E.S. Over 20 hours of ground-breaking, life-changing, information you've never heard before, and can't get anywhere else! https://healingfortheages.com/ use promocode Amber Patriot Mobile- Free Activation When you become a Patriot Mobile member, your dollars are helping to fund our God-given right to freedom. A portion of every dollar we earn is given back to the causes that support organizations that fight for First Amendment Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, Sanctity of Life, and the needs of our Veterans and First Responders. https://www.patriotmobile.com/amber/ Use Promocode AMBER Our Exodus supplement nourishes your body with potent biblical ingredients, supporting your physical and spiritual journey. Https://exodusstrong.com?a_aid=Amber Become an Exodus Affilate Https://exodusstrong.com/pages/champions?a_aid=Amber The Flynn Movie https://www.flynnmovie.com/ref/azladyz/ War On Truth Movie You've been told that J6 was a violent insurrection against the United States by a group of angry, fringe, MAGA supporters… What if it wasn't? What if there really was a War on Truth? https://hisglory.tv/?ref=448 Promocode MAY Patrick Byrne, the founder/CEO of Overstock.com, rose to the height of financial success and was once heralded as a Wall Street prophet. However, in 2019, Byrne seemingly slipped into madness — stepping down from his multi-billion dollar company, claiming to be a covert government asset trapped in a deadly game of political espionage https://enemywithindocuseries.com/ref/amber Promocode AMBER Is it possible with Turbo Cancers on the rise and Big Pharma's reputation at zero, that Americans are finally ready to hear the truth about Cancer? Are you ready? In the 70's a Doctor working for a National Cancer Institute discovered that Apricot seeds, which contain B-17, actually slowed the growth of tumors. https://rncstore.com/ambermay Ensure the health of the indoor air quality in your home investing in good air purifiers to eliminate pollutants and allergens. Find adjunctive therapies to cancer and better health with red light and methylene blue found in the link below! https://airwaterhealing.com/#May Promocode May Supermassive Black Coffee Use Promocode AMBER https://www.supermassiveblackcoffee.com/ Find Where we air our show here: https://www.ambermayshow.com/

07/17/26: MN Republican endorsed candidate for Governor Kendall Qualls joins Joel Heitkamp on "News and Views" to discuss the primary election, President Trump's endorsement of Mike Lindell, facing Senator Amy Klobuchar, and more. (Joel Heitkamp is a talk show host on the Mighty 790 KFGO in Fargo-Moorhead. His award-winning program, “News & Views,” can be heard weekdays from 8 – 11 a.m. Follow Joel on X/Twitter @JoelKFGO.)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Erick argues candidate quality will decide 2026 and spares no one, ripping GOP picks like Mike Lindell in Minnesota (against Amy Klobuchar), Colorado's fabulist nominee Victor Marx, and Georgia's Mike Collins, whose white nationalist son-in-law Alan Shear and huge cash gap against Jon Ossoff keep growing. He then turns on the Democrats' own wreckage: Michigan […]

What will the endorsement of Mike Lindell from President Trump do to the GOP race to represent the party in the gubernatorial race? And can Amy Klobuchar really be so lucky to face Lindell in the general election?

This episode features Wrong About Everything co-hosts and Momentum Advocacy co-owners Amy Frederiksen and Brian McDaniel, uber-fan Bernie Bomberg and psychic Ruth Lordan.

Could Angie Craig and Peggy Flanagan both end up serving as U.S. Senators in January? Some thoughts from Blois Olson on The WCCO Morning News with Vineeta Sawkar.

Could Angie Craig and Peggy Flanagan both end up serving as U.S. Senators in January? Some thoughts from Blois Olson on The WCCO Morning News with Vineeta Sawkar.

Bill talks with political strategist and messaging consultant Anat Shenker-Osorio about what Democrats should say—and who should say it—heading into the midterms to check Trump 2.0. Shenker-Osorio argues Democrats must combine an affordability agenda with a clear villain frame, calling Trump's team “bullies for the billionaires,” and pair warnings about authoritarianism with credible promises to act as a real check, not just “shout fire.” She says corruption messaging is not automatically a Democratic advantage because many voters believe all politicians are corrupt, and criticizes party leaders like Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Amy Klobuchar for ineffective communication. And the need for money has pols spending too much time on donor-driven “call time.” They discuss campaign “magnetism,” lessons from New York races and Zohran Mamdani's focus on concrete benefits, Jon Ossoff's anti-corruption appeal, backlash from James Carville, and the mixed calculus around Maine candidate Graham Platner's working-class message amid allegations about past behavior.Today Bill urges you to support Jon Ossoff by going to ACTBlue.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We now have the first ad from Michele Tafoya amid her bid for Senate in Minnesota - we get Blois to chime in on this, Amy Klobuchar's campaigning ad strategy and are we shifting when it comes to primaries following the New York buzz with Democratic Socialists taking the reigns and is this a precursor for Minnesota!

Our Season Finale guest is Rachel Dratch, a comedy LEGEND who was a cast member of Saturday Night Live from 1999-2006, during which she developed and performed such iconic characters as Debbie Downer, “The Love-ahs” with Will Ferrell, and the Boston teen Denise "Zazu" McDenna. (And she still pops up there from time to time to play Senator Amy Klobuchar.) She's appeared in countless TV shows including The King of Queens, Frasier, 30 Rock, and Broad City, and in films including Down with Love, Wine Country, and A Clüsterfünke Christmas which she co-wrote with her co-star and fellow SNL alum Ana Gasteyer.Rachel has starred in several Broadway shows, earning her two Tony nominations, the first for POTUS in 2022, and the second just this year in The Rocky Horror Show which she's starring in now. She is also the author of the memoir Girl Walks into a Bar...: Comedy Calamities, Dating Disasters, and a Midlife Miracle, and she's the host of the supernatural podcast, Woo Woo with Rachel Dratch. On this episode, Rachel discusses the occult aspects of improv, the inspiration behind her most iconic sketch characters, and the importance of staying open to magic.Pam also talks about bewitching comedy guru Del Close, and answers a listener question about forging one's own eclectic spiritual path.Check out the video of this episode over on YouTube (and please like and subscribe to the channel while you're at it!)Our sponsors for this episode are Witchspace, Weiser Books, Blessed Be Magick, BetterHelp, and Mithras Candle.We also have print-on-demand merch like Witch Wave shirts, sweatshirts, totes, stickers, and mugs available now here, and all sorts of other bewitching goodies available in the Witch Wave shop.And if you want more Witch Wave, please consider supporting us on Patreon to get access to detailed show notes, bonus Witch Wave Plus episodes, Pam's monthly online rituals, and more! That's patreon.com/witchwave

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn June 7, 1896, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in the United States. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court ruled 7-1 that states could require separate facilities for Black and white people as long as those facilities were “separate but equal.” Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, had violated a Louisiana law by sitting in a “whites only” railroad car. When arrested, he challenged the law as unconstitutional. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the majority that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed political and legal equality but not social equality, and that the law was reasonable. Justice John Marshall Harlan issued a lone dissent, famously writing: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”This doctrine of “separate but equal” stood for nearly 60 years, providing legal cover for Jim Crow laws and racial apartheid across the South. Schools were drastically unequal in funding and resources. Hotels, restaurants, bathrooms, and water fountains were segregated by race. The doctrine was finally overturned in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which acknowledged that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson represents one of the most consequential wrong turns in Supreme Court history. What made it so damaging was not just the ruling, but the Court's apparent good faith in the “separate but equal” framework—a comfort with the idea that segregation could be constitutional if resources were distributed evenly, a comfort the Court itself never actually required states to achieve. The case shows how courts can legitimize injustice through neutral-sounding language and deference to legislatures.A federal appeals court ruled this week that California schools cannot keep secret a student's gender identity transition from their parents. Think of it this way: California had passed a law giving schools discretion to withhold from parents information about changes to a student's gender expression or identity, reasoning that this protected students from potentially harmful family reactions. But the court found this violated parents' constitutional rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The Supreme Court has long recognized that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. This includes decisions about their education and health.California's policy attempted to create an exception to parental notification by allowing schools to conceal information about gender identity changes from parents without parental knowledge or consent. The court said California went too far. The judges acknowledged that student safety is a legitimate concern, but concluded that blanket policies allowing schools to hide information from parents violate the constitutional rights that parents have.This case sits at the intersection of three important values: parental rights, student privacy, and student safety. On one side, parents argue they need information to support their children's development and health. On the other, supporters of the California policy argued that some students face rejection or harm from parents if they learn about gender transitions, and that schools need confidentiality to protect vulnerable youth. The court sided with parental notification rights, but left open the question of whether schools can still withhold information in specific cases where there's evidence of abuse or danger. The ruling doesn't mean schools must immediately report every aspect of a student's identity; rather, it means they generally cannot have a blanket policy of concealing gender-related information from parents.California Gender Transition Parental Notification CaseThe Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case with potentially enormous implications for citizenship law in America. Here's what's at stake: On his first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents entered the country illegally or are living and working in the U.S. on temporary visas. This directly challenges the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”For over 150 years, the United States has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Trump's order says the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders. The administration argues that these children are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the way the amendment requires. Legal scholars and immigration advocates counter that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means not immune from U.S. law—which applies to everyone in the country, citizen and non-citizen alike.This case could affect millions of people. The U.S. currently grants automatic citizenship to roughly 250,000 to 375,000 children born to undocumented immigrants each year. If Trump v. Barbara succeeds, those children would not automatically be citizens. The case will require the Supreme Court to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment—one of the most fundamental provisions in the Constitution. The Court hasn't definitively ruled on the citizenship status of children born to undocumented immigrants in modern times. The outcome will reshape American immigration law and the path to citizenship for generations to come.Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration ActionsA Senate Judiciary Committee advanced two bipartisan bills that would expand camera access in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courtrooms. The bills, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act and the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, now move to the full Senate for possible consideration. Supporters say the measures would make the judiciary more transparent by allowing the public to see important proceedings without having to attend in person. Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee and co-sponsored both bills, argued that Americans should be able to observe cases that affect the whole country, especially at the Supreme Court. Senator Amy Klobuchar also supported the effort, comparing courtroom access to the public's ability to watch Congress on C-SPAN.The federal judiciary opposes the proposals and warned that cameras could create problems for jury trials, witness safety, courtroom security, and the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has traditionally barred video coverage, although it began offering live audio of oral arguments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cameras in the Courtroom Act would require televised coverage of public Supreme Court proceedings unless a majority of justices found that cameras would violate due process. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would give federal judges broader discretion to allow photography, recording, broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings. That bill also includes safeguards for jurors and witnesses, limits coverage of private conversations, and would expire after three years unless Congress renews it.US Senate panel advances bills allowing cameras in US Supreme Court, lower courts | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us Fan MailAre you tired of typical lying politicians who offer nothing but empty campaign promises? Meet Phillip Parrish—a farmer, successful businessman, former U.S. Navy Intelligence officer, and devoted Christian who is running for Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota alongside Mike Lindell. This is an unfiltered, deeply honest look at the man who intends to help clean up the state's infrastructure and restore integrity to the Midwest. In the first half of this special interview, Phillip shares his encouraging personal journey of faith, processing life tragedies through writing, and surviving intense moral and ethical pressure while serving under the Obama administration. In the second half, the conversation transitions completely into the operational future of Minnesota. Phillip pulls back the curtain on "The 30-Year Heist," exposing the systemic grifting networks and massive institutional fraud occurring under Tim Walz, Amy Klobuchar, Keith Ellison, and Ilhan Omar. Listen to this vital message of hope to discover how you can step up, secure your family's future, and actively participate in saving Minnesota. Key Timestamps & Moments of GoldWho is Phillip Parrish?00:00:00 - Introduction to special guest Phillip Parrish 00:00:54 - Growing up on a Minnesota farm and early teaching career 00:01:20 - Joining the U.S. Navy Reserve and sudden post-9/11 deployment 00:02:44 - Baling old-school square hay in the middle of a campaign trail 00:03:35 - The Slogan of the Pod: Listen, Do, Repeat for Life 00:04:09 - Taking on the Spirit of Adoption: Finding a foundation in Romans 8 00:05:51 - Growing up poor and the daily grind of unusual persistence 00:09:29 - Overcoming personal abuse and the vital realization of codependency 00:10:09 - The critical importance of establishing rigid, healthy boundaries 00:13:01 - Countering unbiblical church teachings on blind forgiveness 00:14:58 - Reclaiming personal value and emotional independence 00:18:29 - Navigating free will: The ultimate difference in true biblical faith 00:21:14 - Defying the odds: From a reading-challenged student to an Intelligence Officer 00:23:34 - Standing firm on American exceptionalism and our Christian foundations 00:24:19 - Surviving the intense moral and ethical shifts of the Obama administration 00:26:59 - The watch floor reality: Witnessing the truth of Benghazi and Crimea 00:29:58 - Uncovering gain-of-function semantics and illegal bioweapons funneling 00:35:19 - Behavior Substitution: How writing, journaling, and repetitive prayer keeps you centered What does Phillip Parrish plan to do as Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota?00:40:23 - The Lindell-Parrish parallel mission: Merging election integrity with anti-fraud infrastructure 00:42:43 - Exposing The 30-Year Heist: How legislators built a multi-trillion dollar grifting pipeline 00:43:58 - The hidden truth about Minnesota's 400 weaponized NGOs 00:45:03 - Pulling apart the systemic autism, daycare, housing, and Medicaid fraud networks under Tim Walz 00:46:01 - The calculated destruction of Midwestern culture and weaponized immigration 00:48:22 - Exposing human trafficking agendas cloaked in false humanitarian narratives 00:50:17 - Dismantling administrative corruption: Tearing down fake companies and clawing back taxpayer cash 00:51:35 - Restoring the Minnesota state flag and the pushback against cultural erasure 00:52:30 - The ultimate administrative policy: Standing firm that two plus two equals four 00:54:02 - The economic fallout: Why liberal corporations like Target are fleeing the state 00:55:54 - How to get involved: The County Ambassador program and the crucial August 11th Primary For the full interview, and all links and content please visit: https://davidpasqualone.com/content-type-media/podcasts/the-remarkable-people-podcast/phillip-parrish/Support the showTHE NOT-SO-FINE-PRINT DISCLAIMER: While we are very thankful for all of our guests, please understand that we do not necessarily share or endorse the same beliefs, worldviews, or positions that they may hold. We respectfully agree to disagree in some areas, and thank God for the blessing and privilege of free will.For more Remarkable Episodes, Inspiration, and Motivation, please visit https://davidpasqualone.com/remarkable-people-podcast/ now!

Oklahoma votes down minimum wage increase; “agreement” to end the war; Jeff Stein returns today; new flag poll; Klobuchar declining to endorse in Craig/Flanagan race. The post The Matt McNeil Show – June 17, 2026 first appeared on AM 950.

Dan Cook in for DeRusha on a Monday and we begin with the latest poll results from the Star Tribune showing a massive gap between Amy Klobuchar and everyone else - so does this mean it is over? Then we pivot to the New York Knicks winning a championship but more importantly why KAT winning it should NOT make us feel happy - Dan explains!

According to an updated Star Tribune poll for the GOP race for Minnesota governor - Amy Klobuchar has a distant 8 point lead over Lisa Demuth and Kendall Qualls and at this rate the gap is huge even four and a half months out from Election Day!

New polling on possible matchups in the November race for Governor. Analysis from Blois Olson and Vineeta Sawkar on the WCCO Morning News.

Air quality in the Twin Cities and much of central Minnesota may reach unhealthy levels this afternoon and evening. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has issued an air quality alert from noon to 9 p.m. for the Twin Cities metro area extending northwest to St. Cloud, Sauk Centre and Little Falls.Like other alerts the past couple weeks, the concern is for ground-level ozone that forms on warm, dry days when sunshine reacts with pollutants in the air. Conditions should improve after sunset.Fargo voters are choosing a new mayor and two other city commissioners Tuesday. And the city is changing up the method of voting after North Dakota lawmakers banned approval voting last year. And DFL governor candidate Amy Klobuchar is out with a proposal aimed at addressing Minnesota's housing shortage. Klobuchar says the state should work with cities and counties to lift requirements that can add time and project expenses. The plan would also create incentives for communities that build more multi-family housing.Lawmakers scrapped Fargo's novel voting system. Tuesday's mayoral election goes back to basics

In a program devoted to the topic of AI, Ralph welcomes first, Tyson Slocum, director of the energy group at Public Citizen, who tells us about the local backlash against the construction of data centers. Then New York Times climate writer, David Wallace-Wells, explains how the Big Tech CEOs did not count on human beings possibly rising up against them and their machines.Tyson Slocum is director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, covering the regulation of petroleum, natural gas and power markets. He serves on the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission's “Energy & Environmental Markets Advisory Committee,” and frequently intervenes before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) representing the interests of household consumers.The basic question is they (Big Tech companies) are developing essentially governmental powers— governmental powers— not market powers or corporate powers. They've reached a level now where they are our government, the corporate government. And we have to escalate our urgencies to that level. It's more than just the hour is late. The hour is over. So we have to go back and respond with a completely unprecedented level of public interest, standards, etc., including whether this technology (AI) should be allowed at all.Ralph NaderI definitely see that we are in a speculative bubble. That bubble will burst. And folks within the AI industry, like Sam Altman, have been very clear where they have publicly said, when the bubble breaks, we expect to get a financial bailout because our AI applications are so important to the national interest.Tyson SlocumAnd the backlash to data centers isn't just about, oh, I'm concerned about my power rates going up or I'm concerned about the noise or the water usage. It's also a civil rights and human rights issue where people are saying, I don't like this vision that Big Tech is laying out for us that is going to be produced in this building down the street from our community.Tyson SlocumDavid Wallace-Wells is a columnist and staff writer at the New York Times, where he writes a weekly newsletter on climate change, technology, and the future of the planet. He is the author of the book, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. His recent feature in the New York Times Magazine is “AI Populism is Here. And No One is Ready.”Just over the last six months, there's been a huge surge in anti-AI and in particular anti-data center organizing and activism in the U.S. And you can see that on the ground where you see huge crowds coming to town halls to protest new data centers that are being proposed. You see some towns that have approved those data centers literally having their entire city council voted out of office as a result. And you see it in these surveys where within the span of just a few months. Huge sentiment flips among the American public from being basically agnostic about AI with some misgivings and some optimism to pretty striking majority opposition to the technology and the infrastructure build out that it requires.David Wallace-WellsThis (AI) is a technological revolution that has been designed and is being built by an extremely small number of people with very particular idiosyncratic, in certain ways, I think, somewhat sociopathic worldviews.David Wallace-WellsNews 6/5/26* Our top story this week comes from Congress, where the House has, at long last, successfully pushed through a War Powers Resolution on Iran. As NPR notes “The resolution had originally been set for a vote two weeks ago, but Republican leaders sent House members home early for a May recess when it appeared the largely Democratic-backed measure had enough Republican votes for passage.” However, this did not substantially erode Republican support and the resolution passed by a margin of 215 to 208, with four Republicans, led by Thomas Massie, voting for a cessation of hostilities. The measure now heads to the Senate, where Democrats have been pressing the matter as well but face an uphill battle, and even if it passes through the upper chamber, President Trump is likely to veto the measure if it arrives on his desk. Moreover, House progressives are now pushing a new War Powers Resolution, this one focusing on Lebanon. POLITICO reports Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib forced a vote this Thursday on a resolution calling for the removal of U.S. troops from Lebanon in seven days, despite opposition from the leadership of her own party. The resolution failed by a wide margin, but still garnered a respectable 92 votes, including support from Congressman Massie. Symbolic though they may be, these votes show a growing backlash to Trump's military adventurism abroad, particularly in the Middle East. With oil prices continuing to rise, this discontent shows no sign of abating.* The main news this week however were the primaires. Tuesday saw a wave of major Democratic primaries across the country. Faiz Shakir, longtime advisor to Bernie Sanders and Executive Director of More Perfect Union, reports that election night was a “clean sweep for Bernie's endorsements” with five out of five of these candidates set to win the Democratic nomination in their respective races. One race Shakir highlighted was Sam Forstag's bid for Congress in Montana's 1st congressional district. Forstag, a firefighter – technically a “smokejumper,” who parachutes into remote areas to extinguish wildfires – earned the endorsements of AOC, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal and others, as well as many unions, in addition to that of Senator Sanders. Meanwhile in the Montana Senate race, Alani Bankhead has triumphed in the Democratic primary. According to Semafor, “Republicans suspect Bankhead will essentially cede the race to [independent candidate Seth] Bodnar (despite her denials), which would make the general election more competitive.” Bodnar is the former president of the University of Montana and his campaign is backed by former Democratic Senator Jon Tester. One recent poll of a head-to-head match up of Bodnar against Republican nominee Kurt Alme shows the candidates in a dead heat.* In New Jersey, two more Sanders-endorsed candidates have emerged victorious: Analilia Mejia and Dr. Adam Hamawy. Mejia won the special election to replace now-Governor Mikie Sherill in April, beating out former Congressman Tom Malinowksi, the heavy favorite in that race. Mejia is very likely to win this seat again in November, as she already defeated the Republican nominee, Joe Hathaway, in the special election. This from MorristownGreen. Perhaps more surprisingly is the victory of Dr. Adam Hamawy. Now a plastic surgeon, he has distinguished himself for his heroism: saving the life of now-Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth when her Blackhawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq, serving as a first responder to the 9/11 attacks, and most recently, for his work in Gaza. As the Intercept puts it, “In 2024, [Hamawy]...went to Gaza to provide medical aid to Palestinians wounded by Israeli forces and was temporarily trapped there after Israel closed the Rafah border crossing. When the crossing was reopened, Hamawy was among a small group who refused to leave on demands that more medical workers be let in.” Hamawy's progressive policy platform includes support for Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and opposing military aid to Israel. He is almost guaranteed to win this D+13 seat, succeeding Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman.* The candidates Bernie endorsed in California also prevailed, with Randy Villegas poised to win his primary in the state's 22nd congressional district and Jane Kim winning her race for California Insurance Commissioner, but the results from the state overall are more mixed. As of now, Republican Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton leads in the count, with centrist Democrat and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra in a close second and progressive billionaire Tom Steyer in third. However, as the count continues, Steyer's margin continues to improve while Hilton's ebbs away – meaning the runoff could end up being Becerra vs. Steyer, though it is still too early to say. A similar dynamic is unfolding in Los Angeles, where incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is ensured a slot in the general election while her opponents – Councilwoman Nithya Raman to her left and former reality TV star Spencer Pratt to her right – continue to duke it out for the second slot. With California's notoriously glacial counting pace and the LA Times reporting that millions of ballots remain to be counted, all we can do is watch and wait.* However, up in Minnesota, another Bernie-backed candidate is on the road to victory. On Tuesday, Peggy Flanagan, the Lieutenant Governor seeking the Senate seat being vacated by Amy Klobuchar, overwhelmingly won the endorsement of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Her closest rival, Congresswoman Angie Craig, did not even bother to attend the party convention. While Craig decried the supposed anti-democratic nature of a party convention endorsement, Flanagan posted a video telling Craig “If you can't show up and face your own party, then you're not ready to face Republicans,” per the Nation. Flanagan can boast the endorsement of many high-profile progressives in addition to Sanders, such as Senators Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and Minnesota's own Tina Smith, among many others. If elected, she would be the first ever Native American woman to serve as Governor of an American state.* More much-publicized endorsements came this week from AOC and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who both endorsed DSA-aligned legislative candidates, but as City and State NY notes, not the same ones. Mamdani gave his blessing to Darializa Avila Chevalier, a DSA-backed candidate running to unseat powerful Rep. Adriano Espaillat who is seeking his sixth term in Congress. Polling shows Avila Chevalier runs ahead of Espaillat when voters learn about her platform, but lags behind due to low name recognition – something the Zohran endorsement is sure to help remedy. Meanwhile AOC issued her endorsement of four DSA candidates for the state legislature. This all suggests that the two titans of the New York City Democratic Socialist movement are coordinating – with Zohran seeking to boost DSA's prospects without alienating the New York state establishment and vice versa for AOC – but that is nothing more than a hunch.* Looking southward, lame duck Republican Senator John Cornyn this week posted an article on his official Twitter page titled “Libertarian Ted Brown courts disaffected conservative voters in Texas' U.S. Senate race,” from Houston Public Media. Senator Cornyn's comment – “Ruh roh” – set off a firestorm of speculation that this was a subtle endorsement of the Libertarian's campaign and intended to undermine the campaign of his erstwhile opponent and victor of the Republican Senate primary, Ken Paxton. While Cornyn has furiously denied that this is in any way an endorsement of Brown, calling even the “characterization” that he is “promoting” this candidate “fake news,” there is little doubt that posting about Brown from his official account constitutes a promotion of the campaign, albeit not an endorsement. It will be interesting to see whether Cornyn takes other subtle, or not so subtle, digs at Paxton over the course of the campaign, given that he seems to hold a substantial degree of antipathy towards the Texas Attorney General.* Our next two stories come to us from Florida. First, in Florida's 24th congressional district, the National Journal reports longtime Congresswoman Frederica Wilson will not seek reelection. We recently discussed Congresswoman Wilson on this segment when it was revealed that she had been MIA from the House for weeks following an undisclosed eye surgery. Wilson is 82 years old. The National Journal couches this story in the context of aged members of Congress accepting, or more often refusing, to pass the torch. In its gerontocracy tracker, it highlights members like Doris Matsui, John Garamendi, Jim Clyburn and Maxine Waters, all of whom are 80 years old or older, who are actively seeking reelection this cycle.* Meanwhile, in Florida's 20th district, the Sunshine State's redistricting initiative has put the historically Black district in jeopardy. Under the newly drawn lines, the frontrunner in this seat is Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and though she claims the Congressional Black Caucus and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told her that “they know I know our community” the CBC has not endorsed her and Rep. Yvette Clarke, the CBC's chairwoman, said the caucus did not encourage Wasserman Schultz to run in the district. However, there are currently four Black candidates vying for the seat previously held by Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, including Cherfilus-McCormick herself as well as progressive challenger Elijah Manley, former Mayor of Broward County Dale Holness and Luther Campbell the former rapper more famously known as Uncle Luke. Now, according to the Miami Herald, all four of these candidates are meeting to “discuss coalescing behind one candidate.” Manley is quoted in this piece saying that while they have not reached an agreement, they “did agree that we needed to consolidate,” and he said the “conversations are going on. They have been very constructive and fruitful.” It is encouraging that in the wake of Callais decision we are beginning to see a more strategic approach to Black political representation, which has been too long monopolized by powerful longtime incumbents intent on nothing so much as preserving their own fiefdoms.* Finally, in a story shocking to exactly no one, Axios is out with a new report showing that the National Guard occupation of Washington D.C. has done little to reduce crime in the District. Per a new study by the centrist Niskansen Center, while the security theater of the deployment seems to have deterred “opportunistic” property crime, violent crime remained on the same downward trajectory it had been on since before the deployment. Moreover, the promised co-benefit – that the presence of the Guard would free up the Metropolitan Police Department to focus on high-crime areas – did not materialize at all. Despite these lackluster results, President Trump plans to double the National Guard presence in Washington – which already costs $1.5 million a day – ahead of the 250th anniversary events this summer. This is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money especially now that we know for sure how little impact this hostile occupation is actually having on driving down violent crime.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

On Friday's Drivetime with DeRusha... 3pm Hour: Have you seen the mess in California with their primary? Jason explains why the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to mail-in balloting while listeners tell him he's wrong. Then he talks with Kyle Potter from Thrifty Traveler about the costs of summer travel, their award-winning podcast and more! 4pm Hour: Jason hosts another exciting edition of his game show as contestants battle for a $50 gift card to Jester Concepts restaurants on Card DeSharks! Then he talks with Sen. Amy Klobuchar and her running mate Ben Schierer about their campaign for Governor and Lt. Governor. 5pm Hour: Jason talks himself into a phobia segment - what are you afraid of? Heights? Owls? What? Then Dan Hayes joins the show to talk Twins baseball - can they weather this swarm of injuries?

Friday 4pm Hour: Jason hosts another exciting edition of his game show as contestants battle for a $50 gift card to Jester Concepts restaurants on Card DeSharks! Then he talks with Sen. Amy Klobuchar and her running mate Ben Schierer about their campaign for Governor and Lt. Governor.

Jason talks to Minnesota's Senior Senator and her running mate about running for Governor and their top campaign priorities.

Did she go back on her word over the weekend? What makes her feel she can advance to November and topple the very popular Amy Klobuchar on the Democratic side? The Speaker of The House joined Vineeta.

Jon offers his opinion on whether or not the candidates should abide by the GOP endorsement. Jon looks at Sen. Klobuchar's reaction to another DFL candidate being nominated at the DFL convention. Jon reviews the context around the moment of silence controversy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Morning Take: Never a normal day at a Minnesota political convention full 487 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 14:37:03 +0000 ezEsTUneJAvqAjhYntF2ibeuwMEZSMAA rochester,politics,gop,dfl,mike lindell,amy klobuchar,derek chauvin,lisa demuth,kendall qualls,peggy flanagan,duluth,adam schwarze,alex plechash,mngop,michele tayfoya,electronic balloting,news The Morning News with Vineeta Sawkar rochester,politics,gop,dfl,mike lindell,amy klobuchar,derek chauvin,lisa demuth,kendall qualls,peggy flanagan,duluth,adam schwarze,alex plechash,mngop,michele tayfoya,electronic balloting,news The Morning Take: Never a normal day at a Minnesota political convention Vineeta Sawkar brings you the day's most important and impactful news stories, talks with the news-makers and influencers we need to hear from, and brightens your day with fun anecdotes and stories along the way. Add in the latest weather, traffic, and sports…it's the best way to start the day! © 2026 Audacy, Inc. News https://player.amper

It took a while but after 10 rounds, Kendall Qualls became the GOP Nominee over the weekend. He looked ahead to his run for the top office in the state and why he thinks he can upset Amy Klobuchar in November.

How our National Parks have been screwed up by trump; negotiations with Iran not going well; the delusion of MAGA; how trump validates racism; why moderate Dems are clueless when campaigning; UFO’s with Greg Bakun; Amy Klobuchar picks a running mate; will Klobuchar cater too much towards moderates and Republicans The post The Matt McNeil Show – May 29, 2026 first appeared on AM 950.

Turn up the radio because the What's On Your Mind show is going global. While host Scott Hennen is en route to Los Angeles for the high-powered Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Economic Summit, Kevin Flynn anchors the fort alongside the ultimate political disruptor: MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. Live from the Duluth Convention Center ahead of a massive Minnesota GOP endorsing convention, Lindell lays out his hardline "Contract with Minnesota" to purge the state of Marxist spending policies, dismantle a multi-billion-dollar welfare fraud ring, and ban Sharia law. Then, we transition from the health of a state to the wellness of your body. Dr. Mike Jorgensen from Red River Wellness drops by to sound a major public health alarm on "tech neck"—revealing how staring at screens is causing structural spine degeneration in children as young as ten years old. Dr. Mike shares an exclusive invitation to a localized natural posture correction seminar featuring specialized "head weighting" protocols developed to rewrite the nervous system. Finally, the show broadcasts a front-row seat to the White House briefing room, where Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant goes to war against the media "jackals." Bessant breaks down the staggering numbers behind the launch of the "Trump Accounts" financial literacy app, explains why the UAE leaving OPEC is driving down energy pricing, and fields fiery, viral questions regarding a proposed congressional bill to put President Trump's face on a brand-new $250 bill for America's 250th anniversary. Standout Moments & Timestamps [00:01:25] The Duluth Endorsement Showdown: MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell joins the broadcast live from the Duluth Convention Center, refusing to drop out of the gubernatorial race and outlining his plan to target Amy Klobuchar three months early. [00:02:25] The Blueprint to Cure Minnesota: Mike Lindell details his Day 1 budget plan, aiming to hold 24 state-run welfare programs strictly accountable to completely erase pervasive local fraud. [00:03:55] Banning Sharia Law via Executive Decree: Lindell vows to issue an immediate gubernatorial declaration banning Sharia law, calling Minnesota the "Trojan horse" for an anti-constitutional invasion. [00:04:45] The Mississippi Education Prototype: Lindell explains how he plans to utilize Mississippi's 2014 plug-and-play literacy policies to launch Minnesota from 30th back into the top five for academic testing. [00:06:35] Turning Backs on Election Machines: Mike Lindell rails against establishment uniparty blockers, highlighting how political figures publicly advocated for getting rid of electronic voting machines in 2018 before reversing their stances. [00:09:50] The Banned…

Who goes to these conventions anyway? Find out on the capitol clash with Amy Frederiksen and Jeff Hayden as they join Vineeta for a look at the political conventions this weekend in Minnesota

Memorial Day weekend apparently came with fireworks, confusion, and a script nobody bothered to proofread. This week on One More & I'm Outta Here, Amy Klobuchar somehow wandered into the political multiverse and had folks wondering if we all accidentally rebooted the timeline after saying Joe Biden was going to be president during the last election — because apparently we're now campaigning for elections that already happened.Meanwhile, Spencer Pratt rolled out a short film featuring our guy Zeek Arkham, stepping into the chaos surrounding LA and Karen Bass. Hollywood said “make art,” and Spencer heard “make absolute mayhem.”Out in Seattle, residents have reached the “fine, I'll do it myself” stage of civilization and are building barricades to fight crime because waiting on help apparently has the same delivery speed as cable company appointments: sometime between Tuesday and the collapse of society.Grab a drink, buckle up, and join us as we break down politics, celebrity chaos, and neighborhoods turning into low-budget action movies. One thing's for sure: reality has officially stopped using writers.

Matt’s restuarant visit in Montana; settlements for those illegally punished for Charlie Kirk commentary; Operation Cluster; Trump’s health issues; Anoka County town sues to use paper ballots; Pentagon loan to Trump family-linked startup; Klobuchar not playing up to her base; Craig won’t seek endorsemen; 10% of households are missing meals. The post The Matt McNeil Show – May 28, 2026 first appeared on AM 950.

Even though she won't win the DFL endorsement, Angie Craig said on Thursday she is skipping the state convention and moving onto the Primary in August. This isn't unprecedented in Minnesota. Details from Blois Olson on the WCCO Morning News.

Chuck Todd opens with Ken Paxton's runoff blowout over John Cornyn — a result that confirms Texas Republicans remain the base of what eventually grew into MAGA nationally, that the insurgent wing of the GOP consistently wins in the state, and that Paxton is somehow simultaneously the least electable nominee Republicans could have picked and still electable enough to make this a real fight. He argues Texas is slowly moving toward swing state status the way Georgia did over the past decade — the ingredients are there for a Democrat to finally break through, the question is whether James Talarico can move his 45% number higher and prove he's the political athlete this moment requires. The downstream consequences for Republicans are brutal: the GOP will have to drop a $500 million anvil on Talarico that can't be deployed in other races, and Democrats' path to a Senate majority just got measurably wider. But the more fascinating story Chuck unpacks is Pope Leo's stunning new document on AI, automated weapons, and concentrated power — a text Chuck argues is essentially an indictment of American military dominance dressed in the language of moral theology. The Pope explicitly compares AI-driven targeting systems to slavery, arguing both reduce human beings to data points and dehumanize their victims, and apologizes for the church's historic slowness on slavery while warning Catholics that they cannot afford the same slowness on artificial intelligence. He declares the centuries-old "just war" framework outdated, argues that no algorithm can ever make war morally acceptable, and pushes back forcefully on the entire concept of nuclear deterrence — drawing a direct line back to Pope Leo XIII's 1891 intervention on industrial capitalism. He argues the document, while never naming the United States, is speaking directly to American politicians: it's framed as a call for a moral framework around AI that can live above the political discourse, an explicit argument that technological capital must be regulated, and a warning that AI is not morally neutral no matter how much Silicon Valley wishes it were. The larger message is unmistakable — the Pope, who Chuck notes is now arguably the most formidable global moral voice that even secular Americans look to for clarity, has just put concentrated technological power on notice in a way no head of state has been willing to. Then, Virginia Kase Solomon — president of Common Cause, one of the country's oldest and most respected pro-democracy organizations — joins the Chuck Toddcast to deliver a clear-eyed assessment of just how broken American self-government has become, and what it might actually take to fix it. Kase Solomon argues that Trump's corruption has gone so far beyond anything in modern history that it makes Watergate look quaint by comparison — she points to Trump stealing roughly $1.8 billion from American taxpayers as a single staggering example — but warns that the most dangerous development isn't the corruption itself, it's that young voters are growing up normalized to it, with no living memory of an administration where this kind of behavior carried consequences. She makes a striking comparison to Hungary, where it took genuinely staggering levels of corruption before Orbán could be toppled, and where the opposition only succeeded once it tied that corruption directly to degrading quality of life for ordinary people — a lesson she says American Democrats badly need to learn. They note that there are real bipartisan calls to address money in politics, that a congressional stock trading ban enjoys overwhelming public support, that Amy Klobuchar's Disclose Act keeps getting reintroduced and ignored, and that forced disclosure of large-dollar donors alone would significantly reduce political giving — but the country is on a runaway train, with big tech money flowing to whoever holds power and Trump openly running the country like a corporation. The conversation broadens into Kase Solomon's structural diagnosis of why American democracy isn't working. She argues that the way the founders designed the country no longer functions in the modern era — but that the founders also gave us the tools to fix what's broken if we choose to use them. Congress is too small to genuinely represent the public, the Senate is horribly malapportioned, the Supreme Court has offered no real solution to the gerrymandering crisis, and we've completely lost the "statesmen" in Congress who once voted their conscience because there's no longer any incentive to compromise or work across the aisle. She is deeply concerned about the regulatory vacuum around AI — deepfakes have terrifying implications for elections and civil litigation is currently the only meaningful path to push back — and she warns that the election of judges has corrupted the rule of law in ways America needs a movement to address. Despite all of this, she is genuinely hopeful: Common Cause is litigating against the corruption, organizing a million conversations between activists and ordinary Americans, and operating from the conviction that the public isn't stupid and still loves this country. Her closing argument is the most American one possible: the United States has always emerged from its darkest periods better than it went in — but only because people refused to accept the broken system as permanent, and that work has to start now. Finally, Chuck reveals his ToddCast Top 5 list of Democrats who could be vaulted into 2028 contender status for the presidency if they perform well in the midterms. He highlights two midwestern gubernatorial candidates, two upstart senate bids and one name that stands above the rest… Jon Ossoff of Georgia. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Predict the action all the way through the finals. Sign up now for your twenty-five dollar bonus on https://fanduel.com/predicts Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Go to https://Quince.com/chuck for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 03:30 Ken Paxton trounces John Cornyn in runoff election 05:00 Texas Republicans are the base for what grew into MAGA nationally 07:15 The insurgent wing of the GOP consistently wins in Texas 09:00 Paxton is the least electable nominee, but he’s still electable 10:30 Is 45% Talarico’s ceiling, or can he move that number higher? 11:30 Texas is slowly moving towards swing state status like Georgia did 13:00 Ingredients are there for a Democrat to finally break through in TX 15:30 Senate Republicans won’t be happy having to serve with Paxton 16:00 Texas is more winnable than other races for GOP, will have to spend in TX 16:30 Republicans will have to spend big to drop the anvil on Talarico 17:30 We’ll find out how talented of a political athlete Talarico is 19:30 This will be the magnet race that national reporters will focus on 21:30 Race will cost the GOP $500m that can’t be deployed elsewhere 23:15 Democrats now have a better chance of winning the senate 24:00 The Pope speaks to more than Catholics, seculars look to him for moral clarity 25:00 The Pope is formidable influencer in America 26:15 The Pope speaks out about AI, concentrated power & the “just war” theory 26:45 He compared automated weapons to slavery 28:00 The Pope spoke out similarly in 1891 during the Industrial Revolution 29:00 The Pope’s document says AI is not morally neutral 30:15 Document argues that technological capital needs to be regulated 30:45 The church has had a “just war” framework for hundreds of years 31:15 Pope Leo says “just war” framework is outdated 32:15 Document argues no algorithm can make war morally acceptable 33:15 Document argues against the concept of nuclear deterrence 33:45 Pope apologizes for church’s role in slavery 34:30 Document says AI systems reduce human beings into targeting data 35:00 Pope argues the dehumanization of AI targeting is similar to slavery 36:00 While not saying it directly, the document is speaking about the United States 37:00 The document is an indictment of American military dominance 38:30 Document does have a carve-out for self defence 40:15 The document was speaking directly to American politicians 41:30 A call for a moral framework for AI can live above the political discourse 42:30 Pope argues church was too slow on slavery, can’t be slow on AI 49:00 Virginia Kase Solomon (Common Cause) joins the Chuck ToddCast 50:30 Common Cause works to hold the government accountable to the people 51:30 Corporate lobbies have disproportionate power compared to people 52:15 Many people threw their hands up after Citizen’s United 53:30 States are working to change campaign finance rules 55:15 States can ban companies in their state from making political donations 57:00 Rules changes but money always seems to find a way around them 59:00 Parties stopped becoming the epicenter of political donations 1:00:30 There are bipartisan calls to do something about money in politics 1:02:00 More GOP support for reform at the state level than national level 1:02:45 We’re on a runaway train for money in politics 1:03:30 Big tech money goes to whoever is in power 1:04:00 The country is being run like a corporation 1:04:45 Jamie Raskin has started an anti-corruption task force 1:05:15 A congressional stock trading ban has massive public support 1:06:15 Trump is obviously corrupt, but people fear him too much to act 1:07:30 Forced disclosure of large dollar donors would reduce donations 1:08:30 Amy Klobuchar has put forward the Disclose Act in almost every congress 1:11:00 The Trump administration’s corruption is beyond egregious 1:11:45 Trump stealing $1.8 billion from taxpayers, makes Watergate look quaint 1:13:15 Young voters have grown up being normalized to this corruption 1:13:45 There will be a backlash to the corruption at some point 1:14:45 America’s long term global standing has been severely damaged 1:15:30 Common Cause is involved in litigation trying to prevent the corruption 1:17:30 Striving to have a million conversations between organizers & normal people 1:18:45 People are struggling and feeling fatigued 1:20:30 It took staggering levels of corruption in Hungary before Orban was toppled 1:21:30 Opposition in Hungary tied corruption to degrading quality of life 1:23:30 A fairness criteria was implemented in the California redistricting 1:24:30 CA and VA put redistricting before the voters, but still a race to the bottom 1:25:00 The Supreme Court hasn’t offered any solution to gerrymandering problem 1:26:00 Congress is too small to effectively represent the public 1:26:45 The senate is horribly malapportioned 1:28:30 The way the founders designed the country doesn’t work anymore 1:29:00 The founders gave us the tools to fix the democracy 1:31:15 There’s no incentive to work in a bipartisan manner or compromise 1:32:45 We’ve lost the “statesmen” in congress who vote their conscience 1:33:30 Politics has become a zero sum game 1:34:45 Politics has always been dirty, but we’ve hit an all-time low 1:36:00 Government seems completely unequipped to regulate AI 1:38:45 Deepfakes impact on elections are very concerning 1:40:00 Civil litigation is the only current path to push back on AI 1:41:30 Status of “sunshine laws” in the country? Could they be rolled back? 1:43:45 Need a movement against the election of the judiciary 1:46:45 The reason for optimism… is that people aren’t stupid and love the country 1:47:30 Our country has always emerged better after dark times 1:49:30 Chuck’s thoughts on interview with Virginia Kase Solomon 1:50:30 ToddCast Top 5 2028 contenders depending on their 2026 performance 1:54:00 #5 Amy Acton 1:56:15 #4 Rob Sand 1:57:45 #3 Graham Platner 2:01:15 #2 James Talarico 2:03:45 #1 Jon Ossoff 2:07:15 Ask Chuck 2:07:30 Why are people rounding up Trump’s 1.776B slush fund to $1.8b? 2:09:30 Supporting candidates you oppose just for judicial confirmations? 2:16:30 New Parallel AI model that prioritizes original writing and journalism? 2:20:15 How are candidates allowed to deploy financial resources during campaigns? 2:24:30 Pattern of Dems fixing the economy and GOP making it worse?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Virginia Kase Solomon — president of Common Cause, one of the country's oldest and most respected pro-democracy organizations — joins the Chuck Toddcast to deliver a clear-eyed assessment of just how broken American self-government has become, and what it might actually take to fix it. Kase Solomon argues that Trump's corruption has gone so far beyond anything in modern history that it makes Watergate look quaint by comparison — she points to Trump stealing roughly $1.8 billion from American taxpayers as a single staggering example — but warns that the most dangerous development isn't the corruption itself, it's that young voters are growing up normalized to it, with no living memory of an administration where this kind of behavior carried consequences. She makes a striking comparison to Hungary, where it took genuinely staggering levels of corruption before Orbán could be toppled, and where the opposition only succeeded once it tied that corruption directly to degrading quality of life for ordinary people — a lesson she says American Democrats badly need to learn. They note that there are real bipartisan calls to address money in politics, that a congressional stock trading ban enjoys overwhelming public support, that Amy Klobuchar's Disclose Act keeps getting reintroduced and ignored, and that forced disclosure of large-dollar donors alone would significantly reduce political giving — but the country is on a runaway train, with big tech money flowing to whoever holds power and Trump openly running the country like a corporation. The conversation broadens into Kase Solomon's structural diagnosis of why American democracy isn't working. She argues that the way the founders designed the country no longer functions in the modern era — but that the founders also gave us the tools to fix what's broken if we choose to use them. Congress is too small to genuinely represent the public, the Senate is horribly malapportioned, the Supreme Court has offered no real solution to the gerrymandering crisis, and we've completely lost the "statesmen" in Congress who once voted their conscience because there's no longer any incentive to compromise or work across the aisle. She is deeply concerned about the regulatory vacuum around AI — deepfakes have terrifying implications for elections and civil litigation is currently the only meaningful path to push back — and she warns that the election of judges has corrupted the rule of law in ways America needs a movement to address. Despite all of this, she is genuinely hopeful: Common Cause is litigating against the corruption, organizing a million conversations between activists and ordinary Americans, and operating from the conviction that the public isn't stupid and still loves this country. Her closing argument is the most American one possible: the United States has always emerged from its darkest periods better than it went in — but only because people refused to accept the broken system as permanent, and that work has to start now. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Go to https://Quince.com/chuck for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Virginia Kase Solomon (Common Cause) joins the Chuck ToddCast 01:30 Common Cause works to hold the government accountable to the people 02:30 Corporate lobbies have disproportionate power compared to people 03:15 Many people threw their hands up after Citizen’s United 04:30 States are working to change campaign finance rules 06:15 States can ban companies in their state from making political donations 08:00 Rules changes but money always seems to find a way around them 10:00 Parties stopped becoming the epicenter of political donations 11:30 There are bipartisan calls to do something about money in politics 13:00 More GOP support for reform at the state level than national level 13:45 We’re on a runaway train for money in politics 14:30 Big tech money goes to whoever is in power 15:00 The country is being run like a corporation 15:45 Jamie Raskin has started an anti-corruption task force 16:15 A congressional stock trading ban has massive public support 17:15 Trump is obviously corrupt, but people fear him too much to act 18:30 Forced disclosure of large dollar donors would reduce donations 19:30 Amy Klobuchar has put forward the Disclose Act in almost every congress 22:00 The Trump administration’s corruption is beyond egregious 22:45 Trump stealing $1.8 billion from taxpayers, makes Watergate look quaint 24:15 Young voters have grown up being normalized to this corruption 24:45 There will be a backlash to the corruption at some point 25:45 America’s long term global standing has been severely damaged 26:30 Common Cause is involved in litigation trying to prevent the corruption 28:30 Striving to have a million conversations between organizers & normal people 29:45 People are struggling and feeling fatigued 31:30 It took staggering levels of corruption in Hungary before Orban was toppled 32:30 Opposition in Hungary tied corruption to degrading quality of life 34:30 A fairness criteria was implemented in the California redistricting 35:30 CA and VA put redistricting before the voters, but still a race to the bottom 36:00 The Supreme Court hasn’t offered any solution to gerrymandering problem 37:00 Congress is too small to effectively represent the public 37:45 The senate is horribly malapportioned 39:30 The way the founders designed the country doesn’t work anymore 40:00 The founders gave us the tools to fix the democracy 42:15 There’s no incentive to work in a bipartisan manner or compromise 43:45 We’ve lost the “statesmen” in congress who vote their conscience 44:30 Politics has become a zero sum game 45:45 Politics has always been dirty, but we’ve hit an all-time low 47:00 Government seems completely unequipped to regulate AI 49:45 Deepfakes impact on elections are very concerning 51:00 Civil litigation is the only current path to push back on AI 52:30 Status of “sunshine laws” in the country? Could they be rolled back? 54:45 Need a movement against the election of the judiciary 57:45 The reason for optimism… is that people aren’t stupid and love the country 58:30 Our country has always emerged better after dark timesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

She is one of the state's most popular political figures. Who does Amy Klobuchar need to find as she looks for a running mate? Blois Olson with a peak behind the curtain of whom may fill that role in a possible Klobuchar administration

Bruce Klopfleisch fills in for Matt today. On the show: Ian Millhiser of VOX on Virginia redistricting; how not voting empowers fascists; Democrats fighting back against Republican gerrymandering; Patrick Coolican joins; Amy Klobuchar’s “moderate” streak; Trump’s collapsing poll numbers; Hawaii attempts to overturn Citizens United The post The Matt McNeil Show – May 19, 2026 first appeared on AM 950.

It is not plausible that Amy Klobuchar, the de facto head of the MN DFL, has not always been aware of fraud. By canning Shireen Gandhi Walz prevented any hearing with questions that might have led to him. Columbia SC was a pleasant respite from the troubles of MN. Johnny Heidt with guitar news. Heard On The Show:Truck driver dead after crash sends Metro Transit bus into home in south MinneapolisPolice situation resolved after overnight incident in GlencoePassengers from virus-stricken cruise ship fly to home countries for monitoringSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

U.S. Senator and past presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar says she wouldn't have run for Minnesota governor if she was contemplating another presidential run. And a preliminary report from federal investigators says a pilot radioed “abort” and started turning shortly after takeoff from Crystal Airport last month... before the plane crashed, killing both people aboard.Those stories and more in today's evening update from MPR News. Hosted by Emily Reese. Music by Gary Meister.

We anticipate Amy Klobuchar as a guest. Ilhan Omar refuses to appear or submit documents to the state ethics committee. Johnny Heidt with guitar news. Heard On The Show:Fire severely damages Haskell's bar and liquor store in ExcelsiorAround 170 Chisago County workers go on strikeCNN founder Ted Turner dies at 87See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

MN state flag update involving technology. Muslim only day at a waterpark in Texas. Is that a good idea? Johnny Heidt with guitar news. Heard On The Show:Sen. Klobuchar unveils plan to combat fraud in Minnesota as part of her gubernatorial campaignState trooper seriously injured after stolen vehicle crashes into squad car at 80 MPHSupreme Court restores access to abortion pill mifepristone through telehealth, mail and pharmaciesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Minnesota's Senior Senator has started doing press conferences and interviews as she campaigns for Governor. Is the GOP cooked in this race? Or will their "Tim Walz 2.0" strategy stick? Jason talks with listeners.

Monday 3pm Hour: Jason talks with listeners about Sen. Klobuchar's proposals if she's elected Governor. Will the GOP's "Tim Walz 2.0" strategy stick? Then he asks what it is that makes Star Wars an enduring cultural touchstone for so many people? May the 4th be With You!

On Monday's Drivetime with DeRusha... 3pm Hour: Jason talks with listeners about Sen. Klobuchar's proposals if she's elected Governor. Will the GOP's "Tim Walz 2.0" strategy stick? Then he asks what it is that makes Star Wars an enduring cultural touchstone for so many people? May the 4th be With You! 4pm Hour: Jason is joined by Kate Raddatz for this month's Radd Report where they talk internships (paid or no?), mini-vans (cool or no?) and Mother's Day (leave her alone or no?). Then he talks with listeners about today's MN Senate vote on gun control. Given that it won't pass the House, was it merely performative? Or does it still have value?

Jen Psaki looks at the conflicts of interest behind the business deals Donald Trump's sons (and son-in-law) have made with companies that are making millions of dollars from government contracts and the demands of Trump's war on Iran. Rep. Jamie Raskin talks with Jen Psaki about holding Trump's family members accountable. Adm. John Kirby (ret.), former Pentagon press secretary, talks with Jen Psaki about what Donald Trump is communicating between the lines while he acts like he feels no pressure and is in no particular hurry to get the U.S. out of his war with Iran. Senator Amy Klobuchar joins to discuss how Donald Trump's Iran war is affecting her constituents, and the huge amount of money Republicans want to budget for ICE despite the disaster Trump's anti-immigrant campaign has been. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today On The Eric Metaxas Show, Eric talks with Mike Lindell about the lawfare campaign against MyPillow, the pressure campaign to destroy his company, the fraud scandal rocking Minnesota, and why he believes the state can still be flipped. They also discuss Tim Walz, Amy Klobuchar, election integrity, immigration, and why Lindell says this governor's race could help change the course of the country. Subscribe for clips from The Eric Metaxas Show to hear politics and culture from a Christian perspective.

Tonight on The Last Word: Donald Trump is no closer to ending his “war of choice” in Iran. Also, the Trump budget boosts defense spending and cuts programs. Plus, the Trump Justice Department moves to vacate 12 Capitol rioters' convictions. And Democrats demand more Epstein files detail from the Trump Justice Department. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Brendan Boyle, and Rep. Ro Khanna join Lawrence O'Donnell. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.