Podcasts about Bun

CJ and Scott break down the biggest week in web dev: TypeScript 7 ships with a 10x-faster native port, Bun gets rewritten in Rust (much to the Zig team's dismay), and Better Auth joins Vercel. Plus GPT-5.6 first impressions, Odin 1.0, Cloudflare's new Workers cache and drag-and-drop deploys, and the OpenCode 2 beta. Show Notes 00:00 Welcome to Syntax! 00:21 CJ upgraded his homelab network 02:09 TypeScript 7 is 10x faster 11:19 Bun Rust rewrite drama Zig creator criticizes rewrite 28:18 GPT 5.6 Impressions Ashley Peachock on X Matt Shumer on X 40:58 Better Auth Acquired by Vercel 49:51 Grok Build CLI is stealing your code International Cyber Digest on X 56:00 Cloudflare Worker Cache and Drop 01:01:22 Check out CJ's latest video I Built an LLM from Scratch 01:03:06 Odin 1.0 Announced 01:05:33 OpenCode 2.0 Beta released 01:07:32 Winamp Skin Museum 01:11:08 CJ's new MP3 player 01:13:03 Scott's Robot Update Sick Picks Scott: Reachy Mini CJ: Snowsky Echo Mini Hit us up on Socials! Syntax: X Instagram Tiktok LinkedIn Threads Wes: X Instagram Tiktok LinkedIn Threads Scott: X Instagram Tiktok LinkedIn Threads Randy: X Instagram YouTube Threads

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

Sandra und Daniel nehmen euch wieder mit auf eine wilde Fahrt durch IT-Themen. Diese Woche stehen Tuxedo OS, Updates bei Sprachen und Kultur-Clashes im Vordergrund. Zum Schluss gibt es aber wieder eine ordentliche Ladung Konsum.

This episode explores why kidney and liver health are essential to overall wellness and longevity, highlighting how these organs quietly support the body's detoxification and filtration systems long before symptoms appear. Matt and Chris encourage listeners to monitor key health markers—especially GFR and BUN—alongside blood pressure and other routine labs, while discussing how hydration, stress, sleep, nutrition, alcohol, processed foods, and excessive supplement use may impact organ function. The conversation emphasizes taking a proactive, prevention-focused approach to support healthy kidney and liver function throughout life.#Protecting Your Kidneys & Liver#Know Your Kidney Numbers#The Silent Organ Health Crisis#Kidney Health Starts Here#Detox Starts With Functionontargetliving.com

In this episode of Out of the Woods, Scott Poley and Tom Kostura review key findings from the Q2 2026 Threat Hunt Report and discuss what stood out across the quarter. They cover supply chain compromises, growing abuse of Node.js and Bun runtimes, a surge in credential harvesting following the Florida Bleed campaign, and a shrinking window between vulnerability disclosure and exploitation tied to the MS Nightmare vulnerabilities. The episode also touches on recent threat profiles, including the Iranian-linked actor Cavern Manticore and a fast-moving intrusion that went from an SEO-poisoned download to full ransomware encryption in under 48 hours, with a focus on what these patterns mean for threat hunters and defenders.Download the full Q2 2026 Threat Hunt Report: https://www.intel471.com/resources/whitepapers/threat-hunt-report-q2-2026 ----------Stay in Touch!Twitter: https://twitter.com/Intel471IncLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/intel-471/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIL4ElcM6oLd3n36hM4_wkgDiscord: https://discord.gg/DR4mcW4zBrFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/Intel471Inc/

Wie hat dir die Folge gefallen?Gut

Nuacht Mhall. Príomhscéalta na seachtaine, léite go mall.*Inniu an ceathrú lá de mhí Iúil. Is mise Barra Mac Giolla Aoláin.Bhí deireadh seachtaine iontach peile i bPáirc an Chrócaigh agus níl fágtha anois ach ceithre fhoireann i gCraobh na hÉireann. Dé Sathairn, bhuaigh Maigh Eo ar Chorcaigh tar éis cluiche den scoth. Sa dara cluiche an lá sin, bhí an bua ag Ciarraí ar Thír Eoghain — cluiche an-sciobtha, scóráil ard agus toradh an-chóngarach ag an deireadh. Dé Domhnaigh bhí bua stairiúil ag Contae Lú nuair a sháraigh siad Muineachán chun áit a bhaint sa chluiche leathcheannais den chéad uair ó bhí 1957 ann. Bhí cluiche deacair ag Baile Átha Cliath i gcoinne na Gaillimhe, ach d'éirigh leo an bua a fháil i ndiaidh dráma agus conspóide. Rinneadh an tarraingt oifigiúil Dé Domhnaigh agus mar sin, beidh Baile Átha Cliath ag imirt i gcoinne Ciarraí, agus Lú ag tabhairt aghaidh ar Mhaigh Eo sa bhabhta leathcheannais. Beidh na cluichí sin ar siúl an deireadh seachtaine seo chugainn.Tar éis do Sir Keir Starmer a fhógairt go mbeidh sé ag éirí as ról an Phríomh-aire, tá Feisire Makerfield Andy Burnham ar tí an post is mó i saol na polaitíochta sa Ríocht Aontaithe a bhaint amach i lár mhí Iúil. De réir tuairiscí, táthar ag súil go rithfidh sé gan iomaíocht i dtoghchán ceannaireachta Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre. Ina chéad óráid mhór maidir le polasaithe i Manchain an tseachtain seo, leag Burnham amach plean radacach chun an tír a athrú ó bhonn. Bunóidh sé an dara hoifig rialtais i Manchain chun cumhacht a tharraingt amach ó Londain. Dúirt sé go mbeidh plean fadtéarmach ann chun tithe sóisialta a thógáil agus printíseachtaí teicniúla a chur ar comhchéim le céimeanna ollscoile. Gheall sé go gcloífidh sé le rialacha Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre chun na margaí a chur ar a suaimhneas agus cobhsaíocht eacnamaíoch a chinntiú. Beidh níos mo eolais againn go luath.De réir seandálaithe, d'fhéadfadh ceann de na lonnaíochtaí is sine san Eoraip a bheith suite díreach lasmuigh de chathair Ard Mhacha. Tá Lios Uí Eochaidh gar don suíomh cáiliúil Eamhain Mhacha, áit ar tugadh “príomhchathair na hIarannaoise i gCúige Uladh” uirthi, agus ina raibh Rí Uladh Conchúr Mac Neasa ina chónaí sna scéalta miotaseolaíochta. Deir saineolaithe ó Ollscoil na Banríona agus ó Ollscoil Ghlaschú go raibh Lios Uí Eochaidh ina lárionad rathúil le linn na Cré-umhaoise Deireanaí —timpeall 400 bliain níos luaithe ná mar a ceapadh roimhe seo. Dúirt an seandálaí Patrick Gleeson go bhfuil an suíomh seo ar cheann de na tírdhreacha stairiúla is tábhachtaí in iarthar na hEorpa don tréimhse sin.*Léirithe ag Conradh na Gaeilge i Londain. Tá an script ar fáil i d'aip phodchraolta.*GLUAISbua stairiúil - historic victoryconspóid - controversyFeisire - MPprintíseachtaí teicniúla - technical apprenticeshipsseandálaithe - archaeologiststírdhreacha - landscapes

Trezirea devreme și petrecerea câtorva momente în natură, în liniște și studiu biblic, aduce claritate și direcție pentru întreaga zi. Bunătatea lui Dumnezeu se aude mai viu dis-de-dimineață, în cântecul păsărilor și adierea vântului.Citește acest devoțional și multe alte meditații biblice pe https://devotionale.ro #devotionale #devotionaleaudio

In this episode of Reading With Your Kids, Jed welcomes Academy Award–winning director, animator, and author Alan Barillaro to celebrate his new picture book, Today We Will Be Eaten. Alan shares how a seemingly dark premise—a ladybug and dragonfly convinced they'll be eaten—becomes a gentle, meditative story about anxiety, uncertainty, and learning to take a breath. He describes the book as a "little reset," inviting kids and families to slow down, look up, and discover beauty even when life feels scary or unpredictable. Alan talks about the shift from collaborative animation at Pixar to the intensely personal world of writing and illustrating books, where there's "less to hide behind." He explains his creative process: keeping notebooks of ideas for years, working on multiple projects at once like "tomato plants" in a garden, and borrowing lessons from animation—testing work with trusted readers, listening to how it sounds out loud, and embracing failure as an essential part of finding the story. The conversation also touches on kids' anxiety, helicopter parenting, graphic novels as real reading, and Alan's nuanced view of AI and technology as tools that must be used ethically and thoughtfully. He teases upcoming projects, including Bun's Rabbit 2 and another picture book on the way. In the second half, Jed chats with Jennifer Dickinson, author of Maggie's Big Break, a middle grade novel about a girl with a stutter who faces bullying but finds belonging in theater. Jennifer shares her own history with stuttering, using story to help kids feel seen, heard, and brave enough to take risks—and encourages families to co-read and talk honestly about fears, bullying, and courage.

Bun venit la o nouă ediție Vorbitorincii! Astăzi avem un episod plin de povești din călătorii, analize ale realității românești, recomandări culturale de top și un invitat special alături de care pătrundem în cele mai ascunse culise ale investigațiilor jurnalistice. Nu uitați să vă abonați, să dați un like și să ne lăsați părerile voastre în comentarii! ANUNȚ IMPORTANT | VORBITORINCII LA TIMIȘOARA: Sâmbătă, pe 27 iunie, venim la Timișoara împreună cu Cosmin Popa! Mai sunt doar câteva bilete disponibile. Găsiți linkul pentru bilete în comentarii. 00:01:35 - De la Madrid în Țara Bascilor vs. atmosfera de la TIFF. Despre dezamăgiri politice și comunități care inspiră. Radu povestește despre lansarea romanului „Fluturele negru" în spaniolă și vacanța spectaculoasă prin Bilbao, San Sebastian și Biarritz. În replică, Cătălin aduce vibe-ul de la Cluj și TIFF, întâlnirea cu Ovidiu Schumacher și ediția specială cu Nadia Comăneci și Simona Halep. Plus: un gând de admirație pentru Dragoș Pătraru și o reflecție amară asupra crizei guvernamentale actuale. 00:43:32 - Football Leaks, Liverpool și Elena Udrea. 02:51:31 - Spuma Filelor: Recomandări de carte care merită toată atenția dumneavoastră. Volumele analizate în această ediție: „Povestea nemuririi" - Andrei Cornea, „Placebo". Chirurgii în căutarea nemuririi" - Cătălin Vasilescu, „În gură de șarpe" - Cristian Tudor Popescu și „Scriu Iliada" - Pierre Michon. 03:12:49 - Vânătorile Dianei Popescu: Agenda culturală a săptămânii 03:32:03 - Oale, ulcele și tigăi: Tapas și delicii culinare de la Adi Hădean și de la Cluj

Christophe Rambourg naît en 1987 dans la Somme. Fils unique d'un milieu modeste, il veut échapper à cette vie. Adolescent, il se lie d'amitié avec Narin Bun, membre d'une famille connue pour des trafics. Ses parents le mettent en garde mais en vain. Après un CAP, Christophe enchaîne les petits boulots. Fasciné par le train de vie des Bun, il accepte de travailler pour eux comme agent de sécurité et DJ. Il s'installe chez eux et devient leur homme à tout faire. Il s'éloigne de ses parents malgré les alertes de son père. Fin 2011, Christophe ne donne plus de nouvelles. En réalité, il est séquestré, frappé, humilié et affamé pendant des semaines. Il meurt sous les coups. Son corps est découpé, brûlé, broyé et dispersé. Il ne sera jamais retrouvé. Ses parents se battent pour comprendre et alertent la gendarmerie. En 2014, la famille Bun est interpellée. Narin Bun est condamné à 30 ans de réclusion.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Bun butter

JDK 26 optimise la JVM dans ses moindres recoins, le SDK Java d'Agent2Agent passe en 1.0, Micronaut 5 est là. Côté terrain, un retour d'expérience après 40 jours à coder avec 100 % d'IA : génie ou junior, Alzheimer numérique et dette technique invisible. Pendant ce temps, GitLab restructure, Microsoft suspend ses licences Claude Code, et un développeur injecte un prompt destructeur dans sa lib JUnit. La révolution IA a un coût et les boites commencent à s'en rendre compte. Enregistré le 12 juin 2026 Téléchargement de l'épisode LesCastCodeurs-Episode-341.mp3 ou en vidéo sur YouTube. News Langages Les améliorations de performance dans le JDK 26 https://inside.java/2026/06/09/jdk-26-performance-improvements/ Côté bibliothèques, l'API LazyConstant (anciennement StableValue) fait son entrée en prévisualisation pour permettre une initialisation paresseuse, sécurisée pour les threads et optimisée par le mécanisme de constant-folding de la JVM. L'extraction de chaînes de caractères via MemorySegment::getString a été revue pour réduire considérablement les allocations intermédiaires et les copies en mémoire off-heap, accélérant fortement les traitements sur les chemins critiques (hot paths). La méthode générée automatiquement hashCode() pour les classes de type record a été optimisée par la JVM pour atteindre un niveau de performance équivalent à une implémentation écrite manuellement. Le ramasse-miettes G1 bénéficie du JEP 522 qui redessine sa table de cartes (card-table) afin de réduire les coûts de synchronisation des barrières d'écriture, offrant un gain de débit de 5 % à 15 % sur les applications manipulant énormément de références d'objets. Grâce au JEP 516 (Project Leyden), le cache d'objets Ahead-of-Time (AOT) adopte un format de flux agnostique, ce qui lui permet d'être compatible avec n'importe quel Garbage Collector, y compris le ramasse-miettes à très faible latence ZGC. Le démarrage de la JVM s'accélère par défaut lorsqu'aucune taille de tas n'est configurée, car HotSpot n'applique plus de pourcentage initial (InitialRAMPercentage) mais démarre directement avec la taille minimale (MinHeapSize) pour éviter d'allouer des métadonnées inutiles. Les threads virtuels gagnent en robustesse en étant désormais capables de céder la main (yield) pendant les phases d'initialisation des classes, éliminant ainsi le risque de famine des threads porteurs (carrier threads). Le compilateur C2 JIT améliore son modèle de coût pour la vectorisation des boucles (SIMD) et se montre maintenant capable de compiler et d'optimiser des méthodes dotées de listes de paramètres extrêmement longues. Librairies Release candidate du A2A Java SDK supportant versions 0.3 et 1.0 en même temps https://medium.com/google-cloud/a2a-java-sdk-1-0-0-cr1-released-f0c651ec9139 Dernière étape avant la GA : Toutes les fonctionnalités prévues pour la version 1.0 sont finalisées. Migration simplifiée depuis la Beta1. Compatibilité v0.3 : Ajout d'une couche de compatibilité permettant aux agents v1.0 de communiquer avec les systèmes v0.3 (via JSON-RPC, gRPC ou REST). Support natif pour Android (nouvel AndroidHttpClient). Uniformisation des clients HTTP pour garantir une cohérence entre les versions. Nouveau parseur SSE (Server-Sent Events) conforme aux spécifications. Ça y est, le SDK Java de l'Agent 2 Agent Protocol est sorti en version 1.0 finale ! (avec compatibilité v0.3 et v1.0) https://medium.com/google-cloud/a2a-java-sdk-1-0-0-final-released-10c05b6aee34 Lancement officiel : Sortie de A2A Java SDK 1.0.0.Final, la première version stable (GA) du protocole Agent2Agent. Objectif du protocole : Standard ouvert (Linux Foundation) permettant aux agents IA de communiquer, déléguer des tâches et collaborer, indépendamment du langage ou du framework. Interopérabilité : Introduction de l'Integration Test Kit (ITK) pour valider la compatibilité entre les SDK (Java, Python, TypeScript, etc.). Transports supportés : Support complet et équivalent pour JSON-RPC, gRPC et HTTP+JSON/REST. Alignement total avec la spécification A2A 1.0.0. Passage aux Java records pour l'immutabilité et moins de code répétitif. Architecture interne basée sur un MainEventBus pour garantir la persistance et éviter les conditions de concurrence. Intégration d'OpenTelemetry pour le suivi et la surveillance. Support d'Android et compatibilité descendante avec la version 0.3. Installation : Gestion des dépendances via Maven BOM (org.a2aproject.sdk). Sortie de Micronaut 5.0 https://micronaut.io/2026/05/20/micronaut-framework-5-0-0-released/ Lancement majeur : Disponibilité générale de Micronaut 5, incluant une refonte de plus de 70 modules et la plateforme BOM. Baselines techniques : Support de Java 25, Groovy 5, Kotlin 2.3 et GraalVM 25.0.3. Optimisations internes : Amélioration significative des performances au démarrage et réduction de la surcharge à l'exécution via une refonte du conteneur IoC et du traitement à la compilation. Architecture HTTP : Support stable de HTTP/3, nouvelle API de formulaires (multipart) et annotations de nullabilité (JSpecify) pour une meilleure interopérabilité Kotlin/IDE. Configuration : Nouveau système d'importation de configuration (remplaçant le Bootstrap Configuration) et validateur de schéma JSON intégré. Fiabilité : Nouvelles API programmatiques pour les politiques de retry et circuit breaker. Sécurité & Outils : Mise à jour majeure des dépendances (Jackson 3, Ktor 3), rafraîchissement du Panneau de contrôle et diagnostics AOT améliorés. Écosystème : Mises à jour complètes pour les bases de données (Data, SQL, R2DBC, MongoDB, Redis), le cloud (AWS, Azure, GCP, OCI) et les tests (JUnit 6, Testcontainers 2.0). Évolutions notables : Intégration HTMX dans Micronaut Views, retrait du support RxJava 2 et migration de divers processeurs d'annotations vers des modules dédiés. Comment rajouter un agent IA dans une app Android, avec le tout nouveau framework ADK pour Kotlin https://glaforge.dev/posts/2026/05/21/wiring-adk-kotlin-agents-in-an-android-application/ Guillaume a participé au développement et au lancement du nouveau runtime ADK pour Kotlin et Android https://developers.googleblog.com/adk-kotlin-android-building-ai-agents/ Tutoriel sur comment intégrer un agent ADK dans une app Dépendances : Ajout du noyau ADK (google-adk-kotlin-core) et du processeur KSP dans build.gradle.kts. Sécurité API : Utilisation de local.properties pour stocker la clé API Gemini et l'exposer via BuildConfig afin d'éviter le hardcoding. Définition de l'agent : Création d'un objet LlmAgent configuré avec le modèle Gemini, des instructions spécifiques et des outils (ex: GoogleSearchTool). Utilisation de InMemoryRunner pour gérer automatiquement le contexte et l'historique de la session. Implémentation de runAsync avec StreamingMode.SSE pour un retour en temps réel dans l'interface. Threading : Exécution des requêtes réseau sur Dispatchers.IO et mise à jour de l'état de l'interface utilisateur sur Dispatchers.Main. Comment développer et hoster des agents IA sur la plateforme d'agents managés de DeepMind https://glaforge.dev/posts/2026/05/21/managed-agents-with-the-gemini-interactions-java-sdk/ L'équipe DeepMind de Google a lancé une plateforme d'agents managés sur son API Gemini Interactions https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/developers-tools/managed-agents-gemini-api/ Guillaume a implémenté un SDK Java pour utiliser cette API Gemini Interactions, qui donne entre autre accès à tous les modèles mais aussi à cette plateforme managée d'agents IA Agents managés : Permet d'exécuter des agents autonomes qui raisonnent, planifient et exécutent du code dans des environnements isolés (sandboxes), sans gestion d'infrastructure par le développeur. Environnement distant : Utilise des espaces de travail Linux éphémères dans le cloud via le paramètre remote, permettant l'accès réseau et la persistance des fichiers sur plusieurs appels. Agents prédéfinis : Accès immédiat à des agents spécialisés comme deep-research-pro (recherche multi-étapes) ou antigravity (tâches de codage généralistes). Agents personnalisés : Possibilité de configurer ses propres agents avec des instructions système dédiées, des outils spécifiques (exécution de code, recherche Google) et des règles réseau (egress) personnalisées. Architecture basée sur les étapes (Steps) : Utilise une structure de données typée (Step, Content) pour suivre le raisonnement de l'agent, ses appels de fonctions et ses résultats en temps réel. Outils et Schémas : Inclut des utilitaires pour générer des schémas JSON complexes via une interface fluide (DSL), par réflexion Java ou par parsing JSON. Streaming réactif : Support natif des événements en temps réel (SSE) pour suivre la progression de l'agent et recevoir les deltas de contenu au fur et à mesure de la génération. Flexibilité : Fournit un gestionnaire de routage (InteractionsHandler) pour créer facilement des serveurs proxy ou des backends intermédiaires traitant les interactions Gemini. Spring Boot 4.1 https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/wiki/Spring-Boot-4.1-Release-Notes Support natif pour Spring gRPC permettant de créer et tester facilement des applications clientes et serveurs basées sur Netty ou des Servlets via HTTP/2 Introduction du lazy fetching pour les connexions JDBC via la propriété spring.datasource.connection-fetch=lazy afin de ne prendre une connexion du pool que lorsqu'un Statement est réellement exécuté Amélioration de l'auto-configuration de Jackson permettant de définir globalement les contraintes de lecture/écriture pour les formats JSON, XML et CBOR via des propriétés de configuration Sécurisation des clients HTTP bloquants et réactifs face aux attaques SSRF grâce à l'introduction d'un InetAddressFilter bloquant les requêtes sortantes vers des adresses spécifiques Améliorations majeures autour d'OpenTelemetry avec le support complet des variables d'environnement OTel, la possibilité de désactiver le SDK via une propriété globale et l'ajout du support SSL sur les exporters OTLP Ajout de l'auto-configuration pour l'utilisation de Spring Batch avec MongoDB incluant un nouveau starter dédié spring-boot-batch-data-mongo Auto-configuration des endpoints @RedisListener sans nécessiter la déclaration manuelle d'un RedisMessageListenerContainer Dépréciation du support de Apache Derby (projet arrêté), suppression définitive du mode layertools du JAR et réintroduction du support de Spock 2.4 (avec Groovy 5) Upgrade des dépendances majeures de l'écosystème avec notamment Spring Framework 7.0.8, Spring Security 7.1.0 et Micrometer 1.17.0 Outillage Vous êtes plutôt endive ou chicorée ? La librairie Chicory qui permet d'exécuter du code WASM à partir de son application Java est forkée et rejointe la Bytecode Alliance pour continuer son développement https://bytecodealliance.org/articles/endive-and-the-next-chapter-of-webassembly-on-the-jvm Annonce d'Endive : Nouveau projet hébergé par la Bytecode Alliance ; fork de Chicory (moteur WebAssembly pur Java, sans dépendance native). ​Objectif principal : Permettre aux développeurs Java d'intégrer, charger et déployer des modules Wasm nativement via les workflows Java habituels. ​Compilateur "Redline" : Intégration à venir de Redline (basé sur Cranelift) pour compiler le Wasm en code machine natif ; performances comparables à Rust/Wasmtime. ​Zéro dépendance (Java 25+) : Grâce à l'API standard Foreign Function & Memory (Project Panama), l'exécution à vitesse native se fait sans composants externes. ​Modèle de Composants (Component Model) : Support futur prévu pour consommer des composants (Rust, Go, JS, etc.) via des interfaces typées et sécurisées directement dans la JVM. ​Prochaines étapes : Fusion de Redline, conformité stricte aux specs Wasm (dont WasmGC) et amélioration du support WASI. Un visualisateur de sessions de travail avec Antigravity https://glaforge.dev/posts/2026/06/11/antigravity-brain-visualizer/ Un projet open source construit avec Micronaut, LangChain4j et GraalVM pour analyser les sessions de travail avec l'outil de développement agentique Antigravity (de Google) Analyse toutes les étapes, les requêtes utilisateur, les outils utilisés, les erreurs rencontrées, les réponses du modèle Gemini fait une analyse pour comprendre les moments clés de cette session de travail Outil buildé avec l'aide d'Antigravity lui-même SBX-Kits : des environnements de développement simplifiés pour les débutants (et les autres) https://k33g.org/20260501-sbx-kits.html Philippe Charrière (:whale: ) présente SBX-Kits (Sandbox Kits), une initiative personnelle visant à simplifier radicalement la mise en place d'environnements de développement pour les débutants, en éliminant la complexité d'installation des outils traditionnels. Chaque "kit" est une archive prête à l'emploi contenant un outil de développement spécifique (comme un langage, un framework ou une base de données) configuré pour s'exécuter de manière isolée et portable. La philosophie du projet repose sur le principe de "zéro configuration" et "zéro dépendance globale", permettant de tester une technologie ou de commencer à coder immédiatement sans polluer son système d'exploitation. L'approche technique s'appuie sur des scripts légers et des binaires portables pré-packagés, offrant une alternative plus simple et moins gourmande en ressources que les conteneurs Docker ou les configurations d'IDE complexes pour l'apprentissage. L'objectif à terme est de proposer un catalogue de kits couvrant les technologies courantes (JavaScript, Python, petites bases de données) pour faciliter les ateliers de programmation et le prototypage rapide. De nombreux kits sont disponibles sur https://github.com/docker/sbx-kits-contrib ghui: une interface utilisateur en ligne de commande (TUI) interactive pour GitHub https://github.com/kitlangton/ghui ghui est un outil en ligne de commande (TUI) écrit en Rust qui fournit une interface visuelle, interactive et rapide directement dans le terminal pour interagir avec GitHub. Il permet de gérer ses pull requests, ses issues et ses notifications sans avoir à ouvrir son navigateur web ou à taper de longues commandes avec la CLI officielle de GitHub. L'outil propose une navigation fluide au clavier, des raccourcis efficaces, et permet de réaliser des actions courantes comme valider une PR, ajouter des commentaires, attribuer des reviewers ou inspecter les logs des GitHub Actions. Conçu pour être extrêmement réactif, ghui s'intègre naturellement dans le flux de travail des développeurs adeptes du terminal et du mode "sans souris". Sortie de Homebrew 6.0.0 https://brew.sh/2026/06/11/homebrew-6.0.0/ Introduction du mécanisme de sécurité Tap Trust : comme les dépôts tiers (taps) peuvent exécuter du code Ruby arbitraire non sandboxé sur la machine, Homebrew demande désormais une confiance explicite de l'utilisateur avant d'évaluer ou d'exécuter leur code. L'API JSON interne devient le choix par défaut, offrant un système plus léger et beaucoup plus rapide pour les développeurs. Sécurisation renforcée de l'environnement avec l'implémentation du sandboxing sur Linux. Évolution des comportements par défaut basés sur un sondage utilisateur : le mode "ask" est activé par défaut pour les développeurs, affichant un résumé des dépendances et une demande de confirmation avant toute action de brew install ou brew upgrade. Améliorations notables des performances globales, notamment un boost de ~30 % sur la vitesse de la commande brew leaves et la parallélisation de la récupération des bottles (binaires) lors des mises à jour. Ajout du support initial pour la prochaine version d'Apple, macOS 27 (Golden Gate). Multiples optimisations pour brew bundle, incluant une gestion plus sécurisée des installations de paquets npm. Méthodologies Retour d'expérience très détaillé et 100% humain sur 40 jours avec une équipe 100% AI hormis le superviseur https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/jai-vir%C3%A9-mon-%C3%A9quipe-de-dev-pour-une-100-ia-pendant-40-luc-bonnin-jlgjf/ Voici le résumé en bullet points : Expérimentation de 40 jours : remplacer une équipe de dev par 100% IA agentique (Cursor) sur un vrai projet en production (playthatsheet.com, 200k lignes de code legacy) Chiffres bruts : 2,3 milliards de tokens consommés, 1 477 prompts, 260 564 lignes ajoutées (+145%), 59% du code final produit par l'IA ROI vertigineux à court terme : 9 mois de travail humain livrés en 40 jours, coût total 260$ d'abonnement + 15 jours de supervision, ROI x18 Profil psy de l'IA : Alzheimer (oublis de contexte), schizophrène (change de méthodo), ado de 12 ans (refait les mêmes erreurs), oscille entre génie et junior sans prévenir Effet iceberg : la dette technique ne disparaît pas, elle se camoufle et s'accélère ; hallucinations = bombes à retardement détectables uniquement par relecture humaine ligne par ligne Paradoxe du bateau de Thésée : perte de paternité et de maîtrise fine du code, baisse de l'autonomie du dev humain qui valide sans avoir construit Arnaque du "monkey money" : consommation de tokens opaque, non corrélée à la complexité (écart de 350% sur des prompts identiques), facturation imprévisible donc impossible à budgéter Syndrome du bazooka : les devs utilisent l'IA même pour changer une couleur CSS, atrophie progressive des compétences et coût écologique délirant Risque stratégique : dépendance irréversible aux vendeurs de tokens (Nvidia, Anthropic, OpenAI), business non rentable qui devra augmenter ses prix Conseil final : approche Pareto, garder 20% du temps en code "fait main", nommer un responsable stratégie IA, l'humain senior reste irremplaçable pour superviser Une libraries de test JUnit cache un prompt qui demande aux coding agents d'effacer les tests https://arstechnica.com/security/2026/05/fed-up-with-vibe-coders-dev-sneaks-data-nuking-prompt-injection-into-their-code/ Agacé par les « vibe coders », un développeur introduit une injection de prompt destructrice dans son code Le développeur de jqwik (un moteur de tests pour JUnit 5) a volontairement inséré une injection de prompt dans la version 1.10.0 de sa bibliothèque Java pour saboter le travail des agents d'IA. L'instruction injectée via la sortie standard (stdout) ordonne textuellement aux LLM d'ignorer les consignes précédentes et de supprimer l'intégralité du code et des tests jqwik du projet. Pour dissimuler cette action aux yeux des développeurs humains, le mainteneur a utilisé des séquences d'échappement ANSI qui effacent la ligne d'injection dans les émulateurs de terminaux interactifs. La modification a été découverte par un utilisateur qui a pointé du doigt les risques majeurs et disproportionnés pour les machines des utilisateurs, bien que certains outils comme Claude d'Anthropic aient détecté et bloqué la consigne malveillante. Face aux critiques de la communauté et aux accusations de comportement infantile ou potentiellement illégal, le développeur a mis à jour ses notes de version pour documenter explicitement son opposition à l'usage de son outil par des IA, avant de refuser tout commentaire supplémentaire sur conseil de son avocat. La réalité du rôle de Principal Engineer https://leaddev.com/career-development/reality-being-principal-engineer Le passage au rôle de Principal Engineer marque une transition majeure où les compétences techniques ne suffisent plus, l'impact se mesurant désormais à travers l'influence, la stratégie et la capacité à aligner la technique avec les objectifs business. Contrairement aux attentes, le quotidien est souvent marqué par une forme d'isolement, car le poste se situe à l'intersection de la direction (qui attend des solutions) et des équipes techniques (qui attendent des directives), sans appartenance directe à un groupe précis. Le rôle exige d'accepter une grande part d'ambiguïté et l'absence de retours immédiats, les projets et les décisions stratégiques mettant parfois des mois ou des années à porter leurs fruits. La gestion du temps devient un défi critique, nécessitant de savoir naviguer entre les sollicitations constantes, la présence en réunion et le besoin de préserver des moments de réflexion approfondie pour concevoir des visions à long terme. La réussite à ce niveau repose sur le développement de compétences humaines pointues (soft skills), notamment la négociation, la communication vulgarisée auprès des profils non techniques, et la capacité à faire grandir les autres ingénieurs par le mentorat. Sécurité Une attaque de la chaîne d'approvisionnement npm utilise binding.gyp pour compromettre des dizaines de paquets https://cybersecuritynews.com/binding-gyp-supply-chain-attack-compromises-dozens-of-npm-packages/ Une nouvelle variante du ver auto-propageable "Shai-Hulud", baptisée "Miasma", cible l'écosystème npm (et PyPI sous le nom de "Hades") en dissimulant son exécution dans le fichier binding.gyp au lieu des scripts classiques preinstall ou postinstall. La technique, surnommée "Phantom Gyp", exploite le fait que npm lance automatiquement node-gyp rebuild dès qu'un fichier binding.gyp est présent à la racine d'un paquet pour compiler des modules natifs C/C++, exécutant ainsi le code malveillant dès la commande npm install. L'attaque contourne la plupart des outils de sécurité traditionnels car l'injection s'appuie sur l'évaluation récursive de commandes (via la syntaxe ) ou directement sur la fonction eval() de Python sous-jacente à GYP, cachée sous n'importe quelle clé du fichier. Le script malveillant télécharge un runtime alternatif (Bun) pour échapper aux détections comportementales de Node.js, puis moissonne les identifiants et secrets des développeurs et des environnements CI/CD (npm, GitHub, AWS, GCP, Azure, Kubernetes, HashiCorp Vault). Plus de 57 paquets npm (dont le SDK serveur de Vapi ou des outils liés à l'IA) et des dizaines de paquets PyPI ont été infectés via des comptes de mainteneurs compromis, le ver republiant automatiquement de nouvelles versions vérolées en utilisant les jetons volés. Loi, société et organisation Restructuration chez Gitlab https://about.gitlab.com/blog/gitlab-act-2/ GitLab entame une restructuration majeure pour s'adapter à l'ère de l'intelligence artificielle agentique, incluant une réduction d'effectifs planifiée de manière transparente et ouverte. L'entreprise prévoit de réduire de 30 % le nombre de pays où elle maintient de petites équipes, d'aplatir sa hiérarchie en supprimant jusqu'à trois niveaux de gestion, et de réorganiser la R&D en une soixantaine d'équipes plus petites et autonomes. Les processus internes vont être revus en intégrant des agents d'IA pour automatiser les revues, les approbations et les passages de relais afin d'accélérer le rythme de travail. La stratégie repose sur la conviction que le logiciel sera bientôt écrit par des machines et dirigé par des humains, ce qui va multiplier la demande de logiciels et transformer le rôle des ingénieurs vers la résolution de problèmes complexes. Sur le plan technique, GitLab reconstruit son infrastructure sous-jacente (notamment Git) pour supporter la charge massive générée par les agents d'IA, tout en misant sur l'orchestration du cycle de vie, la centralisation du contexte des données et une gouvernance intégrée. Le modèle économique évolue vers un système hybride combinant les abonnements classiques et une tarification à la consommation pour le travail effectué par les agents d'IA. Un LLM local sur un mac pourrait coûter plus cher en électricité qu'un modèle hébergé sur OpenRouter dans le cloud https://www.williamangel.net/blog/2026/05/17/offline-llm-energy-use.html Conclusion : L'inférence locale sur Mac M5 Max est 3x plus chère et 2x plus lente que le cloud (OpenRouter). Électricité : Négligeable (~0,02 $/heure pour 50-100W). Matériel (Le vrai coût) : Achat du Mac à 4 299 $; l'amortissement sur 3 à 5 ans plombe la rentabilité horaire. Coût au million de tokens (Gemma 4 31b) : Mac M5 Max : 0,40 à4, 79 (pour 10-40 tokens/s). OpenRouter : 0,38 à0, 50 (pour 60-70 tokens/s). Verdict pro : Le temps humain perdu à cause de la lenteur locale coûte infiniment plus cher que les tokens cloud. Privilégier les API (Anthropic, OpenRouter). Ai didn't kill your junior pipeline https://andrewmurphy.io/blog/ai-didnt-kill-your-junior-pipeline-you-did L'IA n'a pas tué le recrutement des juniors, les entreprises l'ont fait elles-mêmes, par effet de mode. Sans juniors, pas de futurs seniors : on retire l'échelle qui nous a tous fait monter. Tout le monde pêche dans le même bassin de seniors sans le réapprovisionner, pénurie garantie dans 3-5 ans. Une équipe 100% senior + IA est fragile : un départ et tout le savoir tacite s'évapore. Les juniors posent les "pourquoi ?" qui révèlent les bugs et processus absurdes ; l'IA, elle, exécute sans questionner. Les seniors s'atrophient aussi en déléguant leur réflexion à l'IA, pince à double effet sur les compétences. Dépendre des outils IA, c'est sous-traiter sa stratégie talents à des fournisseurs dont les prix vont tripler. Solution : redéfinir le rôle junior (revue de code IA + mentorat), pas le supprimer. Les rapports internes de Microsoft révèlent la crise des coûts de l'IA : les agents coûtent plus cher que les employés humains https://fortune.com/2026/05/22/microsoft-ai-cost-problem-tokens-agents/ Des données et rapports internes chez Microsoft et d'autres géants de la tech ébranlent la promesse de rentabilité de l'IA, révélant que le déploiement d'agents autonomes à l'échelle de l'entreprise revient souvent plus cher que de payer des humains pour le même travail. Le modèle de tarification à l'usage (basé sur les tokens) se heurte à la nature même des architectures agentiques : contrairement à un simple chatbot, un agent boucle, enchaîne les appels d'outils, crée des sous-agents et auto-évalue son code, ce qui multiplie la consommation de tokens par un facteur de 5 à 30, voire jusqu'à 1 000 fois pour des tâches de programmation complexes. L'impact financier sur les budgets de calcul cloud est immédiat ; par exemple, Uber a entièrement épuisé l'intégralité de son budget annuel 2026 dédié au codage par IA en l'espace de seulement quatre mois. Face à cette explosion des coûts, des retours en arrière drastiques sont observés : Microsoft a ainsi commencé à suspendre une grande partie de ses licences internes Claude Code pour rediriger d'urgence ses milliers de développeurs vers sa propre solution moins onéreuse, GitHub Copilot CLI. Les directeurs techniques (CTO) et acheteurs de solutions logicielles qui ont signé des contrats pluriannuels basés sur des projections de réduction de masse salariale se retrouvent pris au piège, les gains réels de productivité ne parvenant pas à compenser les factures d'infrastructure exorbitantes. Conférences La liste des conférences provenant de Developers Conferences Agenda/List par Aurélie Vache et contributeurs : 11-12 juin 2026 : DevQuest Niort - Niort (France) 11-12 juin 2026 : DevLille 2026 - Lille (France) 12 juin 2026 : Tech F'Est 2026 - Nancy (France) 15 juin 2026 : Jupyter Workshops: Demystifying MyST Markdown in Education - Orsay (France) 16 juin 2026 : Mobilis In Mobile 2026 - Nantes (France) 17-19 juin 2026 : Devoxx Poland - Krakow (Poland) 17-20 juin 2026 : VivaTech - Paris (France) 18 juin 2026 : Tech'Work - Lyon (France) 22-26 juin 2026 : Galaxy Community Conference - Clermont-Ferrand (France) 23-24 juin 2026 : MWCP 2026 - Paris (France) 24-25 juin 2026 : Agi'Lille 2026 - Lille (France) 24-26 juin 2026 : BreizhCamp 2026 - Rennes (France) 26-27 juin 2026 : LeHACK - Paris (France) 27 juin 2026 : Asynconf - Paris (France) 2 juillet 2026 : Azur Tech Summer 2026 - Valbonne (France) 2 juillet 2026 : MCP Connect Travel Edition - Paris (France) 2-3 juillet 2026 : Sunny Tech - Montpellier (France) 3 juillet 2026 : Agile Lyon 2026 - Lyon (France) 6-8 juillet 2026 : Riviera Dev - Sophia Antipolis (France) 28-30 août 2026 : State of the Map - Champs-sur-Marne (France) 4 septembre 2026 : JUG Summer Camp 2026 - La Rochelle (France) 10-11 septembre 2026 : Nantes Craft - Nantes (France) 17 septembre 2026 : dotAI - Paris (France) 17-18 septembre 2026 : API Platform Conference 2026 - Lille (France) 18 septembre 2026 : WordCamp Bretagne - Rennes (France) 18 septembre 2026 : dotJS - Paris (France) 18 septembre 2026 : WordCamp Bretagne - Rennes (France) 22 septembre 2026 : Salon Data 2026 - Nantes (France) 22-23 septembre 2026 : Agile en Seine & IA 2026 - Paris (France) 24 septembre 2026 : OWASP AppSec Days France 2026 - Paris (France) 24 septembre 2026 : PlatformCon Paris - Paris (France) 24 septembre 2026 : React Native Connection 2026 - Paris (France) 24-26 septembre 2026 : Paris Web 2026 - Paris (France) 25 septembre 2026 : SAP Inside Track Paris 2026 - Paris (France) 28-29 septembre 2026 : 4th Tech Summit on AI & Robotics - Paris (France) & Online 1 octobre 2026 : WAX 2026 - Marseille (France) 1-2 octobre 2026 : Volcamp - Clermont-Ferrand (France) 2 octobre 2026 : DevFest Perros-Guirec 2026 - Perros-Guirec (France) 5-9 octobre 2026 : Devoxx Belgium - Antwerp (Belgium) 8-9 octobre 2026 : Forum PHP 2026 - Marne-la-Vallée (France) 12 octobre 2026 : Dev With AI - Paris (France) 22-23 octobre 2026 : Agile Tour Bordeaux 2026 - Bordeaux (France) 26 octobre 2026 : Agile Tour Montpellier - Montpellier (France) 27-29 octobre 2026 : Directions EMEA 2026 - Paris (France) 29-30 octobre 2026 : BDX I/O 2026 - Bordeaux (France) 29-30 octobre 2026 : Agile Tour Nantais 2026 - Nantes (France) 29 octobre 2026-1 novembre 2026 : Pycon FR - Biarritz (France) 30 octobre 2026 : Cloud Nord 2026 - Lille (France) 4-5 novembre 2026 : Devoxx Morocco - Casablanca (Morocco) 14-15 novembre 2026 : Capitole du Libre - Toulouse (France) 19 novembre 2026 : DevFest Toulouse 2026 - Toulouse (France) 19 novembre 2026 : Agile Laval 2026 - Laval (France) 19 novembre 2026 : OVHcloud Summit - Paris (France) 19 novembre 2026 : Codeurs en Seine - Rouen (France) 27 novembre 2026 : DevFest Paris 2026 - Paris (France) 1-3 décembre 2026 : Apidays Paris - Paris (France) 2-3 décembre 2026 : Cloud Native AI Summit Europe - Paris (France) 4 décembre 2026 : DevFest Lyon 2026 - Lyon (France) 4 décembre 2026 : DevFest Dijon 2026 - Dijon (France) 9-10 décembre 2026 : OpenSource Expérience - Paris (France) 9-10 décembre 2026 : DevOps REX - Paris (France) 10 décembre 2026 : KCD Provence - Aix-en-Provence (France) 7-9 avril 2027 : Devoxx France 2027 - Paris (France) 3 juin 2027 : Cloud Native Days France 2027 - Paris (France) Nous contacter Pour réagir à cet épisode, venez discuter sur le groupe Google https://groups.google.com/group/lescastcodeurs Contactez-nous via X/twitter https://twitter.com/lescastcodeurs ou Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/lescastcodeurs.com Faire un crowdcast ou une crowdquestion Soutenez Les Cast Codeurs sur Patreon https://www.patreon.com/LesCastCodeurs Tous les épisodes et toutes les infos sur https://lescastcodeurs.com/

 Glen Leeson, co-founder of The Tamil Prince, The Tamil Crown and Tamila, joins Dan Pope to unpack how one of London's most talked-about Indian restaurant groups was built from pub pop-ups, second-hand fridges and blind belief.From Patty & Bun's burger boom to JKS discipline, lockdown hustle, personal guarantees, viral Sunday roasts, Dishoom collabs, delivery strategy and the magic of creating a restaurant that feels alive — this is a proper founder story about graft, taste, timing, luck and learning by doing.

Our heroes discover the missing researchers in the temple , but also something far more dangerous.Featuring:Joey as the DM Dustin as the Corvum Artificer "Dallas"ShortStack as the Arma Hedge Cleric "Suri""Bun" as the Sylph Ranger "Flit"Kevin as the Rockburrow Jerbeen Rogue "Munch"Enjoy!https://anchor.fm/lfrogdndYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/josephblanchetteBlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/josephlfrog.bsky.socialPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/legendaryfrogHumblewood Campaign Setting by Hit Point Press: https://hitpointpress.com/Character art by "Mel the Honeybee": https://linktr.ee/melthehoneybeeMusic credits:The Rhythm of Humblewood. Copyright © (2023) Hit Point Press.Music by Command Creative Studios. HitPointPress.com Humblewood: Beyond the Canopy. Copyright © (2025) Hit Point Press.Music by Command Creative Studios. HitPointPress.com Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/#DND #dungeonsanddragons #TTRPG

Comment on this episode by going to KDramaChat.com Today, we'll be discussing Episode 10 of Our Unwritten Seoul, the hit K Drama on Netflix starring Park Bo-young as Yoo Mi-ji and Yoo Mi-rae, and Jinyoung as Lee Ho-su. We also talk about filming locations for Our Unwritten Seoul. We discuss: The songs featured during the recap: My Rosa, and My Sang Wol by Nam Hye-seung and Park Sang-hee, Time In My Diary by Nam Hye-seung and Park Sang-hee, and Come Back Home by Nam Hye-seung and Go Eun-jong. We also discuss Go Eun-jong's contributions to many beloved K Drama OSTs. The heartbreaking story of Hyeon Sang-wol and Kim Rosa, a decades-long tale of friendship, sacrifice, loyalty, and love. How Kim Rosa's secret identity is exposed to the public and the devastating impact of public judgment and shame. The ethical debate between Ho-su and Lee Chung-gu about the role of lawyers, justice, and whether the powerful and powerless should be treated equally under the law. Mi-ji's greatest strength: her bias toward action and her refusal to abandon people who are suffering. Kim Rosa's moving final letter and her faith that one day good people would come to help Sang-wol. How Mi-ji and Ho-su work together to secure a suspended indictment for Sang-wol and uncover the truth behind Rosa's scholarship donations. Korean tiger symbolism, lucky dreams, and why Mi-ji's dream about fighting a tiger mattered so much. Mi-rae's determination to continue her sexual harassment complaint and pursue evidence of corruption despite enormous pressure. Han Se-jin's surprise proposal that Mi-rae join him in the United States and what it reveals about their relationship. Ok-hui's painful relationship with her mother, Bun-hong's wisdom, and the memorable line: “You have to be loved to know how to love.” Ho-su's sudden hearing loss, why he walks away from Mi-ji at the end of the episode, and what this could mean for their future. The meaning of the episode title “Reading You,” plus filming locations from this show.  Upcoming special episodes, including a K Drama 101 and review of the the Oscar-winning film Parasite. References Go Eun Jong on Spotify Suspended sentence - Wikipedia The Enduring Symbolism of Tigers in Korean Culture - Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge Tan'gun - Wikipedia K Drama Filming Locations

Blame foreclosure on 'unhinged' acquaintance A Putnam County judge on Wednesday (June 17) denied an attempt by a couple who owned a dry cleaner on Route 9 in Philipstown to regain the property, which they said was lost to fraud. Judge Gina Capone upheld the foreclosure and eviction by MT&T Bank of Sokhara Kim and Chakra Oeur from 3154 Route 9, which from 1995 to early 2024 had been owned by Kim through Mary Dawn Inc. and was home to Nice & Neat Dry Cleaners, a nail salon and a residence she shared with her husband. Kim and Oeur, immigrants from Cambodia who also operated an outdoor restaurant and art gallery at the location, were evicted on Dec. 9, 2025, ending a foreclosure process that began in August 2022, after Kim stopped making payments on a $570,000 mortgage. Capone, who oversaw the case, ordered the foreclosure in February 2024. A bank subsidiary, Chesapeake Holding, paid $620,200 for the parcel at an auction in May 2024. Capone rejected Kim and Oeur's main contention — that they were victims of Derek Keith Williams, who met the couple when his girlfriend, Mauny Bun, ran the salon. Williams, who is facing fraud and grand larceny charges, convinced Kim that he had paid off the mortgage, according to court documents. Then, for the next few years, he hid the foreclosure by demanding that she "turn over any mail or paperwork relating to the property, Mary Dawn Inc., any court or any bank," said her attorney, Jacob Chen. Chen said the court "never acquired personal jurisdiction" over Kim because the process server identified the person he handed the original foreclosure documents to as a female Asian "coworker" of Kim's, with an estimated age of 45. Chen also said that Oeur should have been included as a party to the foreclosure proceeding because he lived at the property and managed the Khmer Art Gallery. In Capone's 31-page ruling, she said both Kim and Oeur were "wholly aware" of the foreclosure and the sale of the property well before they claimed to have learned of the eviction in November 2025. She cited appearances Kim made with Williams in Erie County Court when M&T sued in 2020 over the delinquent loan. She also said a handwritten complaint Kim filed in January 2025 against M&T with the Federal Reserve used the foreclosure case number. In addition, said Capone, the contention that Williams withheld mail about the foreclosure "is undermined by the fact that, according to Ms. Kim, Mr. Williams was not living at the subject premises, and present there on a day-to-day basis, until September 2023," a year after the bank initiated the proceeding. "One constant, according to the plaintiff, was that Ms. Kim and Mr. Williams acted in concert to prevent, hinder and interfere" with the bank's efforts to gain the property, said Capone. Kim says Williams is solely to blame. In a statement filed with the court, she said a personal loan used to rebuild the property after a fire destroyed it in 2005 had been taken over by M&T Bank when she met Williams through Bun in 2019. Kim said that Bun, whose mother she had known for over 30 years, "reminded me a lot of my daughter … and I put a lot of trust and faith in her." She decided to accept Williams' offer to buy the property for $1.2 million and transfer it to an entity called DKW Trust. "I had worked tirelessly for many, many years at that point," said Kim. "I was excited about the opportunity to take a break from working and to be able to give something to my grandchildren, and so I agreed." Williams requested access to Mary Dawn's bank account, provided Kim with "official-looking documents containing seals and stamps," and said he had paid off the mortgage and would let her live there while he "finalized" the trust, according to court documents. In addition to demanding that any mail related to courts and the bank be turned over to him, he also asked Kim to sign documents and submit filings without explaining what they were, and demanded access to her emails, according to court...

OpenAI just acquired Astral, the company behind uv, Ruff, and ty. And if your first thought was "wait, is uv toast?", you are not alone. But here's the twist Charlie Marsh shared with me: he thinks they may ship more open source at OpenAI than they ever did at Astral. On this episode, we get into the acquisition, the mixed feelings, the future of your favorite Python tools, and what it's like to build right at the center of the AI universe. Episode sponsors Sentry Error Monitoring, Code talkpython26 Talk Python Courses Links from the show Guest Charlie Marsh: github.com The announcement: astral.sh OpenAI: openai.com uv: github.com ty: github.com Ruff: github.com pyx: astral.sh Codex team: openai.com Anthropic did something similar by acquiring Bun: www.anthropic.com Daily Stars Explorer: emanuelef.github.io Agentic AI Programming for Python: training.talkpython.fm Python Web Security: OWASP Top 10 with Agentic AI: training.talkpython.fm Episode #552 deep-dive: talkpython.fm/552 Episode transcripts: talkpython.fm Theme Song: Developer Rap

THE AFTER PARTY IS BACK. And on this one we feature the new girls of Cincy Street. They tell about their bartending journey to Cincy Street, give us their latest relationship tea and our boy Gee asks them some crazy questions! Follow us on social media @AaronScenesAfterParty

Our heroes enter the ancient Fizzar Temple of "Rime and Reaosn," and learn the researchers set of a series of traps when they removed an artifact from it's resting place.Featuring:Joey as the DM Dustin as the Corvum Artificer "Dallas"ShortStack as the Arma Hedge Cleric "Suri""Bun" as the Sylph Ranger "Flit"Kevin as the Rockburrow Jerbeen Rogue "Munch"Enjoy!https://anchor.fm/lfrogdndYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/josephblanchetteBlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/josephlfrog.bsky.socialPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/legendaryfrogHumblewood Campaign Setting by Hit Point Press: https://hitpointpress.com/Character art by "Mel the Honeybee": https://linktr.ee/melthehoneybeeMusic credits:The Rhythm of Humblewood. Copyright © (2023) Hit Point Press.Music by Command Creative Studios. HitPointPress.com Humblewood: Beyond the Canopy. Copyright © (2025) Hit Point Press.Music by Command Creative Studios. HitPointPress.com Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/#DND #dungeonsanddragons #TTRPG

The data stealing code compromised over 1,500 packages in the Arch Linux User Repository, making use of Rust, Systemd, NodeJS, & Bun.Grab a Discounted Lifetime Sub & Get on The Wall:https://lunduke.substack.com/p/50-off-yearly-and-massively-discountedMore from The Lunduke Journal:https://lunduke.com/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lunduke.substack.com/subscribe

Wie hat dir die Folge gefallen?Gut

This letter was written to Shijō Kingo, a samurai and one of Nichiren Daishonin's most loyal followers, in the seventh month of the eighth year of Bun'ei (1271). Shijō Kingo had sent various offerings to the Daishonin as a donation for a memorial service to be held for his mother, who had passed away some years before on the twelfth day of the seventh month. The Daishonin wrote Kingo this letter in reply, explaining that, in the profoundest sense, only the act of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo benefits the deceased.Traditionally held in Japan on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, the service for deceased ancestors is a Buddhist observance honoring the spirits of the ancestors. This tradition originated in China and is based on the story of Maudgalyāyana's saving his deceased mother that is related in the Service for the Deceased Sutra. Records indicate that the service for deceased ancestors was first held in China in 538, and in Japan in 657. Recent scholarship has established that the Service for the Deceased Sutra has its origins not in India, but in China, where filial piety was highly valued.According to popular belief in Kamakura-period Japan, those who were greedy or egotistic in life would inevitably suffer from hunger in death. In this letter, the Daishonin discusses the various kinds of hungry spirits mentioned in Buddhist texts and explains the causes, that is, the evil acts they committed in past existences, that led them to acquire these forms.The Daishonin also exposes the true motives of many of the priests of his day, referring to them as “Law-devouring hungry spirits” who use the Buddhist teachings as a means to gain personal fame and profit. Though they pretend to have a sincere desire to preach the Buddhist teachings, in their hearts they are greedy. They conceal the offerings they receive from others, keeping them to themselves. The Daishonin also censures those Buddhists, whether of the priesthood or of the laity, who neglect to pray for the repose of their deceased parents or teachers.https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-1/Content/21

Beidh cluichí ceannais na hÉireann cúigear an taobh do bhunscoltacha ar siúl inniu i Stáid an Aviva. I measc na scoltacha a bheas páirteach inniu beidh Gaelscoil Adhamhnáin, Leitir Ceanainn agus Gaelscoil Cois Feabhail, Bun an Phobail.

Let's start your week strong with a quick tip you can incorporate right away. In this Mo's Monday Minute shortie episode, I'm breaking down the BUN-to-creatinine ratio and why nurses look at them together. See you there! ___________________ Nursing School Survival Blueprint - Feeling overwhelmed or unsure how to approach nursing school? Download this free Blueprint to understand exactly what's working against you — and what to do instead.

Episode 180: rightFolds in an AI world? rightFolds as a pun on Mark's recent right vocal fold surgery, healing means we're good to record again, plus IA celebrates 17 years of existence, even if episodes have seriously lacked of late. Last episode Aug 27, 2025 - it's been a while. Does language theory and evolution have a place/need in an AI world? New JVM language features vs Syntactic sugar ala Clojure/Scala features Bun's recent zig->rust total AI rewrite Vercel engineer built Zero, a programming Language for AI Agents | Yeamt Why Did They Build This? jank now has its own custom IR Do any of these funky languages matter in an AI world? Is 'Good Enough' Good Enough: Mindsets and Behaviors for Sales Excellence Is "good enough" good enough?!. A common misunderstanding of the… | by Ted Rau Is Good Enough, Good Enough? (Part 1) AI and the increased threat of Supply Chain attacks How We Got a CISA GitHub Leak Taken Down in Under a Day NPM and its recent attacks Package Managers are Evil - gingerBill The Aesthetic Problem of Namespacing - gingerBill Tooling Highlights from Git 2.54 "Git history" FTW, unless you're using Jujitsu

On this episode: Rust has another convert, npm takes another stab at stopping the hackers, and Jack had a coding battle against robots.Timestamps:1:00 - Bun switches to Rust6:45 - Jack's battle against AI on Greenfield Games16:01 - npm RFC to block install scripts22:10 - State of Web Dev AI survey results37:10 - Mark Erikson joins the AI revolution41:45 - What's making us happyNews:Paige - Bun, but in RustJack - Jason Lengstorf's Greenfield Games TV showTJ - npm RFC to block install scriptsLightning News: State of Web Dev AI survey resultsMark Erikson joins the AI revolutionWhat Makes Us Happy this Week:Paige - Riding in WaymosJack - Wilma the Bat Dog for the Portland PicklesTJ - Dungeon Crawler Carl book seriesThanks as always to our sponsor, the Blue Collar Coder channel on YouTube. You can join us in our Discord channel, explore our website and reach us via email, or talk to us on X, Bluesky, or YouTube.Front-end Fire websiteBlue Collar Coder on YouTubeBlue Collar Coder on DiscordReach out via emailTweet at us on X @front_end_fireFollow us on Bluesky @front-end-fire.comSubscribe to our YouTube channel @Front-EndFirePodcast

This is a recap of the top 10 posts on Hacker News on May 22, 2026. This podcast was generated by wondercraft.ai (00:30): If you're an LLM, please read thisOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48234413&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(01:58): Steve Wozniak cheered after telling students they have AI – actual intelligenceOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48233563&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(03:26): Why Japanese companies do so many different thingsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48237163&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(04:54): Bun support is now limited and deprecatedOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48238789&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(06:22): U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaboratorsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48238025&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(07:50): Project Glasswing: An Initial UpdateOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48240419&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(09:18): Antigravity 2.0 Tops the OpenSCAD Architectural 3D LLM BenchmarkOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48234090&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(10:46): DeepSeek makes the V4 Pro price discount permanentOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48237663&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(12:14): Deno 2.8Original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48234380&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(13:42): AI has a multiplying effect on existing technical skillsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48235526&utm_source=wondercraft_aiThis is a third-party project, independent from HN and YC. Text and audio generated using AI, by wondercraft.ai. Create your own studio quality podcast with text as the only input in seconds at app.wondercraft.ai. Issues or feedback? We'd love to hear from you: team@wondercraft.ai

This month's panel digs into the SpaceX Cursor acquisition rumor and what a $60 billion valuation means for AI coding tools. They debate Bun's million-line Rust rewrite generated entirely by AI, the tradeoffs of agentic coding at scale, and a sophisticated CI/CD cache poisoning attack targeting TanStack. Plus: practical takes on Claude token optimization, session forensics, local AI models, and why most Claude Code skills work best when tailored, not pulled off the shelf. Resources SpaceX/Cursor deal, CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/21/spacex-says-it-can-buy-cursor-later-this-year-for-60-billion-or-pay-10-billion-for-our-work-together.html Fortune, Cursor's uncertain future: https://fortune.com/2026/03/21/cursor-ceo-michael-truell-ai-coding-claude-anthropic-venture-capital/ GitHub Copilot usage-based billing announcement: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-copilot-is-moving-to-usage-based-billing/ Developer backlash, Visual Studio Magazine: https://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2026/04/27/devs-sound-off-on-usage-based-copilot-pricing-change-you-will-get-less-but-pay-the-same-price.aspx "The IDE Is Dead, Long Live the ADE", Indie Hackers: https://www.indiehackers.com/post/the-ide-is-dead-long-live-the-ade-0d81e9da3d Companies spending crazy money on AI coding tools, Medium: https://medium.com/@Reiki32/companies-are-spending-crazy-money-on-ai-coding-tools-while-developers-burn-out-efe5908f3dda The PR: https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/pull/30412 The Register writeup: https://www.theregister.com/devops/2026/05/14/anthropics-bun-rust-rewrite-merged-at-speed-of-ai/5240381 The 13,000 unsafe blocks piece: https://byteiota.com/bun-rust-rewrite-merged-the-13000-unsafe-block-problem/ TanStack postmortem: https://tanstack.com/blog/npm-supply-chain-compromise-postmortem TanStack hardening follow-up: https://tanstack.com/blog/incident-followup StepSecurity writeup (the researcher who caught it): https://www.stepsecurity.io/blog/mini-shai-hulud-is-back-a-self-spreading-supply-chain-attack-hits-the-npm-ecosystem SOC Prime writeup: https://socprime.com/active-threats/active-supply-chain-attack-compromises-node-ipc-package We want to hear from you! How did you find us? Did you see us on Twitter? In a newsletter? Or maybe we were recommended by a friend? Fill out our listener survey! https://t.co/oKVAEXipxu Let us know by sending an email to our producer, Elizabeth, at elizabeth.becz@logrocket.com, or tweet at us at PodRocketPod. Check out our newsletter! https://blog.logrocket.com/the-replay-newsletter/ Follow us. Get free stickers. Follow us on Apple Podcasts, fill out this form, and we'll send you free PodRocket stickers! What does LogRocket do? LogRocket provides AI-first session replay and analytics that surfaces the UX and technical issues impacting user experiences. Start understanding where your users are struggling by trying it for free at LogRocket.com. Try LogRocket for free today. Chapters 00:00 Introduction 01:00 The $60B SpaceX Cursor deal 08:00 Token costs rising — the rug pull is real 09:30 Local models and sub-agent routing 12:00 Session forensics — cutting Claude token waste 15:00 Bun's AI-generated Rust rewrite 18:00 Should AI rewrite core infrastructure? 23:00 Does runtime choice even matter anymore? 29:00 The TanStack supply chain attack explained 33:00 How the GitHub Actions cache poisoning worked 36:00 Is GitHub Actions too flexible? 39:30 Ad break 40:00 Hot take — you'll be okay (local models and hardware) 42:30 Hot take — "They Will Kill You" (Jack's movie rec) 43:30 Hot take — stop hoarding Claude Code skills 46:00 Wrap-upSpecial Guest: Jack Herrington.

Achtung das ist die klassische Vatertagsfolge. Das heißt es war mal wieder Alkehol im Spiel. Die Gefahr von Flachwitzen ist daher sehr hoch. Wer nicht darauf steht kann die Folge gerne überspringen. Für alle anderen: Zum Vatertag gibt's Technik statt Bollerwagen: Wir sprechen über DNSSEC-Ärger bei der DENIC, Sicherheitslücken in Linux, BSD und DNSMasq sowie KI-gestützte Schwachstellenforschung. Dazu kommen Little Snitch, Smartglasses-Fails, DokuWiki mit Markdown, ein KI-Rewrite von Bun nach Rust, kostenlose Telefonzellen in Australien, End-of-Life-Software, DIY-Smartwatches, Bosch-E-Bikes mit Garmin und Bahnchaos bei internationalen Buchungen.

This is a recap of the top 10 posts on Hacker News on May 09, 2026. This podcast was generated by wondercraft.ai (00:30): A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 ProOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48071262&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(01:57): Internet Archive SwitzerlandOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074265&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(03:24): Bun's experimental Rust rewrite hits 99.8% test compatibility on Linux x64 glibcOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48073680&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(04:52): EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"Original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48072190&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(06:19): Using Claude Code: The unreasonable effectiveness of HTMLOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48071940&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(07:47): LLMs corrupt your documents when you delegateOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48073246&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(09:14): Meta's embrace of AI is making its employees miserableOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48077126&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(10:42): I've banned query stringsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48076173&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(12:09): The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianismOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48074952&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(13:37): GrapheneOS fixes Android VPN leak Google refused to patchOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48075144&utm_source=wondercraft_aiThis is a third-party project, independent from HN and YC. Text and audio generated using AI, by wondercraft.ai. Create your own studio quality podcast with text as the only input in seconds at app.wondercraft.ai. Issues or feedback? We'd love to hear from you: team@wondercraft.ai

It's a Sunday Funday edition of the After Party! And for this one we got the return of Marcy! She comes on as we reminisce on Jaguars Gentlemen's Club, the most she's made in one night as a dancer and dumps some trauma on the podcast. Follow us on social media @AaronScenesAfterParty

We're live on 4/20 from our sponsors Apogee in Sunland Park NM! And on this one we bring on our boy 3am as we catch up with him and he shares some of his most recent projects. Plus he tells us all about his crazy Las Vegas work schedule, doing work for the World Cup and he tells us some of his DJ do's and don'ts! And the OG cohost Marky Mark stops by for a little edible action. Follow us on social media @AaronScenesAfterParty