Podcasts about Cerf

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

Maux de têtes, de dos, douleurs de l'arthrite... Une douleur est dite chronique lorsqu'elle dure dans le temps, généralement plus de trois mois, et qu'elle persiste malgré les traitements antalgiques. Selon la Haute Autorité de Santé, la douleur chronique touche plus de 12 millions de personnes en France. Comment expliquer que certaines douleurs persistent quand la cause est physiquement réglée ?  Avec:  Dr Carole Séréni, neurologue, co-responsable de la consultation multidisciplinaire de la douleur chronique de l'hôpital Saint-Joseph à Paris. Ancien chef de clinique des hôpitaux de Paris et ancien chef de service de l'hôpital Léopold Bellan. Auteure de l'ouvrage Douleurs chroniques et opiacés aux éditions du Cerf.     Retrouvez l'émission en intégraité iciDouleurs chroniques : quand la souffrance s'installe

Cette semaine, La Foi prise au mot vous propose de rappeler la belle figure de Fénelon, théologien et écrivain mort en 1715 et qui reste un des évêques les plus attachants de tout l'Ancien Régime. On retient de lui qu'il fut le précepteur du duc de Bourgogne, qu'il fut l'auteur du Télémaque, qui servit de livre de lecture aux jeunes gens jusqu'au 20e siècle et qu'il s'opposa à Bossuet sur la question du quiétisme. Mais qui était vraiment cet archevêque de Cambrai ? Et pourquoi le fameux mémorialiste du Grand Siècle, Saint-Simon, pourtant si perfide, reconnaissait-il qu'il était " un exemple toujours présent, mais auquel on ne pouvait atteindre ; partout un vrai prélat, partout aussi un grand seigneur " ? Pour en parler, le Père Jean-Robert Armogathe, historien et théologien, directeur d'études émérite à l'École pratique des hautes études et Laurence Devillairs, docteur en philosophie auteur de Fénelon, une philosophie de l'infini (Cerf).

OBJECTIF SANTE – Catherine Lacrosnière Elle reçoit le Docteur Ariel Toledano pour son livre « Prenez soin de vos jambes » aux éditions du Cerf et Elisabeth Nado pour son livre « Les incroyables pouvoirs du drainage lymphatique - 20 protocoles d'auto- massage » aux éditions Solar À propos du livre : « Prenez soin de vos jambes » paru aux éditions Cerf Des millions de Françaises et de Français souffrent quotidiennement de leurs jambes. Pourquoi cette pathologie ? Comment la réduire ? En quoi les traitements médicaux ne vont pas sans une réforme de vie ? Le traité complet pour mieux être par le grand spécialiste français. 17 millions de Français et de Françaises souffrent de problèmes circulatoires liés aux jambes. Près d'une personne sur trois. Or, les jambes sont, paradoxalement, les grandes oubliées des soins. Jambes lourdes, gonflées, varices, varicosités, cellulite... : voici cinq profils majeurs identifiés par cet ouvrage complet, simple et pratique. Spécialiste des pathologies vasculaires, le Dr Ariel Toledano expose les mécanismes qui les provoquent, les mesures qui les préviennent et les méthodes qui les soulagent. Alimentation, exercice physique, soins locaux, techniques médicales et chirurgicales les plus avancées : ces cinq programmes de traitement s'inscrivent dans une approche globale du soin qui vise l'harmonie du corps et de l'esprit. Un livre essentiel pour réapprendre à se tenir debout ! À propos du livre : « Les incroyables pouvoirs du drainage lymphatique - 20 protocoles d'auto- massage » paru aux éditions Solar Le drainage lymphatique est une méthode en pleine révolution, aux résultats bluffants lorsqu'elle est correctement pratiquée. Dans ce livre largement illustré, Élisabeth Nado –; créatrice de la Méthode Nado et masseuse de personnalités depuis 28 ans –; dévoile ses protocoles exclusifs d'autodrainage, pour des effets spectaculaires et multidimensionnels : silhouette affinée, dégonflement rapide, regain d'énergie et sensation de légèreté profonde. Tendance en plein essor sur les réseaux sociaux, le drainage lymphatique pratiqué en automassage est devenu un véritable game-changer, en prenant en compte aussi de son hygiène de vie. Grâce à des techniques douces mais extrêmement précises qu'Élisabeth Nado a développées au fil de ses années de pratique, il devient un outil puissant pour transformer la silhouette et renforcer durablement le bien-être corporel.. Dans cet ouvrage, l'autrice partage la méthode unique qu'elle a créée –; le drainage lymphatique Méthode Nado –; ainsi que les secrets de ses gestes signature. Elle y présente également son programme d'autodrainage Boost'Lymph, mais aussi les conseils qui font du drainage lymphatique un outil de transformation durable de la silhouette (une taille de pantalon en quelques jours pour de nombreuses femmes) et du bien-être. Des conseils clairs, des gestes maîtrisés et des protocoles détaillés font de ce livre un outil de transformation de la silhouette et du bien-être durable, accessible à toutes.

Thierry-Dominique Humbrecht vous présente son ouvrage "Dieu ou Comment s'en débarrasser. L'inquisiteur : pièce en un acte" aux éditions Cerf. Entretien avec Paul Franceschi.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Marine Le Pen sera fixée sur son avenir politique le 7 juillet prochain. Décryptage avec Charles Sapin, journaliste politique au Point et auteur du livre « Les moissons de la colère : plongée dans l'Europe nationaliste » (éditions du Cerf).Les vendredi et samedi à 18h55 sur France 5, Mohammed Bouhafsi et toute son équipe accueillent les personnalités qui font l'actualité.

Nos invités du samedi 4 juillet 2026:Les Etats-Unis fêtent les 250 ans de leur indépendance : Thomas Snégaroff, journaliste et historien, et Pierre Haski, éditorialiste géopolitique sur France Inter, chroniqueur à L'Obs sont nos invitésMarine Le Pen fixée sur son avenir politique mardi prochain : décryptage avec Charles Sapin, journaliste politique au Point et auteur du livre « Les moissons de la colère : plongée dans l'Europe nationaliste » (éditions du Cerf).Avec également comme chaque soir L'édito de Yaël Goosz, la story de Paul Larrouturou et le 5 sur 5 d'Amandine Bégot.Tous les vendredi et samedi à 18h55 sur France 5, Mohammed Bouhafsi et toute son équipe accueillent celles et ceux qui font l'actualité du jour.

Qui sont les Ismaéliens ? Cette branche très minoritaire du chiisme à l'origine du califat fatimide – seul califat chiite - est apparue au VIIIè siècle, à l'époque du sixième imam et descendant d'Ali. Leur califat fatimide a étendu sa puissance aux Xè et XIè siècles en Afrique du Nord, en Sicile et jusqu'à la Syrie. Ils ont fondé Le Caire, devenu capitale politique et centre intellectuel et religieux important. Les Ismaéliens sont aussi à l'origine des célébrations du Mawlid, l'anniversaire du Prophète. Dès le IXè siècle, ils s'établissent dans différentes régions, dont le sous-continent indien, en se fondant parmi les hindous et les bouddhistes, à qui ils proposent d'être initiés, sans pour autant renier leurs croyances.   Pour les Ismaéliens, l'imam est toujours vivant et présent, contrairement aux chiites duodécimains, pour lesquels le 12è imam est entré en occultation et ne reviendra qu'à la fin des temps. Au XIè siècle, Hassan Sabbah fonde un ordre ismaélien, nizarite, et s'installe dans des forts et châteaux, dont la fameuse forteresse d'Alamût (située au sud de la mer Caspienne en Iran), semant la terreur par des assassinats ciblés contre des Turcs seldjoukides, les Croisés la surnomment même la « secte des Assassins ». Défaits par Saladin, puis écrasés par Gengis Khan, les Ismaéliens nizarites entrent en semi-clandestinité pendant plusieurs siècles et se fondent dans la population. Depuis le XIXè siècle, l'Aga Khan est désormais le chef spirituel reconnu des ismaéliens nizarites (qui sont majoritaires). Depuis la mort de son père en 2025, c'est l'Aga Khan V, âgé de 53 ans en 2026, qui est reconnu comme le 50è imam par la plupart des Ismaéliens, et qui dirige l'Aga Khan Development Trust, une entité caritative très présente dans le monde musulman.   Décryptage avec Daniel De Smet, invité en studio : spécialiste de l'ismaélisme, directeur de recherches au CNRS, membre statutaire du Laboratoire d'études sur les monothéismes, enseigne la philosophie arabe à l'université de Louvain en Belgique, auteur de Les Fatimides, De l'ésotérisme en islam, aux éditions du Cerf (2022) Reportage au nord du Pakistan : Notre correspondante Ondine De Gaulle a pu se rendre dans la vallée de Hunza au nord du Pakistan où l'Aga Khan V s'est rendu en visite fin mai 2026. Éclairages de Michel Boivin, directeur de recherche émérite au CNRS, et au centre d'études sud-asiatiques et himalayennes, le CESAH. Rencontre avec Salim, Malgache d'origine indienne vivant en France, ismaélien, chante des ginans, chants dévotionnels ismaéliens.

Qui sont les Ismaéliens ? Cette branche très minoritaire du chiisme à l'origine du califat fatimide – seul califat chiite - est apparue au VIIIè siècle, à l'époque du sixième imam et descendant d'Ali. Leur califat fatimide a étendu sa puissance aux Xè et XIè siècles en Afrique du Nord, en Sicile et jusqu'à la Syrie. Ils ont fondé Le Caire, devenu capitale politique et centre intellectuel et religieux important. Les Ismaéliens sont aussi à l'origine des célébrations du Mawlid, l'anniversaire du Prophète. Dès le IXè siècle, ils s'établissent dans différentes régions, dont le sous-continent indien, en se fondant parmi les hindous et les bouddhistes, à qui ils proposent d'être initiés, sans pour autant renier leurs croyances.   Pour les Ismaéliens, l'imam est toujours vivant et présent, contrairement aux chiites duodécimains, pour lesquels le 12è imam est entré en occultation et ne reviendra qu'à la fin des temps. Au XIè siècle, Hassan Sabbah fonde un ordre ismaélien, nizarite, et s'installe dans des forts et châteaux, dont la fameuse forteresse d'Alamût (située au sud de la mer Caspienne en Iran), semant la terreur par des assassinats ciblés contre des Turcs seldjoukides, les Croisés la surnomment même la « secte des Assassins ». Défaits par Saladin, puis écrasés par Gengis Khan, les Ismaéliens nizarites entrent en semi-clandestinité pendant plusieurs siècles et se fondent dans la population. Depuis le XIXè siècle, l'Aga Khan est désormais le chef spirituel reconnu des ismaéliens nizarites (qui sont majoritaires). Depuis la mort de son père en 2025, c'est l'Aga Khan V, âgé de 53 ans en 2026, qui est reconnu comme le 50è imam par la plupart des Ismaéliens, et qui dirige l'Aga Khan Development Trust, une entité caritative très présente dans le monde musulman.   Décryptage avec Daniel De Smet, invité en studio : spécialiste de l'ismaélisme, directeur de recherches au CNRS, membre statutaire du Laboratoire d'études sur les monothéismes, enseigne la philosophie arabe à l'université de Louvain en Belgique, auteur de Les Fatimides, De l'ésotérisme en islam, aux éditions du Cerf (2022) Reportage au nord du Pakistan : Notre correspondante Ondine De Gaulle a pu se rendre dans la vallée de Hunza au nord du Pakistan où l'Aga Khan V s'est rendu en visite fin mai 2026. Éclairages de Michel Boivin, directeur de recherche émérite au CNRS, et au centre d'études sud-asiatiques et himalayennes, le CESAH. Rencontre avec Salim, Malgache d'origine indienne vivant en France, ismaélien, chante des ginans, chants dévotionnels ismaéliens.

La Russie se prépare à renouveler son Parlement. Pour la première fois depuis quatre ans et le début de la guerre, des élections législatives auront lieu dans trois mois, du 18 au 20 septembre. Pour préparer ce scrutin, le parti Russie unie de Vladimir Poutine tient ce dimanche 28 juin son congrès dans un contexte marqué par la guerre en Ukraine, les difficultés économiques et les inquiétudes autour de la popularité du parti présidentiel. Cyrille Amoursky, reporter indépendant franco-russe, auteur de Ukraïna, un peuple en guerre aux éditions du Cerf, est l'invité international de RFI.   À lire aussiLégislatives en Russie: le parti de Vladimir Poutine à l'épreuve de la guerre en Ukraine

Anne Ghesquière reçoit Marc Welinsky, essayiste, romancier et animateur de radio. Son livre, Pourquoi nous sommes heureux sans le savoir, est publié aux Éditions du Cerf. Épisode #702Quelques citations du podcast avec Marc Welinsky : "Le bonheur n'est pas quelque chose à conquérir, c'est quelque chose qui se révèle en soi.""C'est la répétition des petits bonheurs qui nous fait toucher beaucoup plus le bonheur.""La forme de bonheur peut-être la plus importante, c'est le bonheur relationnel."Recevez chaque semaine l'inspirante newsletter Métamorphose par Anne GhesquièreDécouvrez Objectif Métamorphose, notre programme en 12 étapes pour partir à la rencontre de soi-même.Suivez nos RS : Insta, Facebook et TikTokAbonnez-vous sur Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Deezer / Castbox / YouTubeSoutenez Métamorphose en rejoignant la Tribu MétamorphoseThèmes abordés lors du podcast avec Marc Welinsky : 00:00Introduction01:30L'invité, Marc Welinsky02:32Pourquoi nous méfions-nous le bonheur ?04:20Le bonheur est déjà là09:36La force des petits bonheurs répétés14:12Heureux dans la souffrance16:45Renouer avec sa capacité d'émerveillement20:43La joie collective29:10Certains bonheurs sont-ils inaccessibles ? Avant-propos et précautions à l'écoute du podcast Photo DR Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Le chercheur Jean-Jacques Bedu publie le premier volume d'un travail titanesque intitulé « L'odyssée du savoir » (éditions du Cerf) une somme absolument passionnante ayant pour but de démasquer les illusions, les explications complotistes, et de faire connaître les croyances en Dieu qui, depuis la nuit des temps, traversent notre humanité. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Mon invité aujourd'hui, Patrick Boudet, chroniqueur chez Rock & Folk et auteur de documentaires, notamment sur Brian Jones. Il vient de publier un essai au titre aussi provocateur qu'assumé : Le rock est-il réac ? aux éditions du Cerf.Un livre qui ne se contente pas de chercher la petite bête ou d'aligner les anecdotes people, mais qui propose une véritable analyse idéologique de la musique populaire depuis 1945 : le sexisme du glam, la provocation limite du punk, le paradoxe du rebelle milliardaire, la société marchande qui récupère jusqu'au collier de chien punk pour en faire des artefacts de luxe.Dans cet échange, Patrick démonte les certitudes, nuance les procès en réac, et pose la vraie question : peut-on rester un rebelle quand on est milliardaire ? Est-ce que le rock aurait la même saveur s'il était complètement purifié ? Et au fond, est-ce une musique de vieux ou une révolution hormonale permanente ?De la musique avant toute chose (Verlaine) Avec le volume sur 11 (Spinal Tap)On n'a jamais autant produit de musique qu'aujourd'hui. Chaque jour, plus de 100 000 nouveaux titres atterrissent sur les plateformes. Pour les artistes, difficile de se faire connaître dans tout ce bruit.Dans Le Volume sur 11, Antoine Dubuquoy va à la rencontre des artistes. Chaque épisode est une conversation. Le Volume sur 11, c'est de la pop, du rock, de l'electro, du metal, du punk, du rap… Ouvrez vos chakras !Instagram : Dubuc | Le Volume sur 11Réalisation : Antoine DubuquoyMusique du générique : NezickDesign logo : Tess RozoHébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Vinton Cerf ist einer der Entwickler des TCP/IP, der Basis für unser heutiges Internet. Wie funktioniert das und warum hat sich Cerf der Kommunikation verschrieben? Wir freuen uns über Fragen, Anregungen und Feedback an podcast@spektrum.de. Die Idee für diesen Podcast hat Demian Nahuel Goos am MIP.labor entwickelt, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. (00:00:00) Intro (00:02:36) Wer ist Vinton Cerf? (00:04:49) Das Internet und die Mathematik (00:06:07) Die Koordination von Daten (00:10:55) Was passiert bei Datenverlust? (00:11:38) Funktion des Protokolls (00:14:22) Entdeckungen und Liebe (00:24:16) Treffen mit Bob Kahn (00:27:49) Die ersten Schritte ins Internet (00:29:56) Der finale Schritt zum mobilen Internet (00:32:15) Das dunkle Zeitalter der Digitalisierung (00:34:50) Cerfs Zukunftsperspektiven ➡️ Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-vinton-cerf

Vinton Cerf ist einer der Entwickler des TCP/IP, der Basis für unser heutiges Internet. Wie funktioniert das und warum hat sich Cerf der Kommunikation verschrieben? Wir freuen uns über Fragen, Anregungen und Feedback an podcast@spektrum.de. Die Idee für diesen Podcast hat Demian Nahuel Goos am MIP.labor entwickelt, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. (00:00:00) Intro (00:02:36) Wer ist Vinton Cerf? (00:04:49) Das Internet und die Mathematik (00:06:07) Die Koordination von Daten (00:10:55) Was passiert bei Datenverlust? (00:11:38) Funktion des Protokolls (00:14:22) Entdeckungen und Liebe (00:24:16) Treffen mit Bob Kahn (00:27:49) Die ersten Schritte ins Internet (00:29:56) Der finale Schritt zum mobilen Internet (00:32:15) Das dunkle Zeitalter der Digitalisierung (00:34:50) Cerfs Zukunftsperspektiven ➡️ Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-vinton-cerf

Vinton Cerf ist einer der Entwickler des TCP/IP, der Basis für unser heutiges Internet. Wie funktioniert das und warum hat sich Cerf der Kommunikation verschrieben? Wir freuen uns über Fragen, Anregungen und Feedback an podcast@spektrum.de. Die Idee für diesen Podcast hat Demian Nahuel Goos am MIP.labor entwickelt, der Ideenwerkstatt für Wissenschaftsjournalismus zu Mathematik, Informatik und Physik an der Freien Universität Berlin, ermöglicht durch die Klaus Tschira Stiftung. (00:00:00) Intro (00:02:36) Wer ist Vinton Cerf? (00:04:49) Das Internet und die Mathematik (00:06:07) Die Koordination von Daten (00:10:55) Was passiert bei Datenverlust? (00:11:38) Funktion des Protokolls (00:14:22) Entdeckungen und Liebe (00:24:16) Treffen mit Bob Kahn (00:27:49) Die ersten Schritte ins Internet (00:29:56) Der finale Schritt zum mobilen Internet (00:32:15) Das dunkle Zeitalter der Digitalisierung (00:34:50) Cerfs Zukunftsperspektiven ➡️ Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschichten-aus-der-mathematik-vinton-cerf

Les puissants de ce monde sont tous réunis à Evian, pour un G7 marqué par l'actualité internationale. Accord avec l'Iran, guerre en Ukraine... Comment négocier la paix ? Quelle rôle pour l'Eglise dans la construction de la paix ? En Iran, au Liban, en Palestine, en Israel, en Ukraine. Et dans tant de lieux où les premières victimes sont les plus pauvres, les femmes, les enfants, les laissés pour compte. Mgr Laurent Ulrich, l'archevêque de Paris publie "Les papes, la guerre, la paix" (Editions du Cerf).Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

durée : 00:36:59 - Le téléphone sonne - Le pape Léon XIV est en visite en Espagne cette semaine, avant un déplacement attendu en France en septembre. Plus d'un an après son élection, ce pape américain commence à dessiner sa ligne, entre refus de la guerre, gestion de l'immigration et inquiétudes autour de l'intelligence artificielle. - réalisation : Fabienne Sintes, Thomas Lenglain, Pierre Dessertenne, Mathias Dubois, Marius Serieys, Philippe Lefébure - invités : Jean-François Colosimo essayiste, directeur des éditions du Cerf, François Mabille Chercheur statutaire au CNRS, directeur de l'Observatoire géopolitique du religieux au sein de l'IRIS Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

La "liberté responsable", horizon inaccessible dans notre monde si complexe ? Et si la foi chrétienne nous donnait au contraire des ressources immenses pour grandir dans la liberté des fils et filles de Dieu ? C'est tout le propos de Nathalie Gueguen qui relit pour nous cette question à l'école du Pape François qui a proposé des angles novateurs sur ce sujet. Elle relit ici pour nous quelques éléments de sa thèse avant sa publication à la fin de l'année 2026 aux éditions du Cerf.Page de Nathalie Gueguen sur le site des Facultés Loyola : https://www.loyolaparis.fr/enseignant/nathalie-gueguen/Interview menée par Isabelle de La Garanderie, doctorante en théologie aux Facultés Loyola ParisEnregistrement et montage : Cyprien Rigolot.  Musique : Improvisations au piano de Pascal MarsaultHébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Éminent spécialiste de l'histoire politique et culturelle de la Chine contemporaine, Emmanuel Lincot est l'auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur la Chine et ses rapports compliqués avec sa périphérie. Dans son nouvel essai Chine-Inde : La guerre des mondes, qu'il vient de publier aux éditions du Cerf, il analyse les rivalités géopolitiques croissantes qui opposent les deux géants d'Asie qui se font face, sur fond d'échanges et d'influences réciproques plurimillénaires. RFI : Emmanuel Lincot, vous êtes sinologue de formation. Comment est né votre intérêt pour l'Inde ? Emmanuel Lincot : L'Inde, moi, je l'ai rencontrée finalement sur le tard, par des voies de détours, puisque mes précédents travaux, durant ces dernières années, ont porté sur la Chine et ses périphéries, et notamment la Chine et le monde musulman, en particulier la Chine et l'Asie centrale. Et quand on s'intéresse à l'Asie centrale, on est amené naturellement, pour ne pas dire culturellement, à l'Inde. Tout simplement parce que l'une des grandes dynasties indiennes, les Moghols, a été fondée par Babur, qui était originaire de l'est de l'actuel Ouzbékistan, de la vallée du Ferghana. Donc, de fil en aiguille, évidemment, on est amené à se rencontrer d'une manière ou d'une autre. Chine-Inde : La guerre des mondes, c'est le titre de votre ouvrage. Comment faut-il interpréter le trait d'union qui sépare les noms des deux pays sur la couverture ? Pour le choix du titre, je n'y suis absolument pour rien. C'est mon éditeur, Jean-François Colosimo, que je salue d'ailleurs, qui a trouvé la bonne formule. Ce trait d'union, que vous soulignez, peut désigner à la fois des velléités sur le temps long de rapprochement entre deux grandes aires de civilisation et en même temps une séparation. Pour filer un peu la métaphore, on pourrait dire que ce trait d'union peut apparaître véritablement comme un mur, comme un barrage, celui de l'Himalaya en particulier, qui sépare ces deux énormes masses continentales. Et ce titre est suffisamment vaste et vague, effectivement, pour aborder des questions de géopolitique, mais aussi et surtout des questions liées à l'histoire culturelle. Bref, comment se représente-t-on l'Inde depuis la Chine sur la longue durée et réciproquement ? Et là, ça devient absolument fascinant parce qu'on s'intéresse aux lieux de mémoire, notamment aux monastères qui constituent véritablement un maillage et autant de fils d'Ariane reliant l'Inde à la Chine par le biais du Tibet, région majeure. Je pense aussi à de grandes figures intellectuelles telles que Salman Rushdie, Tagore, Gao Xingjian et bien d'autres encore. Quels ont été les moments forts de cette histoire culturelle entre la Chine et l'Inde ? Ça commence grosso modo avec l'émergence des routes de la soie qui furent des points de contact, des voies de passage. Quant au bouddhisme, ce fut un processus au très long cours. La disparition du Bouddha se situe au VIᵉ siècle avant notre ère, et il faut attendre officiellement le IIᵉ siècle de notre ère, c'est-à-dire huit siècles plus tard, pour que le bouddhisme fasse enfin son entrée officielle dans l'espace chinois. Puis, il va y avoir un fait géopolitique majeur qui survient au Moyen Âge : ce sont les invasions turco-musulmanes qui vont arrêter assez brusquement, justement, ces échanges spirituels et artistiques, mais momentanément, je dirais, parce que le lieu conservatoire de ces échanges, qui va réinterpréter le bouddhisme d'une manière tout à fait particulière, en insufflant une autre dimension spirituelle, c'est le Tibet précisément. Et le Tibet, géographiquement, il est au point d'articulation dans la région de l'Himalaya, entre le monde chinois et le monde indien précisément. Le Tibet – c'est l'une des thèses de ce livre – va très certainement redevenir un point majeur, sinon de confrontation, tout au moins d'échange d'une manière ou d'une autre, au vu de l'importance de cette région, reconnue par Pékin notamment. Le centre de gravité de l'Asie risque très certainement de se déplacer vers cette région où les enjeux sont majeurs. Sur le plan minier par exemple. On pense à l'exploitation du lithium, si important pour la fabrication de nos voitures électriques. Le Tibet est central aussi en matière de ressources en eau. Pratiquement tous les grands fleuves de l'Asie prennent leur source au Tibet. On peut dire que le Tibet est le château d'eau de toute l'Asie ou presque. Quels souvenirs la mémoire collective chinoise garde-t-elle des échanges culturels sino-indiens ? Le monde chinois et le monde indien ont été pendant très longtemps interconnectés. Ils le sont toujours fondamentalement, avec des lieux qui sont des points de cristallisation de ces mémoires collectives. En effet, et j'en mentionne un certain nombre dans ce livre, par exemple, en Chine même, vous avez la Grande pagode de l'oie sauvage, qui est un lieu majeur de l'histoire du bouddhisme, puisque c'est à ses pieds que le moine bouddhiste Xuanzang, de retour de l'Inde, a créé l'une des premières écoles de traductologie de textes d'abord écrits en langue indo-européenne, donc en sanskrit, vers le chinois. Ce lieu, précisément la Grande pagode de l'oie sauvage à Xi'an, ancienne capitale impériale de la Chine, a été, à partir de 2014, choisi par les autorités chinoises comme lieu de visite pour le chef de l'État indien, Narendra Modi. Mais depuis lors, pratiquement tous les chefs d'État étrangers s'y rendent. Alors ça, c'est assez intéressant aussi d'un point de vue de l'histoire du protocole communiste chinois. Jusqu'alors, on privilégiait la visite de la Grande Muraille. Et à partir de 2014, on privilégie un lieu de mémoire qui se veut davantage consensuel, davantage ouvert sur le monde. Et pas n'importe quel monde, au vu justement de la géographie chinoise, à l'ouest de la Chine, l'Occident de la Chine. Donc, évidemment, ça a du sens. Et réciproquement, les Indiens ont choisi par exemple le temple de Mahabalipuram, qui est un lieu majeur lié à la personnalité de Bodhidharma, mieux connu en Chine sous le nom de Damo, qui a lui aussi fait le lien entre les deux mondes. Outre le Tibet, quels sont les principaux contentieux qui opposent l'Inde et la Chine aujourd'hui ? Avec l'avènement du régime communiste en Chine et l'invasion par l'armée chinoise des hauts plateaux tibétains, eh bien, pour la première fois de leur histoire, la Chine va devenir la voisine de l'Inde, ce qui n'était pas le cas jusqu'à présent. Et donc, à partir des années 1950, la partie indienne affirme la légitimité historique des tracés frontaliers qui avaient été décidés d'ailleurs par les Britanniques, la ligne Durand, la ligne McMahon, etc. Bon, sauf que les Chinois n'ont jamais reconnu justement ces tracés frontaliers, non seulement à l'époque impériale, donc à la fin du XIXᵉ siècle, sous la dynastie des Qing, mais non plus à l'époque républicaine et encore moins à l'époque actuelle, celle de la République populaire de Chine. Donc il y a un contentieux très important sur 3 800 kilomètres de frontière commune, ce qui est tout à fait considérable. Sans oublier des contentieux territoriaux, donc des disputes territoriales. L'Aksai Chin, par exemple, qui se trouve dans le prolongement du Ladakh, a été purement et simplement annexé par l'armée chinoise en 1962, au grand dam évidemment de l'Inde. New Delhi, quant à elle, revendique évidemment la restitution de ce territoire. La Chine, pour sa part, revendique la restitution de l'Arunachal Pradesh, situé dans le prolongement du Tibet donc. Il y a un passif très, très important qui présage du pire pour l'avenir. Cet avenir est peut-être plus proche qu'on ne le pense. Croyez-vous que la question de la succession du Dalaï Lama, qui va se poser bientôt, pourrait voir une crise grave éclater entre les deux pays ? Généralement, la question du Dalaï Lama est déconsidérée en Occident. On imagine que c'est peu important. Or pour nombre de peuples, qu'ils soient hindouistes, bouddhistes, le Dalaï Lama est considéré comme un dieu vivant. Donc, la question de sa succession, si l'on traduit cela en langage politique, va de toute évidence provoquer une crise, avec probablement une velléité tantôt indienne, tantôt chinoise, d'instrumentaliser chacune à son profit cette succession. Et le Dalaï Lama, il faut le rappeler, généralement, on n'a pas connaissance de ce fait qui est capital, est considéré aussi comme le chef spirituel des Mongols, par exemple. Donc on est très loin du monde tibétain et du monde indien a priori. Mais donc en retour, cela signifie une affaire politique tout à fait considérable aux yeux de Pékin, bien sûr. La guerre des mondes est le sous-titre de votre ouvrage. Autrement dit, selon vous, une cohabitation pacifique entre les deux voisins demeure improbable dans l'état actuel de leurs relations ? Elle sera très difficile, ça c'est clair. On est totalement sorti de cette vision irénique du rapprochement entre les peuples. Hélas, on peut le déplorer, mais c'est la réalité. On est dans un ordre bismarckien, c'est-à-dire avec le rappel de la souveraineté des États, la défense de leurs intérêts, avec peut-être des configurations neuves qui ont très certainement traversé l'esprit des dirigeants. On pense notamment à un rapprochement « Chine, Russie, Inde » qui n'est pas un projet totalement farfelu, parce que la Russie reste encore la matrice idéologique d'une grande partie de l'élite indienne, mais aussi de l'élite chinoise. Cette tripolarité me paraît invraisemblable, mais néanmoins, on y pense, c'est tout à fait évident. Et donc clairement, vous avez là tout simplement les trois quarts du monde ou presque, qui sont représentés à travers cette tripolarité, qui feraient idéalement contrepoids, évidemment, à l'Occident. En tout cas, on ne va pas du tout dans le sens d'un apaisement des relations, bien au contraire, hélas ! À lire aussiInde-Chine: «La volonté de normalisation n'est pas née de l'humiliation infligée par Trump avec ses tarifs douaniers»

Éminent spécialiste de l'histoire politique et culturelle de la Chine contemporaine, Emmanuel Lincot est l'auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur la Chine et ses rapports compliqués avec sa périphérie. Dans son nouvel essai Chine-Inde : La guerre des mondes, qu'il vient de publier aux éditions du Cerf, il analyse les rivalités géopolitiques croissantes qui opposent les deux géants d'Asie qui se font face, sur fond d'échanges et d'influences réciproques plurimillénaires. RFI : Emmanuel Lincot, vous êtes sinologue de formation. Comment est né votre intérêt pour l'Inde ? Emmanuel Lincot : L'Inde, moi, je l'ai rencontrée finalement sur le tard, par des voies de détours, puisque mes précédents travaux, durant ces dernières années, ont porté sur la Chine et ses périphéries, et notamment la Chine et le monde musulman, en particulier la Chine et l'Asie centrale. Et quand on s'intéresse à l'Asie centrale, on est amené naturellement, pour ne pas dire culturellement, à l'Inde. Tout simplement parce que l'une des grandes dynasties indiennes, les Moghols, a été fondée par Babur, qui était originaire de l'est de l'actuel Ouzbékistan, de la vallée du Ferghana. Donc, de fil en aiguille, évidemment, on est amené à se rencontrer d'une manière ou d'une autre. Chine-Inde : La guerre des mondes, c'est le titre de votre ouvrage. Comment faut-il interpréter le trait d'union qui sépare les noms des deux pays sur la couverture ? Pour le choix du titre, je n'y suis absolument pour rien. C'est mon éditeur, Jean-François Colosimo, que je salue d'ailleurs, qui a trouvé la bonne formule. Ce trait d'union, que vous soulignez, peut désigner à la fois des velléités sur le temps long de rapprochement entre deux grandes aires de civilisation et en même temps une séparation. Pour filer un peu la métaphore, on pourrait dire que ce trait d'union peut apparaître véritablement comme un mur, comme un barrage, celui de l'Himalaya en particulier, qui sépare ces deux énormes masses continentales. Et ce titre est suffisamment vaste et vague, effectivement, pour aborder des questions de géopolitique, mais aussi et surtout des questions liées à l'histoire culturelle. Bref, comment se représente-t-on l'Inde depuis la Chine sur la longue durée et réciproquement ? Et là, ça devient absolument fascinant parce qu'on s'intéresse aux lieux de mémoire, notamment aux monastères qui constituent véritablement un maillage et autant de fils d'Ariane reliant l'Inde à la Chine par le biais du Tibet, région majeure. Je pense aussi à de grandes figures intellectuelles telles que Salman Rushdie, Tagore, Gao Xingjian et bien d'autres encore. Quels ont été les moments forts de cette histoire culturelle entre la Chine et l'Inde ? Ça commence grosso modo avec l'émergence des routes de la soie qui furent des points de contact, des voies de passage. Quant au bouddhisme, ce fut un processus au très long cours. La disparition du Bouddha se situe au VIᵉ siècle avant notre ère, et il faut attendre officiellement le IIᵉ siècle de notre ère, c'est-à-dire huit siècles plus tard, pour que le bouddhisme fasse enfin son entrée officielle dans l'espace chinois. Puis, il va y avoir un fait géopolitique majeur qui survient au Moyen Âge : ce sont les invasions turco-musulmanes qui vont arrêter assez brusquement, justement, ces échanges spirituels et artistiques, mais momentanément, je dirais, parce que le lieu conservatoire de ces échanges, qui va réinterpréter le bouddhisme d'une manière tout à fait particulière, en insufflant une autre dimension spirituelle, c'est le Tibet précisément. Et le Tibet, géographiquement, il est au point d'articulation dans la région de l'Himalaya, entre le monde chinois et le monde indien précisément. Le Tibet – c'est l'une des thèses de ce livre – va très certainement redevenir un point majeur, sinon de confrontation, tout au moins d'échange d'une manière ou d'une autre, au vu de l'importance de cette région, reconnue par Pékin notamment. Le centre de gravité de l'Asie risque très certainement de se déplacer vers cette région où les enjeux sont majeurs. Sur le plan minier par exemple. On pense à l'exploitation du lithium, si important pour la fabrication de nos voitures électriques. Le Tibet est central aussi en matière de ressources en eau. Pratiquement tous les grands fleuves de l'Asie prennent leur source au Tibet. On peut dire que le Tibet est le château d'eau de toute l'Asie ou presque. Quels souvenirs la mémoire collective chinoise garde-t-elle des échanges culturels sino-indiens ? Le monde chinois et le monde indien ont été pendant très longtemps interconnectés. Ils le sont toujours fondamentalement, avec des lieux qui sont des points de cristallisation de ces mémoires collectives. En effet, et j'en mentionne un certain nombre dans ce livre, par exemple, en Chine même, vous avez la Grande pagode de l'oie sauvage, qui est un lieu majeur de l'histoire du bouddhisme, puisque c'est à ses pieds que le moine bouddhiste Xuanzang, de retour de l'Inde, a créé l'une des premières écoles de traductologie de textes d'abord écrits en langue indo-européenne, donc en sanskrit, vers le chinois. Ce lieu, précisément la Grande pagode de l'oie sauvage à Xi'an, ancienne capitale impériale de la Chine, a été, à partir de 2014, choisi par les autorités chinoises comme lieu de visite pour le chef de l'État indien, Narendra Modi. Mais depuis lors, pratiquement tous les chefs d'État étrangers s'y rendent. Alors ça, c'est assez intéressant aussi d'un point de vue de l'histoire du protocole communiste chinois. Jusqu'alors, on privilégiait la visite de la Grande Muraille. Et à partir de 2014, on privilégie un lieu de mémoire qui se veut davantage consensuel, davantage ouvert sur le monde. Et pas n'importe quel monde, au vu justement de la géographie chinoise, à l'ouest de la Chine, l'Occident de la Chine. Donc, évidemment, ça a du sens. Et réciproquement, les Indiens ont choisi par exemple le temple de Mahabalipuram, qui est un lieu majeur lié à la personnalité de Bodhidharma, mieux connu en Chine sous le nom de Damo, qui a lui aussi fait le lien entre les deux mondes. Outre le Tibet, quels sont les principaux contentieux qui opposent l'Inde et la Chine aujourd'hui ? Avec l'avènement du régime communiste en Chine et l'invasion par l'armée chinoise des hauts plateaux tibétains, eh bien, pour la première fois de leur histoire, la Chine va devenir la voisine de l'Inde, ce qui n'était pas le cas jusqu'à présent. Et donc, à partir des années 1950, la partie indienne affirme la légitimité historique des tracés frontaliers qui avaient été décidés d'ailleurs par les Britanniques, la ligne Durand, la ligne McMahon, etc. Bon, sauf que les Chinois n'ont jamais reconnu justement ces tracés frontaliers, non seulement à l'époque impériale, donc à la fin du XIXᵉ siècle, sous la dynastie des Qing, mais non plus à l'époque républicaine et encore moins à l'époque actuelle, celle de la République populaire de Chine. Donc il y a un contentieux très important sur 3 800 kilomètres de frontière commune, ce qui est tout à fait considérable. Sans oublier des contentieux territoriaux, donc des disputes territoriales. L'Aksai Chin, par exemple, qui se trouve dans le prolongement du Ladakh, a été purement et simplement annexé par l'armée chinoise en 1962, au grand dam évidemment de l'Inde. New Delhi, quant à elle, revendique évidemment la restitution de ce territoire. La Chine, pour sa part, revendique la restitution de l'Arunachal Pradesh, situé dans le prolongement du Tibet donc. Il y a un passif très, très important qui présage du pire pour l'avenir. Cet avenir est peut-être plus proche qu'on ne le pense. Croyez-vous que la question de la succession du Dalaï Lama, qui va se poser bientôt, pourrait voir une crise grave éclater entre les deux pays ? Généralement, la question du Dalaï Lama est déconsidérée en Occident. On imagine que c'est peu important. Or pour nombre de peuples, qu'ils soient hindouistes, bouddhistes, le Dalaï Lama est considéré comme un dieu vivant. Donc, la question de sa succession, si l'on traduit cela en langage politique, va de toute évidence provoquer une crise, avec probablement une velléité tantôt indienne, tantôt chinoise, d'instrumentaliser chacune à son profit cette succession. Et le Dalaï Lama, il faut le rappeler, généralement, on n'a pas connaissance de ce fait qui est capital, est considéré aussi comme le chef spirituel des Mongols, par exemple. Donc on est très loin du monde tibétain et du monde indien a priori. Mais donc en retour, cela signifie une affaire politique tout à fait considérable aux yeux de Pékin, bien sûr. La guerre des mondes est le sous-titre de votre ouvrage. Autrement dit, selon vous, une cohabitation pacifique entre les deux voisins demeure improbable dans l'état actuel de leurs relations ? Elle sera très difficile, ça c'est clair. On est totalement sorti de cette vision irénique du rapprochement entre les peuples. Hélas, on peut le déplorer, mais c'est la réalité. On est dans un ordre bismarckien, c'est-à-dire avec le rappel de la souveraineté des États, la défense de leurs intérêts, avec peut-être des configurations neuves qui ont très certainement traversé l'esprit des dirigeants. On pense notamment à un rapprochement « Chine, Russie, Inde » qui n'est pas un projet totalement farfelu, parce que la Russie reste encore la matrice idéologique d'une grande partie de l'élite indienne, mais aussi de l'élite chinoise. Cette tripolarité me paraît invraisemblable, mais néanmoins, on y pense, c'est tout à fait évident. Et donc clairement, vous avez là tout simplement les trois quarts du monde ou presque, qui sont représentés à travers cette tripolarité, qui feraient idéalement contrepoids, évidemment, à l'Occident. En tout cas, on ne va pas du tout dans le sens d'un apaisement des relations, bien au contraire, hélas ! À lire aussiInde-Chine: «La volonté de normalisation n'est pas née de l'humiliation infligée par Trump avec ses tarifs douaniers»

À propos du livre : « Aimer Jérusalem  » paru aux éditions Gallimard "“Eh bien moi, j'accepterais la proposition de ton diable. Je resterais seul et j'écrirais un livre. Pas vraiment un roman, ni un bouquin d'histoire. Plutôt une nécrologie collective. Un tombeau de papier, dans le genre ‘Vie et mort de mon peuple' : une fresque littéraire qui tenterait de dépeindre la grandeur et les failles de mes compatriotes. Ou bien une sorte de fable où je retracerais la généalogie d'un pays magique pouvant disparaître à tout moment, car son âme est guettée depuis les origines par la menace de l'anéantissement.” C'est alors qu'au pied levé Orly prononce une phrase simplissime, mais qui me bouleverse. “C'est bien gentil, ton affaire. Mais dans le cas d'Israël, ce livre a déjà été écrit. Avant même que nous n'existions. Il s'appelle la Bible.”" Avec Aimer Jérusalem, Nathan Devers livre un récit tendu et une méditation habitée sur ces textes sacrés qui ne cessent de travailler en profondeur l'histoire des hommes - et de poser une question capitale : comment répondre au mal ? Nathan Devers a 22 ans. Normalien, il termine des études de philosophie et a notamment publié, en 2019, Généalogie de la religion aux Éditions du Cerf. Ciel et terre (Flammarion, 2020) est son premier roman.

Les écoliers du Cerf feuillu à Genève sont impatients de découvrir la suite de la série CAP KAYAK au « cinéma des hirondelles » en pleine forêt. La cabane est prête pour une nouvelle séance et semble douillette en regard de ce qu'Aline et Olivier nos deux héros kayakistes s'apprêtent à vivre.

"Deviens médecin !", "Tu seras champion !", "Réalise mes ambitions à ma place !" Et si nos enfants n'étaient pas là pour accomplir nos rêves inassouvis ? Entre pression sociale, attentes familiales et désir de réussite, comment leur laisser l'espace pour grandir librement sans les écraser sous le poids de nos projections ? Comment sortir de la quête narcissique de réussite à travers celle de nos enfants ? Je vous propose d'explorer cette question délicate avec nos deux invitées du jour...Et si on arrêtait de projeter nos rêves sur nos enfants ?Karine Arsene, journaliste, spécialiste de la spiritualité et du bien-être. Elle a publié Vous êtes ce que vous croyez ! (Ed. Fayard)Celine Guillaume, mère de 5 enfants et présidente du groupe La Procure. Auteure de Chercher la femme (Éd. Cerf). Son dernier livre est Mener le bon combat (Ed. Cerf) Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Vu sur La Chronique de Patsy (214) : Arthur Pouliquen, Le monde ou rien. Histoire du mouvement autonome en France, Arthur Pouliquen, Le monde ou rien. Histoire du mouvement autonome en France, Éditions du Cerf, 2025. En 2023, le politiste Arthur Pouliquen s'était intéressé à une figure de la scène intellectuelle d'avant 1914, Georges Sorel, un polytechnicien qui avait abandonné sa carrière pour se faire le « défenseur désintéressé du prolétariat »1. Il nous revient avec Le […] Cet article provient de Radio AlterNantes FM

Qu'est-ce que le chiisme ou plutôt que sont les chiismes, dont les fidèles représentent environ 10% des musulmans à travers le monde ? À partir de quand se constitue cette branche de l'islam ? Pour quelles raisons ? Quelles sont les particularités du chiisme ? Ses principales branches ? Les différences avec le sunnisme ? Les principaux centres religieux ? Dans cette émission, nous allons beaucoup insister sur le chiisme duodécimain, majoritaire jusqu'à aujourd'hui, notamment en Iran, en Irak, au Liban ou encore à Bahrein. Le chiisme duodécimain qui, à partir du XVIè siècle, devient religion d'État en Iran.   Invités : - Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, directeur d'études émérite à l'École pratique des Hautes études (EPHE) et président du Conseil scientifique de l'Institut français d'islamologie, islamologue et iranologue spécialiste du chiisme, auteur de nombreux ouvrages dont « Le Coran silencieux et le Coran parlant » (CNRS éditions 2020), «  La preuve de Dieu. La mystique shi'ite à travers l'œuvre de Kulaynî, IXe-Xe siècle » (Éd. du Cerf, 2019), il a co-dirigé en 2019 « Le Coran des historiens » (Éd. du Cerf) et en 2025 « Le Mahomet des historiens » (Éd. du Cerf) - Sabrina Mervin, spécialiste du chiisme contemporain, directrice de recherches émérites au Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques (CNRS), auteure de « Histoire de l'islam, fondements et doctrines » (Éd. Flammarion, 2016), « Najaf, portrait of a holy city » (Éd. ITHACA, 2017) avec Robert Gleave et Géraldine Chatelard. Reportage au centre culturel chiite imam Al Khoei près de Paris.

Auschwitz, le Goulag, les tsunamis, les inondations, la misère effrayante dans certains points de la planète... Parfois, il nous semble que Dieu se tait. Devant chacune de nos tragédies intimes ou même de nos douleurs minuscules, Dieu semble muet. Pourquoi ce silence, au moins apparent ? Est-ce une preuve, comme l'ont dit certains, que Dieu n'existe pas ou ne se préoccupe pas des hommes ? Heureusement, il y a cette " petite fille espérance " dont parlait si bien Charles Péguy et qui rappelle aux croyants ces paroles éternelles de Jésus : " Je suis avec vous tous les jours jusqu'à la fin du monde. " Pour répondre à ces questions sur ce silence de Dieu, deux invités : le père Pierre Coulange, membre de l'Institut Notre-Dame de Vie, auteur du livre " Quand Dieu ne répond pas " (Cerf) et Xavier Grenet, bénévole d'accompagnement en soins palliatifs, auteur du livre : " Dans le silence de Dieu - Des mots pour l'espérance " (Cerf). Emission du 2 mars 2014.

Myopie, presbytie, hypermétropie, astigmatisme, glaucome... les troubles de la vue sont multiples et ont un impact direct sur la qualité de vie des personnes concernées. En 2050, l'OMS prévoit que 50% de la population sera atteinte de myopie. L'omniprésence des écrans dans nos vies et la sédentarité figurent parmi les causes pouvant expliquer cette forte augmentation. De plus, avec l'augmentation de l'espérance de vie, certains troubles, apparaissant avec l'âge, sont de plus en plus fréquents. Quels sont les risques lorsque l'on est concerné par une déficience de la vision, sans pouvoir bénéficier de verres correcteurs ? Une myopie non-corrigée risque-t-elle de s'aggraver ? Certains problèmes de la réfraction, comme la myopie ou l'hypermétropie, peuvent-ils provoquer des complications en vieillissant ?  Avec :  Pr Antoine Brézin, professeur d'ophtalmologie à la faculté de médecine de l'université Paris-Cité et chef du service d'ophtalmologie de l'hôpital Cochin, à Paris. Auteur de l'ouvrage Comprendre et soigner ses yeux aux éditions du Cerf.  Retrouvez l'émission en entier ici : Écrans, vieillissement... Les défis de la prise en charge des troubles de la vision

À l'été 2025, une fois n'est pas coutume, l'histoire médiévale a fait les gros titres de la presse mondiale, avec la découverte d'une source concernant le suaire de Turin. Il faut dire que ce n'est pas un objet comme les autres : depuis des siècles, ce suaire de Turin est vénéré comme le linge même qui aurait vraiment enveloppé le corps du Christ après la Crucifixion. Des millions de fidèles ont ainsi afflué à Turin lors d'ostensions publiques, et ce alors même que le Suaire a été daté du Moyen Âge par le Carbone 14 et que l'Église a accepté cette datation. Si l'on se promène un peu sur internet, on est assez vite pris de vertige face à la controverse qui l'entoure, on peut vraiment lire tout et son contraire ! Le document mis en lumière en 2025, car parmi les milliers de reliques vénérées au Moyen Âge, il juge comme le cas de fraude le plus évident précisément celle que l'on vénère encore six siècles et demi plus tard : le suaire de Turin !Bonne écoute !⚔️ Ne loupez pas mon livre collectif Les Chevaliers dispo en précommande jusqu'au 15 mai seulement : https://fr.ulule.com/chevaliers-notabene➤ Pour en savoir plus, découvrez notre entretien avec Nicolas Sarzeaud : https://youtu.be/3NEBzIJ5mCg

Que sait-on du Prophète de l'islam Muhammad, Mahomet dans sa forme francisée ? Sa biographie factuelle pourrait tenir en une page, mais la profusion des écrits sur sa vie rend impossible une seule histoire. Le Mahomet des historiens, un ouvrage colossal de 2 000 pages, présente une grande pluralité des récits sur Mahomet, avec toutes ses contradictions.   Qui était le Prophète Mahomet ? Comment dresser un portrait du prophète de l'islam tant les sources sont nombreuses et contradictoires ou complémentaires ? C'est une enquête passionnante que nous propose un ouvrage colossal de plus de 2 000 pages, Le Mahomet des historiens, paru aux éditions du Cerf, qui réunit 50 spécialistes de l'islam dans le monde et offre des regards croisés sur le fondateur de l'islam. Un ouvrage qui présente la très grande diversité de l'islam dans sa manière de représenter le Prophète. Religions du Monde reçoit les deux historiens qui ont supervisé cet ouvrage : Invité en studio : Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, directeur d'études émérite à l'EPHE où il a occupé la chaire en islamologie, président du Conseil scientifique de l'Institut français d'islamologie, islamologue et iranologue spécialiste du chiisme, qui travaille depuis plus de 40 ans sur les origines de l'islam, a publié de nombreux ouvrages dont Le Coran silencieux et le Coran parlant (CNRS Éditions 2020), La Preuve de Dieu. La mystique shi'ite à travers l'œuvre de Kulaynî, IXᵉ-Xᵉ siècle (Éditions du Cerf, 2019) et avait déjà codirigé en 2019 Le Coran des historiens (Éditions du Cerf). En duplex depuis ICI Nantes : John Tolan, historien franco-américain spécialiste des contacts culturels et religieux entre les mondes arabe et latin au Moyen Âge, professeur d'histoire à l'université de Nantes. Ses travaux portent en particulier sur la manière dont les chrétiens européens ont perçu et représenté l'islam et son prophète à travers les siècles. Il a publié Mahomet l'Européen ou encore Nouvelle histoire de l'islam. Il dirige également le programme européen The European Qur'an, qui étudie l'influence du texte sacré de l'islam dans l'histoire européenne entre 1150 et 1850. Ce programme a abouti à la publication du Coran européen (Hermann, 2025).

Nous vivons une époque paradoxale. Jamais l'accès au savoir historique n'a été aussi facile. Pourtant, jamais la confusion autour de ce savoir historique n'a semblé si grande. En effet, parce que nous sommes tous en quête de sens, nous sommes parfois tentés de nous perdre dans ce qu'on appelle aujourd'hui des vérités alternatives. La pseudo histoire prospère sur nos vulnérabilités ou nos faiblesses intellectuelles, peut-être au même titre que les différents complotismes. Comment démêler le vrai du faux en histoire ? C'est ce à quoi s'emploie Jean-Jacques Bedu, essayiste et biographe, créateur du prix Mare Nostrum. Son livre, "L'Odyssée du savoir. Vraies sagesses et fausses croyances, tome 1 : Des origines à l'Antiquité tardive" (éd. Cerf, 2026), est une réponse à la série "Ancient Apocalypse" (traduit par "À l'aube de notre histoire") du journaliste très controversé Graham Hancock.Retrouvez tous nos contenus, articles et épisodes sur rcf.frSi vous avez apprécié cet épisode, participez à sa production en soutenant RCF.Vous pouvez également laisser un commentaire ou une note afin de nous aider à le faire rayonner sur la plateforme.Retrouvez d'autres contenus de culture ci-dessous :Visages : https://audmns.com/YNRfPcJJuste ciel · RCF Cœur de Champagne : https://audmns.com/TyoHCKoLa suite de l'Histoire : https://audmns.com/IlGYVbxLa suite de l'Histoire, l'intégrale : https://audmns.com/vwgmJNuTous mélomanes : https://audmns.com/oZJUpqCMarche & rêve : 8 personnalités transformées par la marche : https://audmns.com/fLjYOLLEnfin, n'hésitez pas à vous abonner pour ne manquer aucun nouvel épisode.À bientôt à l'écoute de RCF sur les ondes ou sur rcf.fr !Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

durée : 00:59:42 - Affaires étrangères - par : Christine Ockrent - De la guerre en Iran au blasphème par l'IA, la fracture entre Léon XIV et Donald Trump s'est transformée en crise ouverte. Que révèle ce duel entre la Maison-Blanche et le Vatican ? Quel sera son impact sur l'électorat états-unien, qui s'exprimera lors des midterms en novembre ? - réalisation : Luc-Jean Reynaud - invités : Blandine Chelini-Pont Professeure en histoire contemporaine et relations internationales à l'université d'Aix-Marseille; Thomas Gomart Historien des relations internationales, directeur de l'Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI).; Denis Lacorne Politiste, directeur de recherche au Centre de Recherches Internationales (CERI) de Sciences Po. Auteur notamment de Les Frontières de la tolérance, Gallimard, 2016.; Jean-François Colosimo essayiste, directeur des éditions du Cerf

Dans ce nouveau format court "12 minutes", l'équipe de 12 Points se retrouve au restaurant pour débriefer les dernières bombes de l'actualité Eurovision. Pas de langue de bois, juste de la passion (et un peu de colère) pour ce cru 2026 qui ne ressemble à aucun autre.Les titres de ce bulletin :Le nouveau duo de France Télévisions : Stéphane Bern rempile, mais il sera accompagné cette année de Camille Cerf. L'ex-Miss France et animatrice débarque aux commentaires. Un choix qui fait réagir l'équipe : stratégie "bouche-trou" de la chaîne ou bonne surprise en perspective ?Hongrie : Le vent tourne ! Avec l'éviction démocratique de Viktor Orbán au profit de Peter Magyar, l'espoir d'un retour de la Hongrie au concours renaît. Peter Magyar s'est affiché pro-européen durant sa campagne, de quoi briser le boycott "anti-woke" imposé par l'ancien régime.Le "Coup de Gueule" : Une hype en mode mineur. C'est du jamais vu pour l'équipe : à un mois du concours, Vincent et Quentin n'ont écouté qu'une seule chanson, celle de la France. Entre l'usure face aux polémiques géopolitiques, les choix de l'UER concernant Israël et l'absence d'accréditations physiques pour le podcast, la lassitude s'installe.À venir dans le podcast :Malgré leur mi-molle, l'équipe ne vous lâche pas ! Notez bien les prochains rendez-vous :26 avril : Épisode spécial "Eurovision et Littérature" en public sur la péniche Le Marcounet à Paris.Semaine prochaine : Lancement des célèbres épisodes Top/Flop (demi-finales et Big Five) et la mythique Table Ronde arrivera en suivant.

« Théologie négative », que se cache-t-il derrière cette formule ? Rassurez-vous, la Foi prise au mot ne se lance pas dans l'anti-théologie. Cela désigne au contraire une des plus importantes branches de la théologie chrétienne. Alors que nous sommes accoutumés à un discours qui nous dit qui est Dieu, cette autre voie affirme que l'on ne sait rien de Lui et qu'Il est « Néant » car au-delà de tout « Étant ». Pour approcher « autrement » Dieu, cette théologie propose d'utiliser un négatif, comme en photographie, pour en définir les contours. Le noir fait apparaître la lumière. En disant ce que n'est pas Dieu et en utilisant le langage poétique, on dépasse les obstacles du langage conceptuel. Oxymore, hyperbole tel que « Ténèbre lumineuse » exprime ainsi Dieu. Des origines chez Denys à Thérèse d'Avila, en passant par les mystiques rhénans tel Eckhart, immersion dans cette aventure mystique avec le Père Dominique Salin, jésuite et Professeur au Centre Sèvres et Marie-Anne Vannier, Professeur à l'Université de Metz qui a dirigé l'Encyclopédie des mystiques rhénans (Cerf). Emission du 06 mai 2012.

Pour ce numéro de Parlez Moi d'Histoire, Guillaume Perrault reçoit l'historien spécialiste de la révolution, Patrice Gueniffey, auteur de «Le nombre et la raison, la Révolution française et les élections» (Cerf) ainsi que l'historien Loris Chavanette, auteur de «Le 14 Juillet de Mirabeau, la revanche d'un prisonnier» (Tallandier).Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Ce mois-ci, avec Jean-Marie Guénois, relisons guerre et paix - non pas l'aventure napoléonienne revue par Léon Tolstoï, mais les conditions d'une vie ensemble. À l'heure où la dispersion menace leur survie, Joseph Yacoub, historien d'origine assyro-chaldéenne-syriaque, publie sa « Nouvelle histoire des chrétiens d'Orient », chez Perrin. Voici un regard neuf sur les premières pages du christianisme, les relations complexes avec l'islam, l'expansion missionnaire en Asie lointaine, les tragédies du XXe siècle. Pour chercher la paix promise par le Ressuscité, Baudouin et Jacques de Guillebon invoquent les grandes figures chrétiennes de la non-violence et du pacifisme dans « Prophètes sans armes » (DDB). De Tolstoï à Martin Luther King, de Simone Weil à Lanza del Vasto, en passant par Dorothy Day ou Hans et Sophie Scholl, ils nous disent que la violence n'est pas le seul langage possible. Philosophe et théologien, Emmanuel Tourpe fait le constat d'échec du contrat social moderne. Dans une société en voie de délitement, en proie à la polarisation, rongée par les conflits, un traitement s'impose selon l'auteur : il est urgent de proposer une véritable doctrine sociale et politique chrétienne et de déployer une vision de l'amour comme clé du vivre-ensemble. Il nous offre « Politique de l'amour : Une théorie sociale chrétienne », au Cerf, et une très belle émission. Une coproduction KTO, La Procure et Le Jour du Seigneur.

Ce mois-ci, avec Jean-Marie Guénois, relisons guerre et paix - non pas l'aventure napoléonienne revue par Léon Tolstoï, mais les conditions d'une vie ensemble. À l'heure où la dispersion menace leur survie, Joseph Yacoub, historien d'origine assyro-chaldéenne-syriaque, publie sa « Nouvelle histoire des chrétiens d'Orient », chez Perrin. Voici un regard neuf sur les premières pages du christianisme, les relations complexes avec l'islam, l'expansion missionnaire en Asie lointaine, les tragédies du XXe siècle. Pour chercher la paix promise par le Ressuscité, Baudouin et Jacques de Guillebon invoquent les grandes figures chrétiennes de la non-violence et du pacifisme dans « Prophètes sans armes » (DDB). De Tolstoï à Martin Luther King, de Simone Weil à Lanza del Vasto, en passant par Dorothy Day ou Hans et Sophie Scholl, ils nous disent que la violence n'est pas le seul langage possible. Philosophe et théologien, Emmanuel Tourpe fait le constat d'échec du contrat social moderne. Dans une société en voie de délitement, en proie à la polarisation, rongée par les conflits, un traitement s'impose selon l'auteur : il est urgent de proposer une véritable doctrine sociale et politique chrétienne et de déployer une vision de l'amour comme clé du vivre-ensemble. Il nous offre « Politique de l'amour : Une théorie sociale chrétienne », au Cerf, et une très belle émission. Une coproduction KTO, La Procure et Le Jour du Seigneur.

Depuis le début du conflit en Ukraine, en février 2022, de nombreuses personnalités en France, mais aussi ailleurs dans le monde, reprennent à leur compte, ou alors contre rémunération, le discours du Kremlin pour expliquer l'invasion russe. Des justifications encore très présentes aujourd'hui dans les médias. Wiktor Stoczkowski, chercheur au laboratoire d'anthropologie sociale du Collège de France, nous donne les clefs pour reconnaître ce discours développé par Vladimir Poutine et pour éviter de tomber dans le piège dans son ouvrage Penser comme Poutine : une menace pour nos démocraties, paru aux Éditions du Cerf. À écouter dans L'Invité internationalPoutine, Modi et Xi Jinping resserrent les rangs face aux pressions américaines

In this conversation, Gayle Feldman discusses her book 'Nothing Random,' which explores the life of Bennett Cerf, the founder of Random House. She delves into Cerf's early life, his career in publishing, his relationships with authors, and the impact of his television presence on his reputation. Feldman also addresses the challenges Cerf faced, including anti-Semitism in the publishing industry, and reflects on the evolution of Random House and Cerf's legacy.Get your copy of Nothing Random by Gayle FeldmanAs an Amazon Associate, Now I've Heard Everything may earn a commission from qualifying purchases.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Gayle Feldman and Her Book02:55 The Life and Legacy of Bennett Cerf05:52 Bennett Cerf's Early Years and Career Path09:00 The Making of a Great Publisher12:00 Bennett Cerf's Influence on Literature14:59 The Impact of Television on Cerf's Reputation18:01 Navigating Anti-Semitism in Publishing20:48 The Evolution of Random House23:52 Reflections on Bennett Cerf's HappinessGuest InformationGayle FeldmanGayle Feldman has written for Publishers Weekly for forty years, including as a senior editor. Since 1999, as U.S. correspondent for The Bookseller, she has analyzed the American book business for U.K. readers. She has contributed features, reviews, and essays to The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Times of London, The Nation, The Daily Beast, and others. She is the author of the cancer memoir You Don't Have to Be Your Mother, first published by W.W. Norton, and of Best and Worst of Times: The Changing Business of Trade Books, published through a National Arts Journalism Program fellowship at the Columbia Journalism School. The National Endowment for the Humanities has supported her work on Nothing Random: Bennett Cerf and the Publishing House He Built with a Public Scholar award. Feldman lives in New York City.WebsiteRon BlakeSocial:| Facebook | Instagram | Tik tokFor more intriguing and engaging interviews each week, subscribe now on Spotify, Apple Podcasts. and now on YouTube

Avec Caroline Wallet et Céline Guillaume, auteur de: - "Chercher la femme" (éditions du Cerf) - "Mener le bon combat" (éditions du Cerf) - "Dieu est passé par là" (éditions du Cerf)

Ecoutez Ça va beaucoup mieux avec Jimmy Mohamed du 26 février 2026.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Tu veux que je te raconte l'histoire du petit cerf qui attaque un rhinocéros? Alors attrape ta brosse à dents, ton dentifrice, et c'est parti!

C'est un drame qui agite la France et soulève de nombreuses questions. La mort du militant d'extrême-droite Quentin Deranque lors d'une rixe avec des jeunes antifascistes. Depuis, extrême droite et extrême gauche ne cessent de s'invectiver dans des échanges où l'amalgame fait le plus souvent la loi. Comment en est-on arrivés là ? Qui sont les extrêmes ? Comment parvenir à un sursaut démocratique ? Pour en débattre Sylvain Boulouque, enseignant chercheur à l'Université de Reins, historien des radicalités politiques et des mouvements sociaux, auteur du livre La grange aux belles. Quand les communistes flinguaient les anarchistes, éditions du Cerf. Catherine Tricot, directrice de la revue Regards Erwan Lecoeur, politologue et sociologue, spécialiste des questions liées à l'extrême-droite et au populisme.

Karina vous dévoile les décisions de justice les plus improbables.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

C dans l'air l'invité du 7 février 2026 avec Cyrille Amoursky, reporter de guerre et auteur de "Ukraïna. Un peuple en guerre", aux éditions du Cerf.Le processus de négociation pour la paix en Ukraine suit son cours - des discussions entre les délégations russes et ukrainiennes sont prévues la semaine prochaine aux Etats-Unis et Volodymyr Zelensky rencontre ses partenaires européens ce samedi - mais l'offensive russe se poursuit.Alors que l'hiver bat son plein et que les températures descendent jusqu'à -20°C, des coupures de courant ont une nouvelle fois eu lieu dans une grande partie du pays en raison d'une importante attaque russe ce matin contre le réseau énergétique ukrainien. Pour autant, l'heure n'est pas aux concessions : "L'Ukraine ne soutiendra pas d'accords la concernant sans qu'elle soit impliquée" dans les discussions, a déclaré M. Zelensky, en référence aux questions territoriales, point d'achoppement des pourparlers.Dans son livre, Cyrille Amoursky témoigne d'ailleurs de la résilience des Ukrainiens, qui résistent et combattent depuis maintenant près de quatre ans. "Les Américains proposent aux parties de mettre fin à la guerre d'ici au début de l'été et exerceront probablement des pressions sur elles pour qu'elles respectent précisément ce calendrier", a toutefois précisé vendredi le président ukrainien, pour qui Poutine n'a "peur que de Trump". L'Union européenne a de son côté proposé hier de nouvelles sanctions contre la Russie, qui doivent toutefois être approuvées par les Vingt-Sept avant de pouvoir entrer en vigueur.

Gayle Feldman's new book, "Nothing Random: Bennett Cerf and the Publishing House He Built," is the story of the legendary Random House founder Bennett Cerf, whose seemingly charmed life afforded him a front-row seat to literary and cultural history in the making.

Dans IDÉES cette semaine, Pierre-Édouard Deldique reçoit deux historiens, Éric Anceau et Olivier Grenouilleau. Le premier propose une « Nouvelle histoire de France » chez Passés composés, le second un nouvelle collection baptisée « La bibliothèque à remonter le temps », aux éditions du Cerf. Éric Anceau, spécialiste reconnu du XIXè siècle, coordonne dans ce volume une centaine d'historiens, sociologues, juristes, économistes, philosophes et historiens de l'art. L'ambition est claire : proposer une histoire de la France entièrement renouvelée et mettre fin aux querelles idéologiques qui instrumentalisent le passé. Le livre de plus de 1.000 pages couvre l'ensemble de l'histoire du pays, des origines à nos jours. Chaque période est confiée à un spécialiste, ce qui garantit une grande précision scientifique. Cette pluralité de regards permet de désenclaver le récit national, en l'inscrivant dans des contextes européens et mondiaux. Le projet vise donc à  réaffirmer la légitimité du travail historien face aux récits militants, éviter les simplifications (ni roman national, ni repentance systématique), proposer un récit nuancé, attentif aux zones d'ombre comme aux réussites.   De son côté, Olivier Grenouilleau, membre de l'Institut de France, auteur d'une œuvre récompensée par de nombreux prix, plusieurs fois invité dans IDÉES, veut proposer des synthèses accessibles au plus grand nombre. « La Bibliothèque à remonter le temps » s'adresse à tous. « Que vous soyez adolescent, adulte ou tout simplement citoyen, découvrez l'Histoire comme vous ne l'avez jamais vue », écrit-il avec enthousiasme. Il est vrai que chacun des ouvrages de la collection, une centaine de pages richement illustrées, nous permette de connaître un aspect de l'histoire et pas seulement de la France. Olivier Grenouilleau, lui, nous propose une histoire de la Révolution française. Impossible de ne pas la comprendre, dans toute sa complexité, après les lectures de sa centaine de pages écrites avec clarté et précision.   Dans les deux cas, les invités d'IDÉES nous proposent une histoire passionnante et dépassionnée. Programmation musicale :  Ikiru - Sévère Réprimande (Compositeur : Erik Satie) Baptiste Herbin, Vincent Durupt - Manhattan Sonate – Financial District (Compositeur : Olivier Calmel).

Tracklisting:   01.  Interstate - I Found You (Original - AVB ASOT 2005 Intro Mix) [Armada] 02.  Three Drives - Greece 2000 (Original Mix) [Hooj Choons] 03.  Above & Beyond Feat. Richard Bedford - Sun & Moon (Dennis Sheperd Remix) [Anjunabeats] 04.  Terk Dawn - Barent Blue (Marninx Pres. Monogato Remix) [Well Mixed Records] 05.  Global Experience - Madras (Original Mix) [Songbird] 06.  iiO - Rapture (Armin van Buuren Remix) [United Recordings] 07.  Gianluca Motta Feat. Molly - Not Alone (Martin Roth Nu-Style Vocal Mix) [Armada Music] 08.  BLR - Méduse (Extended Mix) [AFTR:HRS] 09.  Quivver - Space Manoeuveres Part 3 (Original Mix) [BozBoz] 10.  Audioholics - External Key (Original Mix) [Electronic Elements] 11.  Yilmaz Altanhan - Eighties (Özgür Can Mix) [Anjunabeats] 12.  A.M. - Arise (Exclusive Hammer & Funabashi Remix) [Songbird] 13.  Ferry Corsten - Star Traveller (Original Mix) [Flashover Recordings] 14.  Ronski Speed Feat. Sir Adrian vs Rex Mundi - The Perspective Space (Markus Schulz Mashup) [Coldharbour Recordings] 15.  Cosmic Gate - Back To Earth (Jochen Miller Remix) [Black Hole Recordings] 16.  Cerf, Mitiska & Jaren - Beggin' You (Armin van Buuren Remix) [Armind] 17.  Mike Foyle Pres. Statica - For Your Eyes Only (Original Mix) [Electronic Elements] 18.  Soliquid - Music Is For Rich People (Mat Zo Remix) [Captured Digital] 19.  Markus Schulz Pres. Dakota - In A Green Valley (Basil O'Glue Remix) [Coldharbour Recordings] 20.  JASEfos Feat. Claire Van Der Boom - Do What U Want (Max Graham Afterhours In Montreal Mix) [Songbird] 21.  Aspekt - Hi Jack (Instrumental Mix) [Anjunabeats] 22.  Deepsky - Talk Like A Stranger (Markus Schulz Return To Coldharbour Mix) [Yo!] 23.  Probspot - Foreplay (Original Mix) [Lost Language] 24.  Mark Otten - Tranquility (Markus Schulz Clodharbour Mix) [Armind] 25.  Jahawi - Kenya (Original Mix) [Insatiable Records] 26.  Karen Overton - Your Loving Arms (Markus Schulz & Elevation Intro Mix) [Coldharbour Recordings] 27.  Oakenfold - Zoo York (Leama & Moor Mix) [White X] 28.  The Space Brothers - Legacy (Extended Vocal Club Mix) (2022 Remaster) [Armada] 29.  Humate - Love Stimulation (Paul van Dyk Love-Club Mix) [Deviate Records] 30.  M.E.O. - Sleepless (John Johnson Remix) [Global Harmony] 31.  Flash - The Day After (Remix) [Perfecto] 32.  Albert Vorne - Formentera What (Gareth Emery Remix) [Armada] 33.  John '00' Fleming - I'm Not Fooled (John 00 Fleming's Tranced Out Mix) [Subversive Hard] 34.  Interstate - Remember Me (Terry Bones Remix) [Armind] 35.  DJ Eco & Martin Roth - Tonight Is Forever (Martin Roth Edit) [Lunatique Records] 36.  Motorcycle - As The Rush Comes (Gabriel & Dresden Sweeping Strings Mix) [Black Hole Recordings] 37.  Way Out West - Killa (Orkidea Remix) [Solaris Recordings] 38.  L.S.G. - Netherworld (Oliver Prime Remix) [Songbird] 39.  Delerium - Silence (Tiësto's In Search Of Sunrise Remix) [Nettwerk] 40.  Conjure One Feat. Sinéad O'Connor - Tears From The Moon (Tiësto In Search Of Sunrise Remix) [Black Hole Recordings] 41.  Tiësto Pres. Allure - The Loves We Lost (Original Mix) [Ultra Records] 42.  Signum - Third Dimension (Original Mix) [AVRA] 43.  DJ Eco - Lost Angeles (Breakfast Remix) [Lunatique Records] 44.  Funabashi Presents Saltwater - The Legacy 07 (Alphazone Remix) [Dos Or Die Records] 45.  Gaia - Tuvan (Andy Blueman Remix) [Armind Digital] 46.  Tiësto - Adagio For Strings (Original LP Version) [Magik Muzik] 47.  Simon Patterson - Us (Extended Mix) [VII] 48.  Push - Strange World (2000 Remake) [Black Hole Recordings] 49.  Signum - The Timelord (Original Mix) [A State Of Trance] 50.  RAM - RAMsterdam (Jorn van Deynhoven Remix) [A State Of Trance] 51.  Envio - Time To Say Goodbye (Original Mix) [A State Of Trance]

Pour finir l'année en beauté, pirates, prophètes, explorateurs, artistes et saints se croisent dans cette semaine spéciale d'Au Cœur de l'Histoire version fêtes. De Zarafa la girafe à Houdini le roi des évasions, de la naissance du Père Noël à l'art de la table de François Vatel, du mystère de l'expédition Lapérouse à la route de la soie, embarquez pour deux semaines spéciales où l'Histoire se pare de magie, de mystères et d'émotions !Depuis quand fête-t-on Noël ? Quelle fête païenne a été christianisée pour devenir une date clé du calendrier liturgique au IVe siècle de notre ère ? Pourquoi la naissance de Jésus a-t-elle été fixée au 25 décembre ? Quand et où est-il vraiment né ?Pour répondre à ces questions, Virginie Girod reçoit Stéphane Encel, historien des religions, il a notamment écrit "Dieu est-il barbu. 33 idées reçues sur Dieu et les religions" aux éditions du Cerf. (rediffusion)Au Cœur de l'Histoire est un podcast Europe 1.- Présentation : Virginie Girod- Production : Armelle Thiberge et Morgane Vianey- Réalisation : Nicolas Gaspard- Composition du générique : Julien Tharaud- Visuel : Sidonie ManginHébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.