Podcast appearances and mentions of gideon lewis kraus

Resources mentioned in this episode:The End of Children by Gideon Lewis-KrausModernity's Self-Destruct Button by Louise Perry

Hvorfor trenger vi å leke? De siste årene har dette spørsmålet blitt stadig mer diskutert, og mange av oss har kanskje innsett at vi i lengre tid har undervurdert lekens viktighet. I 2022 utga lege Charlotte Lunde og professor i nevrobiologi Per Brodal boken Lek og læring i et nevroperspektiv. Hvordan gode intensjoner kan ødelegge barns lærelyst. I den argumenterer de for at leken er enormt viktig for barns utvikling og trivsel, og om de skadervirkninger som følger av at vi har et samfunn hvor barn har stadig mindre frihet og anledning til å leke. Vi har tidligere snakket med Per Brodal her på podkasten (ep.102), og i denne episoden er det Charlotte Lunde som forteller oss om lekens status i skolen og i barns liv generelt, og hva som har skjedd i de tre årene siden de publiserte boken sin.  Vi snakker om ulike typer lek, lek blant dyr, lekens rolle i å trene opp sosiale ferdigheter, lekeslossing, aldersblanding, frilek i skolen, samfunnets økende krav til selvregulering samtidig som vi får mindre anledning til å oppøve disse ferdighetene, følelsen av kontroll i eget liv, foreldrestil, hva det er som har endret seg i kulturen, Gro Dahles barnebok Ikke, flere diagnoser, seksårsreformen, naturens rolle i lek, hvordan tid i naturen påvirker konsentrasjonsevnen, problemet med begreper som lekbasert læring, hvorfor foreldre ikke alltid trenger å leke med barna sine, foreldre bør gjøre det de har lyst til iblant, den frie barndommen, overbeskyttelse i den virkelige verden og underbeskyttelse i den digitale verden.  Charlottes anbefalinger:  Gro Dahle, Ikke, 2022 Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind, 2019 Barbara Natterson-Horowitz og Kathryn Bowers, Wildhood: The Astounding Connections between Human and Animal Adolescents, 2019 Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens, 2018   Andre bøker og artikler nevnt i episoden:  Charlotte Lunde og Per Brodal, Lek og læring i et nevroperspektiv. Hvordan gode intensjoner kan ødelegge barns lærelyst, 2022 Robert Putnam, Our Kids, 2015 Birger Emanuelsen, Før de forsvinner, 2024 Gideon Lewis-Kraus, The end of children, The New Yorker, februar 2025, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/03/the-population-implosion  David Lancy, The antropology of childhood: Cherubs, Chattel and Changelings, 2022 (3.utgave) Hannah Rosin, The Overprotected Kid, The Atlantic, April 2014, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/hey-parents-leave-those-kids-alone/358631/  Tom Hodginson, The Idle Parent, 2010 Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation, 2024 Uten synlige tegn, tv-serie på TV2, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35391670/    ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info. ----------------------------  Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss.  Både Lars og Pål skriver nå på hver sin blogg, med litt varierende regelmessighet. Du finner dem på disse nettsidene: https://paljabekk.com/ https://larssandaker.blogspot.com/ Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

The staff writer Gideon Lewis-Kraus joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss why people around the world are having fewer and fewer children and how the issue of birth rates has become a rallying cry for the American right. Plus, the lack of political will on the left to contend with the issue; and the societal effects on South Korea, which has the lowest birth rates in the world. This week's reading: “The End of Children,” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus The Chaos of Trump's Guantánamo Plan,” by Jonathan Blitzer “The New Trump-Family Megaphone,” by Jon Allsop “Month One of Donald Trump's “Golden Age,” by Antonia Hitchens “Team Canada's Revenge, Served Ice-Cold,” by Louisa Thomas  Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

For decades, flying cars have been a symbol of collective disappointment—of a technologically splendid future that was promised but never delivered. Whose fault is that? Gideon Lewis-Kraus, a staff writer at The New Yorker who has spent 18 months researching the history, present, and future of flying car technology, joins the show. We talk about why flying cars don't exist—and why they might be much closer to reality than most people think. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com.  Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Gideon Lewis-Kraus Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A running joke in the tech world is that flying cars are perpetually three to five years away. So when will they ever be a reality? New Yorker staff writer Gideon Lewis-Kraus joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the industry trying to create “electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicles”—a.k.a. flying cars—and what it was like for him to actually fly one of the prototypes. His article is “Flight of Fancy.” 

Since not long after the car was invented, we have wanted to stick wings on them and fly them through the sky. This week, we interview writer Gideon Lewis-Kraus about the surprisingly long history of actual, working flying cars in America. Plus, what it's like to actually fly in a modern flying car. Read Gideon's article! Support the show! To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Danielle and Alison bring the conflict on their views of behavioural insights. Danielle thinks it's a revelation that government started thinking about its customers and what works for them. Alison thinks it's oversold, and not always deployed in the interests of the people. Caroline wonders if we can all just get along.Ultimately, the listeners win.References from the episode include:If Books Could Kill podcast on NudgeRichard Thaler and Cass Sunstein Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness (2009).On the replicability crisis in behavioural economics, see Gideon Lewis-Kraus 'They studied dishonesty. Was their work a lie?' New Yorker. The intro grab features Jason McNamara (DHS) and Angus Scott KC, 5 December 2022Now for some appropriately bureaucratic disclaimers....Those of us in the employ of the State Government speak in a strictly personal capacity, consistent with the Public Sector Code of Ethics that permits public servants to promote an outcome in relation to an issue of public interest - in this case, the betterment of the public service.Nothing we say should be taken as representing the views of the Government or our employers.While we have tried to be as thorough in our research as busy full time jobs and lives allow, we definitely don't guarantee that we've got all the details right.If you want rigorous reporting on Robodebt, we recommend the work of Rick Morton at the Saturday Paper, Chris Knaus and Luke Henriques-Gomes at the Guardian, Ben Eltham at Crikey, Julian Bajkowski at The Mandarin, and of course, the Robodebt Royal Commission itself.Please feel free to email us corrections, episode suggestions, or anything else, at thewestminstertraditionpod@gmail.com.Thanks to PanPot audio for our intro and outro music. 'Til next time!

Jakob er stadig i USA, så denne gang er Altingets husøkonom, lektor Søren Hove Ravn gæstevært. Esben og han taler om råderummet der pludselig blev stort, inflationen der pludselig forduftede, og om prisen på klimapolitikken, der måske slet ikke er så dyr endda. Til sidst vender de industripolitikkens tilbagekomst.Værter: Esben Schjørring, politisk redaktør på Altinget, og Søren Hove Ravn, ph.d. i økonomi og lektor på Københavns Universitet.Producer: Emma Klitnæs, podcastassistentShownotesSørens anbefaling: Gideon Lewis-Kraus' feature om løgn og økonomisk forskning i The New Yorker.Esbens anbefaling: Nicolas Mulders bog 'The Economic Weapon' om de økonomiske sanktioners historie. Søren Hove Ravns seneste klumme om inflation, renter og forventninger. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“Not everyone who's lucky is talented and not everyone who's talented is lucky.”  –Tom Bissell In this episode of Deviate, Rolf and Tom talk about Tom's lack of travel experience when he joined the Peace Corps, and how he dealt with his early failures (2:30); the role that luck (as well as craft and obsessive reading) has played in his writing career (8:00); how, as a writer, to turn real-life people, including yourself, into convincingly human and honest nonfiction "characters" (16:00); Tom "failures" as a writer, the challenges of screenwriting, and the difficulty of writing books that sell (38:30); the book that Tom is most proud of, and how to get out of the success/failure dichotomy as a creative person (47:00); plus a post-interview segment about drinking in Paris (56:00). Tom Bissell is an American author, journalist, critic, and screenwriter. He is the author of such books as Chasing the Sea, Apostle, God Lives in St. Petersburg, Extra Lives, and The Disaster Artist. Notable Links: Rolf's Paris travel memoir workshops (annual classes) Salt and Fire (2016 Werner Herzog movie) Star Wars: Andor (TV series) Harper's Magazine (literary publication) Aral Sea (endorheic lake in central Asia) Steven Soderbergh (American film director) Ryszard Kapuściński (Polish journalist and author) A Sense of Direction, by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (travel memoir) "War Zones for Idiots", by Tom Bissell (essay) Lucasfilm (American film and TV company) Tony Gilroy (American screenwriter) Michael Clayton (2007 legal thriller movie) Greg Sestero (American actor and model) Tommy Wiseau (Polish-American filmmaker) The Room (film regarded as the worst movie ever made) Creative Types, by Tom Bissell (short story collection) The Father of All Things:, by Tom Bissell (memoir) Heraclitus (ancient Greek philosopher) Stoicism (school of Hellenistic philosophy) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Russian writer and dissident) The Deviate theme music comes from the title track of Cedar Van Tassel's 2017 album Lumber. Note: We don't host a “comments” section, but we're happy to hear your questions and insights via email, at deviate@rolfpotts.com.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Linkpost: They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?, published by Linch on October 2, 2023 on LessWrong. This is a linkpost for Gideon Lewis-Kraus's New Yorker article on the (alleged) Ariely and Gino data fraud scandals. I've been following this situation off-and-on for a while (and even more so after the original datacolada blog posts). The basic story is that multiple famous professors in social psychology (specializing in dishonesty) have been caught with blatant data fraud. The field to a large extent tried to "protect their own," but in the end the evidence became too strong. The suspects have since retreated to attempting to sue datacolada (the investigators). Despite the tragic nature of the story, I consider this material hilarious high entertainment, in addition to being quite educational. The writing is also quite good, as I've come to expect from Gideon Lewis-Kraus (who locals might have heard of from his in-depth profiles on Slate Star Codex, Will MacAskill, and the FTX crash). Some quotes: If you tortured the data long enough, as one grim joke went, it would confess to anything. They called such techniques "p-hacking." As they later put it, "Everyone knew it was wrong, but they thought it was wrong the way it's wrong to jaywalk." In fact, they wrote, "it was wrong the way it's wrong to rob a bank." Ziani [a young grad student] found Gino's results implausible, and assumed that they had been heavily p-hacked. She told me, "This crowd is used to living in a world where you have enough degrees of freedom to do whatever you want and all that matters is that it works beautifully." But an adviser strongly suggested that Ziani "build on" the paper, which had appeared in a top journal. When she expressed her doubts, the adviser snapped at her, "Don't ever say that!" Members of Ziani's dissertation committee couldn't understand why this nobody of a student was being so truculent. In the end, two of them refused to sign off on her degree if she did not remove criticisms of Gino's paper from her dissertation. One warned Ziani not to second-guess a professor of Gino's stature in this way. In an e-mail, the adviser wrote, "Academic research is like a conversation at a cocktail party. You are storming in, shouting 'You suck!' " A former senior researcher at the lab told me, "He assured us that the effect was there, that this was a true thing, and I was convinced he completely believed it." The former senior researcher said, "How do you swim through that murky area of where is he lying? Where is he stretching the truth? What is he forgetting or misremembering? Because he does all three of those things very consistently. So when it really matters - like with the auto insurance - which of these three things is it?" (Meme made by myself) Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Linkpost: They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?, published by Linch on October 2, 2023 on LessWrong. This is a linkpost for Gideon Lewis-Kraus's New Yorker article on the (alleged) Ariely and Gino data fraud scandals. I've been following this situation off-and-on for a while (and even more so after the original datacolada blog posts). The basic story is that multiple famous professors in social psychology (specializing in dishonesty) have been caught with blatant data fraud. The field to a large extent tried to "protect their own," but in the end the evidence became too strong. The suspects have since retreated to attempting to sue datacolada (the investigators). Despite the tragic nature of the story, I consider this material hilarious high entertainment, in addition to being quite educational. The writing is also quite good, as I've come to expect from Gideon Lewis-Kraus (who locals might have heard of from his in-depth profiles on Slate Star Codex, Will MacAskill, and the FTX crash). Some quotes: If you tortured the data long enough, as one grim joke went, it would confess to anything. They called such techniques "p-hacking." As they later put it, "Everyone knew it was wrong, but they thought it was wrong the way it's wrong to jaywalk." In fact, they wrote, "it was wrong the way it's wrong to rob a bank." Ziani [a young grad student] found Gino's results implausible, and assumed that they had been heavily p-hacked. She told me, "This crowd is used to living in a world where you have enough degrees of freedom to do whatever you want and all that matters is that it works beautifully." But an adviser strongly suggested that Ziani "build on" the paper, which had appeared in a top journal. When she expressed her doubts, the adviser snapped at her, "Don't ever say that!" Members of Ziani's dissertation committee couldn't understand why this nobody of a student was being so truculent. In the end, two of them refused to sign off on her degree if she did not remove criticisms of Gino's paper from her dissertation. One warned Ziani not to second-guess a professor of Gino's stature in this way. In an e-mail, the adviser wrote, "Academic research is like a conversation at a cocktail party. You are storming in, shouting 'You suck!' " A former senior researcher at the lab told me, "He assured us that the effect was there, that this was a true thing, and I was convinced he completely believed it." The former senior researcher said, "How do you swim through that murky area of where is he lying? Where is he stretching the truth? What is he forgetting or misremembering? Because he does all three of those things very consistently. So when it really matters - like with the auto insurance - which of these three things is it?" (Meme made by myself) Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Reading list:* Corey Robin's Facebook Page* Not Yet Falling Apart: Two thinkers on the left offer a guide to navigating the stormy seas of modernity, by moi* Straight Outta Chappaqua: How Westchester-bred lefty prof Corey Robin came to loathe Israel, defend Steven Salaita, and help cats, by Phoebe Maltz Bovy* Online Fracas for a Critic of the Right, by Jennifer Schuessler* Scholar Behind U. of Illinois Boycotts Is a Longtime Activist, by Marc ParryA few years ago, I got this text from a friend after my guest on this episode of the podcast, Corey Robin, said something nice about my book on Facebook: “When Corey Robin is praising you on Facebook, you've arrived, my friend.”He was being funny, but also just saying a true thing. Corey Robin is a big deal on the intellectual left in America, and for the better part of a decade, from about 2012 to 2019, his Facebook page was one of the most vital and interesting spaces on the American intellectual left. Back in 2017, I wrote this about Corey and his most influential book, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin:The Reactionary Mind has emerged as one of the more influential political works of the last decade. Robin himself has become, since the book's publication, one of the more aura-laden figures on the intellectual left. Paul Krugman cites him and the book periodically in his New York Times columns and on his blog. Robin's Facebook page, which he uses as a blog and discussion forum, has become one of the places to watch to understand where thinking on the left is. Another key node of the intellectual left is Crooked Timber, a group blog of left-wing academics to which Robin is a long-time contributor, and another is Jacobin, a socialist magazine that often re-publishes Robin's blog posts sans edits, like dispatches from the oracle.I've long been fascinated by Corey's Facebook page, in particular, because it was such a novel space. It couldn't exist prior to the internet, and if there were any other important writers who used the platform in that way, as a real venue for thoughtful and vigorous political discussion, I'm not familiar with them. It didn't replace or render obsolete the magazines, like The Nation and Dissent, that were the traditional places where the left talked to itself. It was just a different thing, an improvisational, unpredictable, rolling forum where you went to see what people of a certain bent were talking about, who the key players were, what the key debates were. And Corey himself, in this context, had a charismatic presence. To even get him to respond seriously to a comment you made on one of his posts was to get a little thrill. To be praised by Corey, in the main text of a post, was to feel like you were a made man. Over the past few weeks I've spent some time dipping into the archives of his page, and while there I compiled a list of notable names who showed up as commenters. My list included: Lauren Berlant, Matt Karp, Tim Lacy, Miriam Markowitz, Annette Gordon Reed,  Doug Henwood, Jeet Heer, Freddie Deboer, Raina Lipsitz, Elayne Tobin, Scott Lemieux, Paul Buhle, Jedediah Purdy, Jodi Dean, Alex Gourevitch, Tamsin Shaw, Rick Perlstein, Greg Grandin, Katha Pollitt, Joel Whitney, Liza Featherstone, Andrew Hartman, Rebecca Vilkomerson, Samuel Moyn, Tim Lacy, Yasmin Nair, Bhaskar Sunsara, Keeanga Yamahtta Taylor, Gideon Lewis Kraus.This is just the people I recognized (or googled ) in my brief time skimming. The full list of eminent leftist Americans who populated Corey's page over the years would surely run to hundreds of names, which is to say that a significant portion, maybe even a majority, of the writers and intellectuals who comprised the intellectual left in those years was reading and participating in his page. How this came about, and what it meant, is one of the topics we cover in the podcast, which ended up being a kind of stock-taking of sorts of the very recent history of the American left. We also talk about Corey's involvement as an organizer with GESO, Yale's graduate student union, when he was getting his PhD in political science; his retrospective thoughts on why he over-estimated the strength of the American left in the mid-2010s; what he got right about Trump and Trumpism; and why Clarence Thomas may be corrupt, but is at least intellectually honest about it. Corey is a professor at Brooklyn College and the author of three books: Fear: The History of a Political Idea, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin (revised and re-issued as Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump), and most recently The Enigma of Clarence Thomas. He has written for The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, the London Review of Books, and Jacobin, among many other places.  Eminent Americans is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Eminent Americans at danieloppenheimer.substack.com/subscribe

The philosophy of Effective Altrusim took a hit due to its close association with Samuel Bankman-Fried. New Yorker staff writer Gideon Lewis-Kraus profiled one of the movement's leaders, Will MacAskill, and followed up in a piece titled “Sam Bankman-Fried, Effective Altruism, and the Question of Complicity.” Plus, the East Palestine Crash is a headache, but maybe not much more. And … a new survey shows the U.S. is in last place in the Trust-The-Media rankings. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist Subscribe: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Follow Mikes Substack at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Episode 67: The philosophical and social movement called effective altruism has received lots of attention over the past month after the collapse of the user-friendly crypto exchange FTX. The founder of the failed company is Sam Bankman-Fried. He seems likely to face civil and/or criminal penalties for what appears to be at best mismanagement and at worst blatant corruption that caused the sudden failure of the exchange, along with the disappearance of billions of dollars. But other than running FTX, Bankman-Fried was an evangelist for effective altruism, and many wonder whether his well-documented business failure puts the principals of this movement at risk, and whether the principles of the movement a benefit to society. Links to stories discussed during the podcast: Effective altruism offers promise, pitfalls, by Richard Kyte The reluctant prophet of effective altruism, by Gideon Lewis-Kraus, The New Yorker How Sam Bankman-Fried's fall exposes the failures of effective altruism, by Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC About the hosts: Scott Rada is social media manager with Lee Enterprises, and Richard Kyte is the director of the D.B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership at Viterbo University in La Crosse, Wis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: "Insider EA content" in Gideon Lewis-Kraus's recent New Yorker article, published by To be stuck inside of Mobile on December 1, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Direct link (to New Yorker website). Alternative link (publicly accessible). This piece from Gideon Lewis-Kraus (the writer for the MacAskill piece) is a recent overview of how EA has reacted to SBF and the FTX collapse. Lewis-Kraus's articles are probably the most in-depth public writing on EA, and he has had wide access to EA members and leadership. The New Yorker is highly respected and the narratives and attitudes in this piece will influence future perceptions of EA. This piece contains inside information about discussions or warnings about SBF. It uses interviews from a "senior EA", and excepts from an internal Slack channel used by senior EAs. When my profile of MacAskill, which discussed internal movement discord about Bankman-Fried's rise to prominence, appeared in August, Wiblin vented his displeasure on the Slack channel. As he put it, the problem was with the format of such a treatment. He wrote, “They don't focus on ‘does this person have true and important ideas.' The writer has no particular expertise to judge such a thing and readers don't especially care either. Instead the focus is more often on personal quirkiness and charisma, relationships among people in the story, ‘she said / he said' reporting of disagreements, making the reader feel wise and above the substantive issue, and finding ways the topic can be linked to existing political attitudes of New Yorker readers (so traditional liberal concerns). This is pretty bad because our great virtue is being right, not being likeable or uncontroversial or ‘right-on' in terms of having fashionable political opinions.” There are claims of a warning about SBF on the Slack channel: This past July, a contributor to the Slack channel wrote to express great apprehension about Sam Bankman-Fried. “Just FYSA,”—or for your situational awareness—“said to me yesterday in DC by somebody in gov't: ‘Hey I was investigating someone for [x type of crime] and realized they're on the board of CEA' ”—MacAskill's Centre for Effective Altruism—“ ‘or run EA or something? Crazy! I didn't realize you could be an EA and also commit a lot of crime. Like shouldn't those be incompatible?' (about SBF). I don't usually share this type of thing here, but seemed worth sharing the sentiment since I think it is not very uncommon and may be surprising to some people.” In a second message, the contributor continued, “I think in some circles SBF has a reputation as someone who regularly breaks laws to make money, which is something that many people see as directly antithetical to being altruistic or EA. (and I get why!!). That reputation poses PR concerns to EA whether or not he's investigated, and whether or not he's found guilty.” The contributor felt this was a serious enough issue to elaborate a third time: “I guess my point in sharing this is to raise awareness that a) in some circles SBF's reputation is very bad b) in some circles SBF's reputation is closely tied to EA, and c) there's some chance SBF's reputation gets much, much worse. But I don't have any data on these (particularly c, I have no idea what types of scenarios are likely), though it seems like a major PR vulnerability. I imagine people working full-time on PR are aware of this and actively working to mitigate it, but it seemed worth passing on if not since many people may not be having these types of interactions.” (Bankman-Fried has not been charged with a crime. The Department of Justice declined to comment.) The suggestion is that EA leadership, while not knowing of any actual crime, accepted poor behavior and norm breaking because of the resources Bankman-Fried provided. In other words, it seems as th...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Will MacAskill Media for WWOTF - Full List, published by James Aitchison on August 30, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Never before have we had the chance to enjoy so much Will MacAskill. He seems to have been everywhere. What a superb and exhaustive job he and his team have done to promote 'What We Owe The Future.' So far I have counted 16 podcasts, 18 articles and 6 other bits and pieces. I have listed all these below with links and brief comments. Podcast Appearances The 80,000 Hours Podcast with Rob Wiblin. A warm and comprehensive three-hour discussion. Making Sense Podcast with Sam Harris. Harris is strongly supportive, MacAskill particularly inspiring on the sweep of history. Mindscape Podcast with Sean Carroll. Carroll asks questions about utilitarianism, metaethics and population ethics which MacAskill handles well. The Ezra Klein Show Podcast. A fine conversation on long-termism. Klein structures the discusion around ‘Three simple sentences: Future people count. There could be a lot of them. And we can make their lives better.' Good discussions about history - the contingent nature of the abolition of slavery and that certain times have plasticity. Tim Ferriss Podcast. A lively discussion with much humour and several gems from MacAskill. Includes recommendation of Joseph Henrich's 'The Secret of Our Success.' Deep Dive with Ali Abdaal Podcast. A relaxed, friendly and wide-ranging three-hour conversation. Covers a lot of ground including EA psychology and MacAskill's work methods. This is a high-quality YouTube production as well as a podcast and is my favourite among the appearances. Conversations with Tyler Podcast . Tyler Cowan's questioning focuses on the limits of utilitarianism. The Lunar Society Podcast with Dwarkesh Patel. Mainly on the contingency of moral progress. Global Dispatch Podcast with Mark Goldberg. Discussion on longtermism and the United Nations. Goldberg enthusiastic about the UN adopting some longtermist thinking. Modern Wisdom Podcast with Chris Williamson. An accessible discussion of longtermism. Conversations with Coleman with Coleman Hughes Includes population ethics, economic growth and moral change. Daily Stoic Podcast with Ryan Holiday. Mainly on altruism and moral change. Kera Think with Krys Boyd. 30 minutes conversation. Freakanomics Podcast with Steve Levitt. Discussion mainly on the economic themes in WWOTF, which MacAskill handles very well. 1a Podcast on NPR. David Gurn discussion on EA as a life changing philosophy. Includes comments from Sofya Lebedeva and Spencer Goldberg. Ten Percent Happier Podcast with Dan Harris. A warm discussion on donations, EA and longtermism. There are transcripts for the podcasts by Wiblin, Carroll, Klein, Cowan, Patel, Goldberg and Levitt. Articles and Book Reviews The New Yorker: The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism by Gideon Lewis-Kraus. A fine 10,000-word article profiling MacAskill and setting out the history of the EA movement. The author spent several days with his subject and covers MacAskill as an individual and the ideas and dynamics of the movement. MacAskill comments on the article in this Twitter Thread Time: Want to Do More Good? This Movement might have the Answer by Naina Bajekal . A beautifully written and inspiring profile of MacAskill and the EA movement. Vox: How Effective Altruism Went from a Niche Movement to a Billion-Dollar Force by Dylan Matthews. A well-informed and thoughtful article on EA's evolution by an EA insider. Wired: The Future Could be Blissful - If Human's Don't Go Extinct First. Shorter interview with Will Macaskill by Matt Reynolds. New York Times: The Case for Longtermism by Will MacAskill A Guest Essay adapted from the book. BBC Futures: What is Longtermism and Why Does it Matter? by Will MacAskill. Another essay based on the book. Foreig...

Congress just had its first hearings on UFOs in over 50 years. We revisit a 2021 episode where the New Yorker's Gideon Lewis-Kraus explained why the US government started taking sightings seriously. This episode was produced by Miles Bryan, edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Efim Shapiro and Cristian Ayala, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

13 de junio | Nueva YorkLeer esta newsletter te llevará 12 minutos y 8 segundos.📬 Mantente informado con nuestras columnas de actualidad diarias. Tienes un ejemplo en este boletín que enviamos el pasado miércoles sobre la derrota del fiscal del distrito de San Francisco Chesa Boudin y lo que ello significa para el futuro del movimiento reformista del sistema de justicia criminal. Puedes suscribirte a través de este enlace:Maldito ladrón. Bienvenido a La Wikly.📱 No tan fácilLo importante: el auge de las redes sociales ha redibujado el panorama social, cultural y político de todas las sociedades del planeta, pero desde hace años impera una narrativa de casi absoluto consenso que concluye que las redes sociales tienen efectos negativos sobre las democracias.Ahí está el ascenso de los populismos, la crisis de salud mental entre jóvenes o la forma en la que el contenido de odio puede propagarse a una rapidez y escala impensables hace años.Explícamelo: en los últimos meses, dos ensayos publicados en The Atlantic y en The New Yorker han reavivado el debate acerca de si realmente las plataformas han tenido consecuencias tan nocivas.Aunque las conclusiones son dispares, los argumentos que esgrimen presentan enfoques interesantes ante el que será un debate que se seguirá dando durante años.Y además permiten desmontar algunas teorías muy establecidas sobre cómo las redes sociales han afectado al mundo real.📜 Reconstrucción históricaContexto: podría decirse que el punto culminante del optimismo tecnodemocrático sobre el aumento de popularidad de las redes sociales fue en 2011, el año que comenzó con la Primavera Árabe y terminó con el movimiento Occupy Global, según cuenta el psicólogo social Jonathan Haidt en su ensayo.También fue entonces cuando Google Translate empezó a estar disponible en prácticamente todos los teléfonos. Con la supresión de la barrera idiomática y la galopante globalización, estábamos más cerca que nunca de ser un solo pueblo.En el cambio de década, los usuarios de las redes sociales se sintieron más cómodos compartiendo detalles íntimos de sus vidas con extraños y con grandes corporaciones; se volvieron más expertos en administrar su marca personal a través de las redes —y tener éxito con esa marca personal.Es decir, los usuarios empezaban a saber qué foto tendría más me gusta o qué comentario tendría más retuits. La adaptación a ese nuevo statu quo desencadenó lo que Haidt define como la intensificación de las dinámicas virales.Llegado 2013, las redes sociales se habían convertido en un nuevo juego: si tenías habilidad o suerte, podías crear una publicación que capaz de viralizarse y hacerte famoso en Internet por unos días. Si cometías un error, podías terminar enterrado en comentarios de odio.El optimismo de 2011 empezó a decaer y empezó a encontrar conclusiones más apocalípticas conforme distintos escándalos ensombrecieron el crecimiento y las posibilidades de plataformas como Facebook, YouTube o Twitter.En la actualidad, los científicos sociales han identificado al menos tres fuerzas principales que unen colectivamente a las democracias exitosas: capital social (extensas redes de vínculos sociales con altos niveles de confianza), instituciones sólidas e historias compartidas.Según Haidt, las redes sociales habrían debilitado a las tres.🔬 El debate científicoHaidt representa el sector académico que defiende una visión pesimista de las redes sociales. Cree que las herramientas de la viralidad han corroído algorítmica e irrevocablemente la vida pública.El auge de las redes sociales ha “disuelto sin darse cuenta el mortero de la confianza, la creencia en las instituciones y las historias compartidas que habían mantenido unida a una democracia secular grande y diversa”, dice Haidt.La principal preocupación de Haidt es que el uso de las redes sociales nos ha dejado particularmente vulnerables al sesgo de confirmación. Es decir, la propensión a consumir e interiorizar el contenido que apuntala nuestras creencias previas.Esto lo llevó en 2021 a ser el coprotagonista de una iniciativa experimental de investigación colaborativa sobre el efecto de las redes sociales de internet que proponía reunir estudios sobre su impacto en la sociedad.El Google Doc “Redes sociales y disfuncionalidad política: una revisión colaborativa” se puso a disposición del público y acumuló comentarios con miles de estudios y fuentes de lo más diversas (desde artículos de revistas especializadas hasta hilos en Twitter y ensayos de Substack).El documento tiene más de 150 páginas y para cada pregunta hay estudios afirmativos y disidentes, así como algunos con resultados mixtos.La puesta en común de investigaciones específicas sobre los efectos de las redes sociales reveló, entre otras cosas, que tres de las preocupaciones más arraigadas podrían no ser tan graves como parece. El periodista Gideon Lewis-Kraus las mencionó en su artículo para The New Yorker:Las cámaras de eco, focos de sesgo de confirmación, se evidenciarían más en los vínculos que establecemos en la vida real que en las redes sociales, donde estamos expuestos a una gama más amplia de puntos de vista.Las fake news tampoco llegarían a tanta gente como se ha dicho. Es posible que un número muy pequeño de personas consuman noticias falsas de forma habitual. Y si lo hacen, suelen no creérselas.Los agujeros de conejo de plataformas como YouTube, esos por los que las recomendaciones algorítmicas habrían radicalizado a millones de personas mostrándoles contenido cada vez más extremista, se podría haber exagerado.“Estas son las tres historias: cámaras de eco, campañas de influencia extranjera y algoritmos de recomendación radicalizados. Pero, cuando miras la literatura, todas han sido exageradas”, sostiene Brendan Nyhan, politólogo de Dartmouth.Un documento de trabajo dirigido por Nyhan encontró que, contrario a lo que muchos preferirían pensar, existen razones de peso para creer que hay muchas personas buscando deliberadamente contenido de odio. Es decir, que el núcleo del problema no es la radicalización algorítmica, sino algo mucho más complejo.Nyhan pensó que asimilar estos hallazgos es crucial, aunque solo sea para ayudarnos a comprender que nuestros problemas pueden estar más allá de ajustes tecnocráticos.“Muchas de las críticas que se les hacen [a las redes sociales] están muy mal fundadas [...] La expansión del acceso a Internet coincide con otras 15 tendencias a lo largo del tiempo, y es muy difícil separarlas. La falta de buenos datos es un gran problema en la medida en que permite a las personas proyectar sus propios temores en este área”, sostiene Nyhan.🔮 ¿Y entonces?Ante esta postura más moderada sobre cuál debería ser la respuesta ante los efectos que parecen producir las redes sociales, Haidt defiende que las condiciones son demasiado terribles como para adoptar una visión realista:“La preponderancia de la evidencia es lo que usamos en salud pública. Si hay una epidemia, como cuando empezó el COVID, supongamos que todos los científicos hubieran dicho, 'No, ¿tenemos que estar seguros antes de hacer algo?'. [...] Tenemos la mayor epidemia de salud mental entre adolescentes de la historia y no hay otra explicación [que el auge de las redes sociales]. Es una epidemia de salud pública atroz, y los propios niños dicen que es cosa de Instagram, y tenemos algunas pruebas de ello, entonces, ¿es apropiado decir, 'Nah, no lo has demostrado'?".El argumento no es infundado. De hecho, como analizamos en esta entrega, investigaciones internas de Facebook revelaron datos como que el 32 por ciento de las adolescentes dicen que, si se sienten mal con sus cuerpos, Instagram hace que se sientan peor.Con el agravante de que las compañías que administran la plataforma de Meta minimizan constantemente en público sus efectos negativos entre adolescentes.El sociólogo Chris Bail, que orquestó junto a Haidt la propuesta de investigación colaborativa, rescata un apunte que contribuye a darle complejidad al fenómeno global de las redes sociales.Para ello, cita dos investigaciones que se propusieron inferir las diferencias entre un grupo A, con perfiles activos en Facebook, y un grupo B, con sus perfiles en la plataforma desactivados, durante las cuatro semanas previas a unas elecciones. Una se realizó en Estados Unidos; la otra, en Bosnia y Herzegovina.Los resultados de las investigaciones fueron diametralmente opuestos.En su newsletter Platformer, el periodista Casey Newton aboga por esperar a la publicación de más estudios antes de sacar conclusiones definitivas o legislar muy en lo concreto. Cabe pensar que una ley que pretenda regular funcionalidades como las recomendaciones algorítmicas puede no tener las consecuencias deseadas y además atente contra la innovación.Aunque bien es cierto que las redes sociales están muy poco reguladas, especialmente en países como Estados Unidos.Ni qué decir que si eres un pesimista como Haidt, entonces la lucha por el futuro de las democracias se está batallando ahora mismo, así que habría que tomar medidas cuanto antes.Quizá la mejor conclusión la dejaba el investigador Matthew Gentzkow en una cita para el artículo de The New Yorker:“Hay muchas preguntas aquí donde la cosa en la que estamos interesados como investigadores es en cómo las redes sociales afectan a la persona promedio. Hay una serie diferente de preguntas donde todo lo que necesitas es que un número pequeño de personas cambie —preguntas sobre violencia étnica en Bangladesh o Sri Lanka, gente en YouTube movilizada para llevar a cabo tiroteos masivos. Mucha de la evidencia generalmente me hacer ser escéptico con que los efectos medios sean tan grandes como la discusión pública piensa que son, pero también creo que hay casos en los que un número pequeño de personas con perspectivas muy extremistas son capaces de encontrarse entre ellos y conectar y actuar. […] Ahí es donde residen muchas de las peores cosas de las que estaría más preocupado”.Así que sí, probablemente las redes sociales han tenido consecuencias negativas sobre la sociedad y sobre las democracias. Y sí, probablemente todos hayamos exagerado los efectos nocivos de algunas particularidades muy concretas de las plataformas. Pero lo que está claro es que:Necesitamos más estudios acerca de los efectos de las redes sociales en la sociedad.Las compañías deberían dejar a los investigadores tener más acceso a sus datos.Hay daños que sí se han demostrado y tanto legisladores como plataformas deberían actuar cuanto antes para atajarlos.¿Desea saber más? Los dos ensayos son lectura muy, muy recomendada. Este otro artículo del Council of Foreign Relations indaga en una crítica habitual a Haidt y sus conclusiones pesimistas: “Las redes sociales no nos han cambiado de forma fundamental, solo nos han permitido ser nosotros mismos. Han dado forma y color a la última erupción de nuestros lados más oscuros, que siempre estuvieron ahí, esperando a venir a la superficie de nuevo tal y como han hecho repetidamente cada pocas generaciones por razones y en un calendario que sigue siendo confuso”.🎬 Una recomendaciónCon la colaboración de FilminBy Emilio DoménechFeels Good Man es una película documental estadounidense de 2020 dirigida por Arthur Jones. Cuenta los inicios de la rana Pepe, convertida ahora en uno de los mayores memes de toda la historia de internet lejos de las manos de su creador original.La película invierte gran parte de su duración en explorar el uso que la extrema derecha online hizo del meme para propagar mensajes de odio.Es difícil encontrar documentales que hablen de internet de una forma elocuente y que al mismo tiempo se sientan significativos o incluso trascendentales. Feels Good Man, pese a no ser perfecto, encapsula a la perfección muchas de las corrientes que influencian la convivencia online y el impacto que la viralidad tiene en el mundo real.Además, ilustra con inteligencia y empatía la forma en la que el arte puede ser corrompido —y pese a los esfuerzos del artista por impedirlo.No conozco ningún otro ejemplo de un documental que haga un trabajo parecido a la hora de traducir la cultura de los memes para todos los públicos, así que Feels Good Man sin duda es una buena oportunidad para espectadores algo desconectados de lo que pasa en cavernas como 4chan.Los muy leídos en el tema también encontrarán gratas recompensas acerca de la historia de Pepe, por cierto un habitual de los emojis de nuestra comunidad de Discord y de mis streams.Feels Good Man está disponible en Filmin.🤳 Una plataforma realistaBy Marina EnrichLo importante: Hace meses que BeReal se ha convertido en la app por excelencia de la generación Z. Emilio no os ha hablado de ella, y yo, que la uso diariamente, me he sentido obligada a explicaros de qué va y por qué tiene tanto éxito.Contexto: BeReal es una App fundada por el francés Alexis Barreyat y que no tiene nada que ver con ninguna red social actual. Cómo funciona. En un momento aleatorio del día te saltará una notificación al móvil diciendo: “Es la hora de BeReal” para que subas una foto. A todo el mundo le llega la notificación a la misma hora. Hasta que no subas tu foto, no puedes ver la de tus amigos. La foto se capturará a la vez con la cámara frontal y trasera. Al día siguiente, todas las fotos habrán desaparecido.Lo más importante: Es una app antipostureo. No tiene filtros. No puedes falsear la realidad. Menos yo este fin de semana, que he esperado a estar en el festival Primavera Sound para subir mi BeReal (son las dos fotos que encabezan esta sección).Eso sí, BeReal no me ha dejado engañar a mis amigos. Al lado de mi foto, ponía que la he subido 5 horas más tarde, siendo así menos real.Por lo general, las fotos que subo cada día a la aplicación son trabajando en mi ordenador, igual que la mayoría de mis amigos. Puede parecer aburrido, pero para mí es un respiro ver a gente que no se pasa el día viajando, tomando el sol y haciendo deporte.¿Pasará de moda? Pues igual. Aunque la verdad es que esta aplicación responde a una tendencia general entre la generación Z de querer compartir contenido más auténtico (lo vimos con los finstas, esos instagrams privados que creas solo para tus amigos).El interés de esta generación por TikTok tampoco es aleatorio. La aplicación china acuna contenido mucho más auténtico y natural que Instagram, y esa es la razón por la que, en general, nos gusta más.Lo mejor. BeReal no crea adicción. Mientras que Facebook, Instagram y TikTok viven de la economía de la atención, intentando retener a sus usuarios la mayor cantidad de tiempo, BeReal es todo lo contrario. Una vez subes tu foto y ves la de tus amigos, la aplicación pierde el interés. Hasta el día siguiente.Lo interesante: ver cómo monetizan la app. Han recaudado 30 millones de dólares tras una ronda de financiación de la firma de capital de riesgo Andreessen Horowitz, por lo que algún cambio tendrán que hacer.Esperamos que se mantengan reales a su premisa original, je.En otro orden de cosas, hoy vuelve Lunes por el mundo con los resultados electorales en las legislativas de Francia y la crisis de hambruna en Somalia, entre otros titulares. Anita os hablará de la Cumbre de las Américas en la entrega premium del martes.Podrás seguir el directo a partir de las 20:00 hora peninsular de España en Twitch.Feliz semana, This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lawikly.com/subscribe

In 2019, Franklin Tao, a professor of chemistry at the University of Kansas, was arrested on suspicion of spying for the Chinese government. Tao's case was the first under a program called the China Initiative, a collaboration between the Justice Department, the F.B.I., and other federal agencies to combat what was perceived as a growing vulnerability to Chinese espionage, particularly in the realms of economics, technology, and academia. But Tao was never charged with espionage, and his became one of many controversial cases undertaken by the China Initiative, whose critics accuse it over pursuing unsubstantiated and overblown cases, and of stoking anti-Asian sentiment. Gideon Lewis-Kraus joins the guest host Evan Osnos to discuss Tao's case, the origins and impacts of the China Initiative, and the complexities of battling international espionage.

In January, n+1 Books released Missing Time, the debut essay collection by Senior Editor Ari M. Brostoff, which includes pieces originally published in Jewish Currents, n+1, and elsewhere. The titular essay reads Brostoff's preteen passion for the supernatural police procedural The X-Files alongside their nascent political consciousness, as they became a young communist (and then ex-communist). Tracing the relationship between the original run and the 2016 and 2018 reboots, the piece considers the gap between two recent historical epochs, when history seemed to stall and then sputter back to life. In the years since the essay's initial publication and the show's conclusion, more and more evidence of real-life UFOs has come to light, with the US government admitting last year that it can't account for these phenomena—or rule out extraterrestrial explanations. To celebrate the release of their book, Brostoff spoke with Editor-in-Chief Arielle Angel and Managing Editor Nathan Goldman—two recently converted X-Files fanatics—about the show's political potential, the nature of belief, and whether aliens are real. Books, Articles, and TV Episodes Mentioned: https://shop.nplusonemag.com/products/missing-time-by-ari-m-brostoff (Missing Time: Essays) by Ari M. Brostoff “https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-31/essays/missing-time-2/ (Missing Time)” by Ari M. Brostoff Missing Time: A Documented Study of UFO Abductions by Budd Hopkins “Aubrey,” The X-Files “Excelsis Dei,” The X-Files “The Lost Art of Forehead Sweat,” The X-Files “Jose Chung's From Outer Space,” The X-Files “https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html?searchResultPosition=4 (2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I've Ever Seen')” by Helene Cooper, Leslie Kean, and Ralph Blumenthal “https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html (Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money': The Pentagon's Mysterious U.F.O. Program)” by Helene Cooper, Ralph Blumenthal, and Leslie Kean UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean “https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-report.html (U.S. Has No Explanation for Unidentified Objects and Stops Short of Ruling Out Aliens)” by Julian E. Barnes “https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously (How the Pentagon Started Taking U.F.O.s Seriously)” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus “https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/20/ufo-obama-cbs-60-minutes-america-aliens (I've seen the saucers: Obama weighs in as US interest in UFOs rises)” by Adam Gabbatt Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens by John Mack https://mailchi.mp/00d5e56b3fbd/thursday-newsletter-5932619?e=f874fe4ad4 (Arielle's Shabbat Reading List recommendation of The X-Files) “https://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-xpm-2007-01-01-chi-0701010141jan01-story.html (In the sky! A bird? A plane? A … UFO?)” by Jon Hilkevitch  “https://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-ufo-getting-around-story.html (UFO report stirs believers, skeptics)” by Jon Hilkevitch “Berkshires UFO,” Unsolved Mysteries Thanks to Jesse Brenneman for producing and to Nathan Salsburg for the use of his song “VIII (All That Were Calculated Have Passed).”

Is there anybody out there? Max Pearson hears about a UFO sighting in rural Zimbabwe in 1994 and talks to Gideon Lewis-Kraus of the New Yorker about whether the US Pentagon is taking UFOs more seriously. Plus, the birth of communist China, a wind power pioneer, trailblazing Chinese students and a radical Syrian playwright. Image: Composite of children's illustrations of UFO, Zimbabwe 1994.

Alright, tell it to us straight - what's the deal with UFOs? In recent years, there's been a steady drip of reporting about UFOs that has penetrated mainstream culture, moving beyond The X-Files and straight into the Pentagon. A series of reports not only confirmed the existence of a government program dedicated to understanding UFOs, but also showed eye-grabbing footage of military encounters. So what do we know about them? And what exactly is the government up to? Gideon Lewis-Kraus set out to answer these questions in his phenomenal new piece in The New Yorker, How the Pentagon Started Taking U.F.O.s Seriously, and he joins to tell us what he learned.Read the latest piece from Gideon Lewis-Kraus on the new Pentagon report.

On a very special Crashing the War Party, Barbara, Dan and Kelley 'want to believe' …that our government will finally come clean with what it knows about UFO sightings dating back to the 1940s. We interview Gideon Lewis-Kraus about his exhaustive piece in the New Yorker, “How the Government Started Taking UFOs Seriously,” which reveals that while believers and sightings by Americans were being mocked, the government was studying the phenomenon all along. He also talks about the new legitimacy around the issue in the media and on Capitol Hill, and about the Congressional task force set to release its new findings this month. Don't miss!(“The Day the Earth Stood Still” (1951)(Screenshot/You Tube) Subscribe at crashingthewarparty.substack.com

Bill and Eddie introduce themselves and how they became interested in The Weird. Then they walk through a major New Yorker article on UFOs.    You can read Gideon Lewis-Kraus's article here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously   Here's the 2017 New York Times article that kickstarted the current UFO moment: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html   Reporting from The Intercept casting doubt on Luis Elizondo's past: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/

Tonight: The new depths of shamelessness for Mike Pence and others. Plus, what we know about the senior Trump-Org executive who is about to testify. Then, why Democrats defending the filibuster are defending a system perfectly rigged by and for Republicans. And how the Pentagon started taking U.F.O.s seriously. Guests: Connie Schultz, Michael Steele, Rebecca Roiphe, David Plouffe, Betsey Stevenson, Gideon Lewis-Kraus

Bryan Curtis and David Shoemaker are answering your Listener Mail! They touch on The New York Times’ interest in acquiring The Athletic, discuss Bob Garfield getting fired for violating anti-bullying policies, and answer which Texas food dish they miss most since leaving the state (4:00). Later, Gideon Lewis-Kraus joins to talk about his piece in The New Yorker, “How the Pentagon Started Taking U.F.O.s Seriously.” (32:06) They talk through how this story came about, how the pandemic affected the writing process, and the response to the piece. Plus, the Overworked Twitter Joke of the Week and David Shoemaker Guesses the Strained-Pun Headline of the Week.  Hosts: Bryan Curtis and David Shoemaker Guest: Gideon Lewis-Kraus Associate Producer: Erika Cervantes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

UFOs are having a renaissance. The New Yorker’s Gideon Lewis-Kraus explains what we stand to learn from an expected government disclosure, and why we want to believe. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained. Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Gideon Lewis-Kraus, staff writer for The New Yorker, talks about the history of the American government’s interest in unidentified flying objects and how the 2017 disclosure of a secret Pentagon program spurred a renewed interest among lawmakers in studying the phenomena.

Joe Nolan, veteran traffic reporter, his upcoming event at the Jersey Shore, how traffic reporting has changed , Gideon Lewis-Kraus, a staff writer at The New Yorker. He is the author of the memoir “A Sense of Direction” and the Kindle Single “No Exit.” speaks of  How the Pentagon started taking UFOs seriously.

Gideon Lewis-Kraus, a staff writer at The New Yorker. He is the author of the memoir “A Sense of Direction” and the Kindle Single “No Exit.” Topic: How the Pentagon started taking UFOs seriously

Dave and Chris are joined by New Yorker staff writer Gideon Lewis-Kraus to discuss the recent renewal of credibility for UFO sightings and the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Read Gideon’s new article “How the Pentagon Started Taking UFOs Seriously” here. Hosts: Dave Chang and Chris Ying Guest: Gideon Lewis-Kraus Producer: Isaac Lee

In June, the director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense are expected to deliver a report about what the government knows on the subject of “unidentified aerial phenomena,” more commonly known as U.F.O.s. The issue is nonpartisan: while he was the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, a Democrat, secured funding for a secret Pentagon project to investigate the subject; John Podesta, a chief of staff in the Clinton White House, argued for government transparency on the topic; most recently, the Republican senator Marco Rubio introduced language in last year’s Intelligence Authorization Act calling for the forthcoming report. This is a shocking turn of events. For generations, U.F.O.s were in the purview of late-night call-in radio shows and supermarket tabloids, not the Department of Defense. Gideon Lewis-Kraus reports on how this change came about. The journalist Leslie Kean, who published a bombshell story in the New York Times, explains how the C.I.A. got involved in casting doubt on U.F.O. sightings. Reid tells Lewis-Kraus that the Pentagon refused to authorize his inspection of contractor facilities which, it was rumored, held U.F.O. crash debris. And a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Christopher Mellon, says that the phenomena observed in many sightings cannot be explained as advanced technology built by one of our rivals. “I really doubt that the Russians or Chinese could be that far ahead of us,” he says. “It looks like centuries ahead.” So, whereas the word “aliens” still seems like taboo in serious conversation, he adds, “it's hard to come up with a hypothesis to explain that without considering the possibility that some other civilization is involved.” Gideon Lewis-Kraus’s “How the Pentagon Started Taking U.F.O.s Seriously” appears in the May 10th issue of The New Yorker. This segment features scoring by Pablo Vergara. Additional archival clips were provided courtesy of James Fox.

In New York and Florida, contact tracers are unable to track down guests who attended super-spreader events. In New Mexico, officials are pursuing court-ordered quarantines. Why won’t Americans comply with government rules? Wired magazine contributor Gideon Lewis-Kraus joins host Krys Boyd to talk about how other nations have more successfully contained the coronavirus thanks to a shared trust with citizens – and about what it will take for the U.S. to rebuild a similar level of trust. His article is headlined “How to Make Government Trustworthy Again.”

Gideon Lewis-Kraus is a writer at large for the New York Times Magazine, a contributing writer at WIRED, and a contributing editor at Harper's. He's the author of a travel memoir called A Sense of Direction, and he teaches nonfiction in the Graduate Writing Program at Columbia. Here, he talks with Jacob about ideal story length (100 pages, anyone?), why it took months to work out the structure of his latest NYT Magazine piece, how he uses detail, and more.

Kathleen Breitman, CEO of Dynamic Ledger Solutions, the company behind the Tezos protocol, and Ryan Jesperson, president of the foundation, discuss the Tezos initial coin offering, which was the largest ICO at the time of sale. Kathleen explains why she wouldn't do anything differently, except for the choice of foundation head, Johann Gevers, with whom Kathleen and her co-creator and husband, Arthur Breitman, ended up in multiple disputes. She muses as to why many people initially praised Gevers and then later revealed that he was not liked or that he'd defrauded them when they'd worked for him. Ryan and Kathleen also explain how they will attempt to help Tezos compete in the competitive smart contract platform space, despite the fact that Tezos is built in less well-known computer languages, and they explain why they've chosen delegated proof of stake as their consensus protocol, despite the criticism that it could create a plutocracy. Tezos: https://tezos.com Kathleen Breitman: https://twitter.com/breitwoman Ryan Jesperson: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-jesperson-23b0053a/ Thank you to our sponsors! Preciate: https://preciate.org Quantstamp: https://quantstamp.com The Sun Exchange: https://www.thesunexchange.com Podcast links: Wired story on Tezos: https://www.wired.com/story/tezos-blockchain-love-story-horror-story/ Unconfirmed episode with Gideon Lewis-Kraus, author of the Wired cover story: http://unconfirmed.libsyn.com/behind-the-tezos-scandal-conflicts-of-interest-self-dealing-and-bullying-ep024 Unconfirmed with Caitlin Long on Wyoming blockchain laws: http://unconfirmed.libsyn.com/behind-the-tezos-scandal-conflicts-of-interest-self-dealing-and-bullying-ep024

Kathleen Breitman, CEO of Dynamic Ledger Solutions, the company behind the Tezos protocol, and Ryan Jesperson, president of the foundation, discuss the Tezos initial coin offering, which was the largest ICO at the time of sale. Kathleen explains why she wouldn't do anything differently, except for the choice of foundation head, Johann Gevers, with whom Kathleen and her co-creator and husband, Arthur Breitman, ended up in multiple disputes. She muses as to why many people initially praised Gevers and then later revealed that he was not liked or that he'd defrauded them when they'd worked for him. Ryan and Kathleen also explain how they will attempt to help Tezos compete in the competitive smart contract platform space, despite the fact that Tezos is built in less well-known computer languages, and they explain why they've chosen delegated proof of stake as their consensus protocol, despite the criticism that it could create a plutocracy. Tezos: https://tezos.com Kathleen Breitman: https://twitter.com/breitwoman Ryan Jesperson: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-jesperson-23b0053a/ Thank you to our sponsors! Preciate: https://preciate.org Quantstamp: https://quantstamp.com The Sun Exchange: https://www.thesunexchange.com Podcast links: Wired story on Tezos: https://www.wired.com/story/tezos-blockchain-love-story-horror-story/ Unconfirmed episode with Gideon Lewis-Kraus, author of the Wired cover story: http://unconfirmed.libsyn.com/behind-the-tezos-scandal-conflicts-of-interest-self-dealing-and-bullying-ep024 Unconfirmed with Caitlin Long on Wyoming blockchain laws: http://unconfirmed.libsyn.com/behind-the-tezos-scandal-conflicts-of-interest-self-dealing-and-bullying-ep024

Gideon Lewis-Kraus, a contributing writer at Wired, came out with a cover story in the magazine earlier this week that investigated the actions of both sides in the Tezos boardroom battle. Lewis-Kraus walks us through the accusations on both sides and explains how the balance of the blame seems to lie with foundation head, Johann Gevers, who had numerous conflicts of interest, proposed an unjustified payment for himself and appears to have tried to revive his faltering company Monetas by riding on the coattails of Tezos's success with the ICO. Lewis-Kraus also tells us what he thinks are the big takeaways from the Tezos fight for other crypto entrepreneurs. Gideon Lewis-Kraus: http://www.gideonlk.com His Wired cover story: Inside the Crypto World's Biggest Scandal: https://www.wired.com/story/tezos-blockchain-love-story-horror-story/ Tezos: https://tezos.com Thank you to our sponsor! Onramp: http://thinkonramp.com

Mike Mills' new film asks the kids of Silicon Valley workers (the sons of Google's cafeteria line cooks; the daughters of engineers at Apple) about their relationship with technology and what the future looks like to them. The journalist and critic Gideon Lewis-Kraus sat down with Mills in San Francisco to discuss the film and the ways in which growing up in the corporate-technological landscape leads to a strange new worldview for these kids. From now until July 1, Organist listeners get an exclusive sneak peek at the full version of A Mind Forever Voyaging Through Strange Seas of Thought Alone at Believermag.com/mikemills. (password: BELIEVER)       Banner image: Mike Mills, A Mind Forever Voyaging through Strange Seas of Thought Alone: Silicon Valley Project (still), 2013; commissioned by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, courtesy the artist; © Mike Mills  

Gideon Lewis-Kraus’s memoir A Sense of Direction is an account of three pilgrimages – the Camino de Santiago, a tour of Buddhist temples on the island of Shikoku, and a journey to the tomb of a Hasidic Rabbi in the Ukraine – undertaken in the wake of a family crisis. Gideon was at the shop to talk about pilgrimage, writing and reconciliation with Sheila Heti, author of How Should a Person Be? and Christian Lorentzen, senior editor at the London Review of Books. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Libby Purves meets educationalist Sacha Corcoran; film fans Austin and Howard Mutti-Mewse; writer Gideon Lewis-Kraus and auctioneer David Probert. Sacha Corcoran is the new principal of Dv8 Academy which opens later this year. Based in East London, Dv8 Academy will teach 16 to 18-year-olds - specialising in the creative industries such as music technology, performance, fashion and event management. After a difficult start as a 16-year-old single mother, Sacha turned her life around and has worked in education since 1994. She was awarded a MBE this year for services to education. As children twins Austin and Howard Mutti-Mewse began writing to Hollywood stars including Lillian Gish, James Stewart and Ginger Rogers. The twins began writing these letters at 11. By 18 they were visiting their favourite actors at home and this unique access captured a bygone age of Hollywood glamour. Their new book, I Used to be in Pictures - An Untold Story of Hollywood, chronicles the life they experienced with some of the greatest names in feature films. I Used to be in Pictures - An Untold Story of Hollywood is published by ACC Publishing Group. Gideon Lewis-Kraus is a writer and journalist. Disillusioned with life as a Fulbright scholar in Berlin in 2007, he set out on three ancient pilgrimages. In his new book, A Sense of Direction, he recounts these journeys which take him from the Camino de Santiago in Spain to a solo circuit of 88 Buddhist temples on the Japanese island of Shikoku and finally to the tomb of a famous Hassidic mystic in the Ukraine. A Sense of Direction is published by One. David Probert is an auctioneer. His career started at Hereford's Old Livestock Market which closed three years ago. David is featured in Chewing the Cud, a documentary about the historic market which features the memories of local people who used it over the years. Chewing the Cud is showing at The Courtyard, Hereford as part of the Borderlines Film Festival. Producer: Paula McGinley.

What Happened to Sophie Wilder (Tin House Books) Christopher Beha, author of the memoir The Whole Five Feet, will read and sign his debut novel, What Happened to Sophia Wilder. "A thoughtful journey about the place of intellectual curiosity in relation to faith, friendship, and love." --Publishers Weekly "Christopher R Beha's What Happened to Sophie Wilder manages, somehow, to read both like an auspicious debut and a veteran achievement: it offers at once the vivid, old-fashioned pleasures of a classic bildungsroman and a frighteningly intelligent contemporary take on the ambitions and limits of storytelling and faith. It's a glass-and-steel penthouse on a foundation of oak, and the most memorable first novel I've read in some time." --Gideon Lewis-Kraus, author of A Sense of Direction Christopher R. Beha is an associate editor at Harper's Magazine and the author of a memoir, The Whole Five Feet. He contributes frequently to the New York Times Book Review. What Happened to Sophie Wilder is his first novel. You can purchase his books online here: http://tinyurl.com/9k6wn8j Photo of the author by Josephine Sittenfeld. THIS EVENT WAS RECORDED LIVE AT SKYLIGHT BOOKS JULY 13, 2012.

Gideon Lewis-Kraus, author of A Sense of Direction, interviewed by Aaron Lammer. Show notes: GideonLK.com Lewis-Kraus on Longform A Sense of Direction on Amazon "In Search of the Living, Purring, Singing Heart of the Online Cat-Industrial Complex" (Wired • Aug 2012) "Tokeville: On the Frontiers of Federalism and Dope" (Harper's • Dec 2009) "The Last Book Party" (Harper's • Mar 2009)

A Sense of Direction is Gideon Lewis-Kraus's account of pilgrimages that took him across Spain, around the Japanese island of Shikoku, and finally to a Hasidic religious festival in Ukraine.

A Sense of Direction by Lewis-Kraus (Riverhead) Magic Hours (McSweeney's) by Bissell Essayists Gideon Lewis-Kraus and Tom Bissell will discuss and sign their new respective books, A Sense of Direction and Magic Hours. Praise for A Sense of Direction: "A very honest, very smart, very moving book about being young and rootless and even wayward. With great compassion and zeal he gets at the question: why search the world to solve the riddle of your own heart?" —Dave Eggers "If David Foster Wallace had written Eat, Pray, Love, it might have come close to approximating the adventures of Gideon Lewis-Kraus. A Sense of Direction is the digressively brilliant and seriously hilarious account of a fellow neurotic's wanderings, and his hard-won lessons in happiness, forgiveness, and international pilgrim fashion." —Gary Shteyngart Praise for Tom Bissell's previous works: "Bissell is a Renaissance Man for our out-of-joint time… His descriptions of simulated gore and mayhem manage to be clinical, gripping, and hilarious all at once. He transmits to the reader the primitive, visceral excitements that make video games so enticing, even addictive, to their legions of devotees." —The New Republic "Written with such panache and laden with so much information that it rises to real seriousness… moves along as deftly as a novel… [A] combination of crack-up wit, wild ambition and preposterous youth." —The New York Times Book Review Gideon Lewis-Kraus has written for Harper's, The Believer, The New York Times Book Review, n+1, McSweeney's, BookForum, The Nation, Slate, and other publications. A 2007-2008 Fulbright fellowship brought him to Berlin, world capital of contemporary restlessness. For the moment he lives in Brooklyn. Tom Bissell is the author of Extra Lives, Chasing the Sea, God Lives in St. Petersburg, and The Father of All Things. A recipient of the Rome Prize, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and the Bay de Noc Community College Alumnus of the Year Award. THIS EVENT WAS RECORDED LIVE AT SKYLIGHT BOOKS MAY 21, 2012.

This is a supplemental episode of our podcast series, “The Podcast for Social Research.” While preparing for our previous podcast, I (Ajay) came across a piece that Gideon Lewis-Kraus had written critiquing an article by Columbia Professor Hamid Dabashi which, in turn, was a critique of Azar Nafisi's bestseller Reading Lolita in Tehran. I was quite taken aback by Gideon's piece both because (full-disclosure) Dabashi is my adviser but, perhaps far more importantly, I agreed so vehemently with Dabashi's original critique. Being the kind of institution we are, where we want to promote transparency and open, critical dialogue, we thought the best thing to do was to record a separate, brief podcast where Gideon and I got to revisit this episode, some six years later. What ensues is, we hope, an interesting discussion about politics, aesthetics, war, imperialism, writing-as-art, writing-as-industry, and a host of other issues. We have an appropriately brief Notations section