Podcasts about Higgins

Welcome to the Financial Freedom & Wealth Trailblazers Podcast! In today's episode, we're talking about how to build a retirement plan that helps you achieve financial security and retire with confidence. Dalene Higgins is a money coach and retirement strategist who helps women and couples over 40 stop worrying about retirement and start taking action so they can create the retirement they want sooner while still enjoying life today.She walked her own retirement journey for 15 years. Like many people, she wasn't handed a clear roadmap. She had to learn how to balance everyday life, competing financial priorities, and long-term goals while building a retirement plan that actually fit the life she wanted. Along the way, she discovered that retirement isn't just about saving more money, it's about creating a plan you believe in and can confidently follow.Today, Dalene helps her clients do exactly that. Through practical strategies, personalized guidance, and simple systems, she helps them gain clarity, make confident financial decisions, and build momentum toward a retirement they can truly look forward to.Dalene is the host of Wealthy After 40, a podcast where she helps Gen Xers answer questions like, “Will I have enough to retire?”, “Am I on track?”, and “What should I do next?” through practical retirement strategies, money management, and mindset shifts that make retirement possible.Connect with Dalene Here: https://www.instagram.com/elevate_finances/https://www.facebook.com/dalene.higgins/https://www.threads.com/@elevate_finances?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==https://www.elevatefinances.usGrab the freebie here: https://www.elevatefinances.us/calculator===================================If you enjoyed this episode, remember to hit the like button and subscribe. Then share this episode with your friends.Thanks for watching the Financial Freedom & Wealth  Trailblazers Podcast. This podcast is part of the Digital Trailblazer family of podcasts. To learn more about Digital Trailblazer and what we do to help entrepreneurs, go to DigitalTrailblazer.com.Are you a coach, consultant, expert, or online course creator? Then we'd love to invite you to our FREE Facebook Group where you can learn the best strategies to land more high-ticket clients and customers. QUICK LINKS: APPLY TO BE FEATURED: https://app.digitaltrailblazer.com/podcast-guest-applicationDIGITAL TRAILBLAZER: https://digitaltrailblazer.com/

New Zealand's milking it in the dairy market, holding our place as the world's largest single-country dairy exporter. Rabobank's World Dairy Map shows we accounted for 22.1% of global exports last year. It highlights global dairy trade grew by 11% across this time frame. Rabobank Senior Agricultural Analyst Emma Higgins told Mike Hosking that China is still the biggest customer in the global dairy space, but it's no longer the only growth story. She says that new growth markets are emerging in places like the Middle East, and closer to home in Southeast Asia. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Lunchtime Live's Reasons to be Happy looks at some of the news stories that you might have missed that will leave you feeling more optimistic.98FM's Cathal O'Sullivan joined Andrea in the studio to put a smile on your faces…

A weekly program produced by the Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg, Pa.   SHOW TITLE: From Hobby to Charism: Nicholas Higgins' Faith-Driven Musical Journey   SHOW DESCRIPTION: Musician and missionary summary Nicholas A. Higgins shares his journey of integrating music and faith, the importance of doing creative work for God, and practical advice for Catholic artists.   Nicholas Higgins - Official Website - https://nicholashiggins.com Tour Schedule- https://nicholasahiggins.wordpress.com/music/ SCRIPTURE: Romans 12:6 SAINT SPOTLIGHT: St. Hildegard of Bingen  

VPM News Host Lyndon German and BizSense Reporter Jonathan Spiers discuss the Richmond region's top business stories starting with an update on the Gilpin Court redevelopment, the merger of two local printing firms and the planned expansion of Morty's Market & Deli.

Ep 286 Peacewarts: Lab 7-11-26: Learning about Creative Commons licensing and CC BY-SA 4.0 In this episode, we look at the structural future of this project and why traditional copyright might not serve the ultimate goal of peace education. Avis shares that fictional Kitty tells Higgins that she is taking herself to lunch, and today she is taking herself out on a lunch date too! What is covered in this episode: The Peace Experiments:An introduction to the new book series, starting with the first installment, 1950s Duck and Cover. Homework Review:Going through the practical applications and responses from Classes 2, 3, and 4. A Historic Grounding:A reading of the final paragraph of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, exploring its timeless relevance to reconciliation. Useful Idiot: A look at recent live broadcast topics by Aaron Mate and Katie Halpern and the definition of “useful idios.” https://rumble.com/c/usefulidiots The Main Focus - Open Licensing:A deep dive into why this entire series is being released under an open license and why building a shared cultural commons is essential for spreading these concepts. Understanding Creative Commons: From Loosest to Tightest To help navigate the differences in open licensing, here is the quick spectrum of how these licenses operate: CC BY— Credit only; do anything. CC BY-SA— Credit + keep derivatives under the same open license. (This is the license chosen for The Peace Experiments). CC BY-NC— Credit + no commercial use (derivatives allowed). CC BY-ND— Credit + no changes (commercial use allowed). CC BY-NC-ND— Credit + no commercial use + no changes (the most restrictive; basically "share the exact file, non-commercially"). You can read the full license terms for the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-SA 4.0) at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Join the Community / Get the Books:AvisKalfsbeek.com Podcast Music: Javier Peke Rodriguez “Dalai Lama Rides a Bike”https://javierpekerodriguez.bandcamp.com/

2026 Houston Texans- "Believe it.. OR NOT!" Day #2! Young WR Higgins.. full 747 Fri, 10 Jul 2026 22:16:42 +0000 Mg3qfrJr8qBcbIBFHOEsgzLrOtBMS9QJ nfl,afc,cj stroud,houston texans,c.j. stroud,afc south,nfl news,texans,stroud,houston sports,nfl news notes,houston texans news,texans news notes,houston texans offense,jayden higgins,sports The Drive with Stoerner and Hughley nfl,afc,cj stroud,houston texans,c.j. stroud,afc south,nfl news,texans,stroud,houston sports,nfl news notes,houston texans news,texans news notes,houston texans offense,jayden higgins,sports 2026 Houston Texans- "Believe it.. OR NOT!" Day #2! Young WR Higgins.. The Drive with Stoerner & Hughley delivers high-energy Houston sports talk built for H-Town fans who want insight with edge. Former NFL quarterback Clint Stoerner teams up with Ron “The Show” Hughley to break down everything that matters in Houston sports — from Texans training camp storylines and NFL playoff races to Astros postseason pushes and Rockets rebuild updates. A must-listen for Houston sports talk, the show blends locker-room perspective, strong opinions and authentic fan energy while covering SEC football, UH hoops, college sports across Texas and the biggest headlines shaping the NFL and MLB. For passionate, informed and locally-focused Houston sports analysis, The Drive with Stoerner & Hughley keeps fans connected to the teams and stories that define the city. © 2026 Audacy, Inc. Sports https://player.amperwave

Labhraíonn Liam Óg Higgins le Seán faoi thurasanna a reáchtálann sé timpeall na tíre agus an méid atá bainte amach aige.

What, two Carol episodes in a row? This is one of those episodes where Higgins bugs out under suspicious circumstances. But he can’t run away from his past. Also he is most definitely not Robin Masters, so all you conspiracy theorists need to give it up already. Jason Snell, Philip Michaels and David J. Loehr.

Kitsy Higgins is a Manifesting Master and Intuition Expert who helps women create their dream life! After witnessing the impact she was making locally with her channeling business, she moved it online in 2017 to make a difference worldwide. During that time, she experienced a life-altering transformation that allowed her to reclaim her authenticity, confidence, power, and authority. When she's not spending time with her two boys, traveling the globe, or recording digital courses, she's organizing her two events in Pittsburgh: the 3 Rivers Psychic Fair and the Paris Affair!Visit Kitsy Higgins' Website: beginmydreamlife.com

What, two Carol episodes in a row? This is one of those episodes where Higgins bugs out under suspicious circumstances. But he can’t run away from his past. Also he is most definitely not Robin Masters, so all you conspiracy theorists need to give it up already. Jason Snell, Philip Michaels and David J. Loehr.

Rabobank senior agricultural analyst discusses the sharp fall in Global Dairy Trade prices and what it says about global milk supply. Plus, European heatwave impacts, New Zealand's record milk production and outlook for dairy farm margins.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Most fundraising galas leave money on the table for reasons the people running them never see.Chris Hensley and Brett Higgins, two of the most in-demand fundraising auctioneers in the country, join Trevor to work through five of the sharpest questions raised at the recent Chicago Gala Playbook event. What separates the organizations that consistently overperform from the ones that stay stuck at last year's number? Where does the fundraising actually break down in a program? And what does it look like to create inspiration to give without slipping into pressure?In this episode: the six-month mistake most nonprofits make (spoiler, it involves ignoring the data from last year's event), why "we don't want to ask for too much money" is almost always a symptom of a past bad experience, the difference between pressure and inspiration and when each has a place, the concept of "unspoken peer pressure" and how leaders in the room quietly move giving upward, why the witching hour at 9:15pm is real and what to do about your program timing, and the one thing organizations overestimate every year (the room, the dinner, the linens) versus the one thing that actually moves revenue.Plus: why Chris raised $1.2M against a $400K goal at a Relevant Radio event, and what "taking the lid off" the top ask can look like when the room is emotionally ready.Chapters:00:00 Intro01:41 Gala Playbook in Chicago09:25 Data-Driven Fundraising18:25 The Art of Asking23:00 Creating Inspiration to Give Instead of Pressure32:09 Creating a Unique Experience for Fundraising Events38:09 The Right Places to Focus43:32 One Piece of Advice You Would Give to a Nonprofit45:54 Bonus

Send us Fan Mail**

Episode 297- SCOTUS Win on Assault Firearms Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 15 Gun Lawyer — Episode 297 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court, assault weapons, Second Amendment, gun rights, New Jersey, NRA, firearm laws, Heller decision, McDonald, Bruen, reparations, gun control, concealed carry, Thomas Jefferson, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 1 Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, I have to tell you, this is just one of the greatest moments in what I would have to say in our fight to destroy gun rights suppression. It is just a banner time right now. Absolutely, a crescendo at a moment here that I’m just so excited about. Truly, truly excited, no joke. The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari, meaning accepted the case, so that it means there will be an opinion, a decision, a rule made by the Court finally on so-called “assault weapons”. (https://thereload.com/supreme-court-to-decide-constitutionality-of-ar-15-bans/) Evan Nappen 01:27 Yes, we’ve done it. We have finally gotten to where the U.S. Supreme Court is going to look at the impact of the Second Amendment on this issue. I can tell you that I’ve personally been battling and fighting in the state of New Jersey since it was first enacted in May of 1990. Looking back to those days, I remember just thinking, man, hopefully we’ll one day get the United States Supreme Court to deal with this issue. But back then there was no Heller decision. There was no Supreme Court decision that even said that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. We didn’t even have that back then. And when the anti-gun rights crowd embarked on this brand new approach, which it was at the time. Evan Nappen 02:38 To understand the history and where we are right now, why it just is so meaningful, you need to understand that the gun rights attack, the effort by our adversaries, to destroy our right to keep and bear arms, basically, in modern times, started after World War One. It was essentially imported here Page – 2 – of 15 from the U.K., from Great Britain. It had gotten its roots there, and it came across the pond like a cancer. It percolated to the point where by 1934 we ended up with the first National Firearms Act. Prior to ’34 but after World War One, you saw states passing state laws of what we commonly call gun control laws. And the gun control laws of those days first initiated through the ’20s, and we still have remnants of those laws still on the books, by the way, in New Jersey and other places. They were put forward by state legislatures and enacted, and those gun laws were mirrored and influenced and encouraged by what was taking place originally in Great Britain. Evan Nappen 04:22 These laws in America at that time period, and you may find this surprising, and it’s not meant to be bashing in any way of NRA. But they were even supported and promoted by the NRA at that time. The NRA had even put forward what were called the “model firearm laws”. They put model laws together that they wanted states to pass. The NRA saw its mission then in a naive, unfortunately, you know, very naive, as certain gun laws and such, that they would support. Now, since then, that’s not their position, and they’ve learned from this naive mistake. But it led to the 1934 Act, and we’ve suffered under that this entire time. It became the first national gun rights oppression law. Even at the time in the “American Rifleman”, you could read it, and they even praised it. They said, “Ah, and this is how they viewed it. You’ve got to understand, put yourself in the time. They said, “Ah, we’ve solved the gun problem in America.” We’ve passed this great national law, and now we’ve resolved it. We’ve solved it. We’ve addressed it. It’s done. And, of course, it was far from done. But for approximately 30 plus years, that was about it for our national laws on guns being passed. Evan Nappen 06:00 Then along comes the ’68 Gun Control Act, which built upon, to a certain degree, of course, built upon the NFA. We already had that national law and then the ’68 law. Then ’72 and then ’80s and ’90s, and etc. So that foundation got laid. And in between all this, what you mainly saw the fight as being, though, where the modern day focus, the modern day focus was handguns. I remember through the ’80s, before the invention, and that’s what it was, the invention of the “assault weapon” issue. It hadn’t been invented yet. Everything was, we only want to ban handguns. Handguns were the symbol of crime. Every news show on the major controlled networks, there weren’t any cables, you know. You just had ABC, NBC, and CBS, and you had their nightly news. And anytime they talked about crime, whether there was a gun involved or not, they always showed a handgun on the news screen anytime they talked about crime. So the propaganda was put there. Everything was about banning handguns, and the main gun rights oppression group of the day was known as Handgun Control. Handgun Control was a big group. You had players at the time like Pete Shields and others, and this is where the push was. Then along comes Josh Sugarman, who puts out his manifesto. Teddy Nappen 07:50 Closet hoplosexual. Evan Nappen 07:52 Right. His manifesto of the assault weapons and their accessories. And even in his manifesto, he writes that the American public will be fooled by this, because they don’t know the difference between machine guns and semi-autos. This lays the groundwork for this. And lo and behold, we have California Page – 3 – of 15 with Patrick Purdy and the massacre that occurred in that incident, and that’s all the blood they needed to dance in. Then the assault weapon laws became the biggest threat to our Second Amendment rights, and everything weirdly shifted, weirdly shifted, so that handguns, with the growth of concealed carry, which has been an amazing success for gun rights support. Handguns are not the big issue for banning, except for, of course, a modern day focus on Glocks, because they’re easily convertible, right? Except for that. You don’t see the push like you used to ban handguns. Evan Nappen 09:00 Of course, Heller took care of that as well. Saying you can’t. It’s unconstitutional to ban handguns, too. But the push on semi-automatic rifles under the contrived created term of “assault weapon”. They took the German of Sturmgewehr, which was the true original assault weapon, a medium power round in a long arm that’s designed for urban settings. It is select fire, both full auto and semi-auto. And causing this, creating this, and putting it with that scary “assault weapon” moniker to scare the public and sell it. And it was to their credit, to a certain degree successful. It was successful in a number of states that passed state laws, including New Jersey. They passed one of the one worst, most destructive, horrible gun laws that have ruined good people. We’ll talk more about that in a little bit. Evan Nappen 10:06 And even a federal law at one point through the 1994 bill that was a crime, which they call the Crime Bill, but I call the bill that was a crime. We had the first national assault weapon ban. That law sunset and went away in 10 years, which was 2004, and they’ve not been able to reenact another federal ban since. But that ban did end up living on, by the way, in the state of New Jersey, because New Jersey adopted the language of that to save New Jersey’s assault firearm ban from being declared unconstitutionally vague. Now that was started by a case that I did, State v. Merrill, where I had the law declared unconstitutional for vagueness because of the term “substantially identical”, which was undefined. What does “substantially identical” even mean? How can something be substantially and identical at the same time? It’s like saying almost exact. Nothing is almost exact. It’s either exact or it isn’t. And because of the vagueness of that term, it was found unconstitutional by Judge Michael Farron, Monmouth County. We knocked out the case. Evan Nappen 11:21 That case was then brought into federal court by the gun rights groups, and that’s where the Attorney General, in order to save it, adopted the 1994 federal crime bill standard that was feature specific. We still live by that today in New Jersey, as to what makes a compliant gun or not, as to the definition of “substantially identical”. The court said, well, now that you know the definition, it’s no longer vague, and therefore it’s constitutional, which is, of course, a judicial lie, a fallacy, a falsehood. Because what that means is that somehow in 1990 our legislators passed an unconstitutionally vague law that did not have definition and somehow knew that in 1994 the federal government would pass a law that defines the undefined law in New Jersey. That’s just ridiculousness squared. But nonetheless it is law, at least as it stands in New Jersey now. We saw other states and other counties constantly push on the so-called “assault weapon” ban, a focus being on the big bad AR-15. We’ve had fight after fight. Page – 4 – of 15 Page – 5 – of 15 Evan Nappen 12:35 And as our battle for Second Amendment rights continued through the courts, we got the trifecta. We got the Heller finding of what we all knew in our hearts was true, that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We got McDonald, which said this doesn’t just apply to the federal government, it applies to all states and localities. And then we got Bruen that laid out the test of constitutionality and gave us the requirement that carry permits must be issued, must be issued. With that buildup of having the trifecta, we’ve now gotten more cases from the Supreme Court that solidify this approach. And just now, in this moment in our lifetimes, the Supreme Court has finally accepted the challenge to the bans of so-called “assault weapons”. The name of the case. Teddy Nappen 13:36 Particularly those two cases. Evan Nappen 13:39 Yes, Viramontes v. Cook County, and Grant versus Higgins. Now, those cases, the Cook County case is the Illinois’ local county. It’s a local assault weapon ban ordinance, just an ordinance banning. And then the other case they took was in Connecticut, which is a statewide ban. Why do that? Well, what’s great is they’re going at anywhere and everything, whether it’s local or state. The challenge is across the board, as per McDonald. It’s incorporated both local and state. So we now have a certiorari grant combining two cases, and it isn’t just limited to Connecticut and this one local county in Illinois. Their decision will reach all localities, all states, and stand in the future with our win, that I am confident we will win, to stop future federal laws on this. Here’s the actual. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 14:52 I will point out that this is just something the we. I always keep an eye on, like all the arguments the Left always do. I always love the ad hominem attack, where they say. Well, this is just some Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which is they are a party to both cases. (https://saf.org/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-saf-assault-weapons-cases/) They’re the ones that brought the cases. Second Amendment Foundation was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition. They brought the Vermont. Evan Nappen 15:16 And second Amendment Foundation. Teddy Nappen 15:17 And Second Amendment Foundation, along with the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. They always try to say. Evan Nappen 15:21 Teddy, there are also individual plaintiffs that are very important, that have standing, that have gone this distance. So, this is actual people and organizations. Teddy Nappen 15:32 Yeah, astroturf. Page – 6 – of 15 Evan Nappen 15:32 Yeah, well, astroturf, that’s a joke. Teddy Nappen 15:36 Yeah, but that is. Evan Nappen 15:37 I mean. Yeah. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 15:40 Just to take that in. Throughout history, just look at the cases throughout, like some of the major Supreme Court cases. I think it was, what was it, either.. I think it was like maybe Plessy versus there was one regular Supreme Court case where it was brought by the, the.. it was about segregation. It was the train companies, where they’re trying to make sure they didn’t have to make extra cars for separating blacks and whites. And it was brought, and they actually set it up to have the case, to get the individual arrested for the segregation. It’s not the first time you’ve had organizations, and that’s throughout all, like a vast majority of cases where you have other. Evan Nappen 16:22 Listen, Teddy. Astroturf? Rosa Parks was a setup. Rosa Parks at the back of the bus, racial segregation. What do you think? It was engineered to make the challenge! Yeah, so don’t give me that. You want to put the issues forward and get the issues decided. Good, good. They have actual plaintiffs. They have actual people that are suffering under these laws, and they have organizations that represent vast amounts of members. It’s fine. It’s real. The assault firearm bans are real, and in New Jersey, their impact has been one of absolute destructive power. But let me just tell you what the court, just to close this, so we know exactly what they’re going to decide. Here is the question presented that they have granted certiorari on. Here it is, ready? Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess the AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles. This is great! One of the criteria that the antis are going to use, is they’re going to say, well, it has to be arms that are commonly possessed. Well, the AR-15 is the most commonly possessed rifle in America. As a matter of fact, folks, there are more AR-15s than there are Ford F150 pickup trucks! Let that sink in. Teddy Nappen 18:08 That was the other argument I’ve been seeing from The Trace. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/06/assault-weapons-bans-supreme-court-2a/) They just did their whole, you know, boo hoo, whining, and crying. It was from Chip Brownlee. Guess the first thing they highlight? This is the fight for the dangerous and unusual AR-15. Like that’s the common use. That’s the spin that they’re going to use. They’re trying to lay the groundwork on, is that whole idea of. Evan Nappen 18:34 Well, you know why? They don’t have historical analogs under the Bruen test anymore, that can help them. Their analogs have had their legs cut off. The one they loved was about the Black Codes, where they banned blacks from Bowie knives and guns, or whatever. And Alito, just in the recent opinion, made it clear that’s a tainted relic. It can’t be taken seriously. So, forget it. That analog is out the Page – 7 – of 15 window. They just revealed, based on research by Stephen Halbrook, that the precedent claimed for carrying – as a matter of fact, this was even in Kuhns. One of the precedents relied upon by the court was a law that never was a law. It was simply something in some Frenchman’s book that talked about it. But the actual law was not how they’re citing it at all. Their analogs are fraught with fraud, fraught with being completely tossed in the garbage can, and they know it. When it comes to that Bruen test of history, text and tradition. In order for a law to be upheld and found not to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, the Government has the burden of showing the past analogs that there were other laws that were like that law that make this new law acceptable. And they don’t have that. They do not have it. So, they’re falling back, Teddy, to it’s not common use. Well, that’s falls flat on its face. They’re falling back on what? What’s the classic? Why don’t you tell us? What’s the classic when all else fails for them to cry about? Teddy Nappen 20:34 Blood In The Streets. That’s Blood In The Streets. They always cite two BITS. We have to consider the gun violence when considering this. All that goes right to Brown. Evan Nappen 20:43 Public policy. They always go back to the public policy arguments, public policy, and guess what? That doesn’t cut it! That doesn’t justify infringement of the Second Amendment. That argument is dead in the water. It’s not the test. It’s not a balancing test. Balancing tests aren’t allowed. Done, dead, gone. You can’t balance public policy. Can’t do it anymore. They know they’re going to be crushed, and I cannot wait for that day. I cannot wait till, at the latest, it’ll be next June. We’re going to have a decision that removes finally. I know it in my bones. Gets rid of, ends this travesty called the “assault weapon” ban. Let me tell you something. These laws have destroyed good people. These laws have created more harm than they claim the firearms themselves have created, especially in states like New Jersey. Evan Nappen 22:00 It isn’t just that an individual can’t have that gun or this gun. It’s the aggressive insanity of enforcement destroying people’s lives. If you get convicted of possession of an “assault firearm” in New Jersey, right? An AR-15 that has a bayonet mount on it and a pistol grip. You are now guilty of possession of an “assault firearm” because of a bayonet mount. You’re looking at 10 years in State Prison with a minimum mandatory three and a half years. No chance of parole. Three and a half years – minimum mandatory, folks. No way around it. No way. If you’re convicted of that, the judge has zero discretion. You can be Mother Teresa, and you’ll have to get three and a half years minimum mandatory in State Prison because you had a gun that had a bayonet mount and a pistol grip. You can only have one offending feature, and the pistol grip is one offending feature, right out of the box. And you had two because your other one was a bayonet mount. You know how important bayonet mounts are to crime. I mean, come on. What about all the drive-by bayonetings we have to take care of here, right? Folks, that’s how they.. Teddy Nappen 22:00 I think you also. Just looking at the future, because from the facts of where everything’s lined up, yeah, we’re going to win. And just seeing that right now, the way things lay out, I look to. Page – 8 – of 15 Evan Nappen 23:45 Well, we don’t want to be overconfident, but we. Teddy Nappen 23:48 I understand. Fine, cautiously optimistic. Evan Nappen 23:52 But I am cautiously optimistic. I am incredibly cautiously optimistic with an emphasis on optimistic. Teddy Nappen 23:59 I always look to what is left of their, what would be the next step, then on there on the gun right suppressionist? Because the only thing I could think of is they’re just going to try to put. Evan Nappen 24:09 Wait, wait, wait. Hold that thought for a minute. I just want to finish about the other destruction that has occurred. Like I said, it’s not just that you get arrested and you’re charged with assault firearm. Then you’re thrown in the Gulag, and they want to hold you until your trial. You’re going to spend at least a week, even if your lawyer can get you out before your trial. You have that fight. Then they use it as a licensing disqualifier. If you had an assault firearm, you’re banned from ever having guns again. It doesn’t matter. It’s an assault firearm. On top of that, they have made assault firearm possession not releasable under the Gulag. Remember, we’ve talked about this. It becomes a criteria where there’s a presumption for you to be held in jail. Presumption in favor all over this nonsense. So, you see it’s far-reaching, and what happens when someone inadvertently gets involved in this? Your life gets destroyed. You lose your career. You lose your family. You can lose your freedom. You lose your gun rights, and it’s devastating to people. And then there are those that are doing hard time because they are otherwise lawful possessors. It doesn’t matter. They’re doing the time, having their life destroyed, and having been turned into felons. Evan Nappen 25:40 So, let me just say this. After this decision is a tremendous win for our gun rights and for civil rights, because it’s in the same category as the First Amendment, folks. It’s in the same category as a fundamental right under the Bill of Rights. What I want to see after that decision is reparations to gun owners. That’s right. Reparations to gun owners. You know, they talk on the other side about reparations for slavery to generations later that were never slaves, and they want reparations. Here we will have reparations to individuals who are still alive and have suffered. To anybody that had to give up one of their guns that never should have had to. To those that went into the Gulag and suffered that never should have. To those who have done State Prison sentences that never should have. To those who have lost their gun rights, who have had their families, their lives, their freedom, and their fortunes, all destroyed. Reparations to them. Wait till after this decision comes down. Then we push for reparations. We don’t let it end. Oh, sure. Is that difficult? Will it be hard? Yeah, but it’s no more hard, and frankly, less, way less, of an ask than those asking for reparations for slavery, where we don’t even have the victims of that alive today. Page – 9 – of 15 Teddy Nappen 27:09 It’s also very easy to quantify, because you go into just the legal fees that were brought, the time in jail. Plenty of people have sued and won on those cases. So, it’s something you can actually determine, as opposed to generational racism. It’s ridiculous, as ridiculous sounds, but to this end, where someone who had their life destroyed because of the gun control that they have pushed over the years. Evan Nappen 27:39 That was utterly a violation of our fundamental rights and Second Amendment civil rights. It absolutely is going to lay groundwork for at least tremendous litigation, and really we should have eventually a federal reparations law requiring states to pay that ever had these laws. To compensate individuals who suffered under their tyranny. So, Teddy, you had something else to mention. I know you did. Teddy Nappen 27:39 Yes. So, the one thing I was looking at, whenever I always look to our opponents, because I try not to think of them as being stupid. Even though they are pretty retarded on a lot of different fronts, but they always keep pushing. And I remember this term for it, of what they were described. The Left and the Marxists are line steppers. They go with the idea of what can we get away with, what can we push for, because they always go for that. It’s always just progressivism for progressive sake. Cut to trans ideology. Cut to, you know, we’re going to take your children away and then transition them. Cut to any form of the Left in its insanity. Teddy Nappen 28:16 I always think what will be the next push, and I can see it right now. Repealing the Second Amendment will be the next step. Evan Nappen 28:16 100 percent. Teddy Nappen 28:36 Yes, that will. That’s the only. The only thing I can think of is what they did to Penny, what they did to all the other self-defense cases that we’ve had. Fine, you can have your firearms, but if you ever use them, we will drag you through the courts. We’ll make your life a living hell. We will make it so that people will want to murder you and come to your house and dox you. That’s the only thing at this point. That’s all they have. They are the party of violence, that is shown. You have doxing websites they run. That is the only two avenues I can see for that, and also suing the gun shops into oblivion, which we need to do something with the, I think, what is it, the PLCAA, where it’s the protection. Evan Nappen 29:59 Yeah, PLCAA. (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) Right. Teddy Nappen 30:02 We need to improve and expand PLCAA, and just say no. Stop wasting the state’s money. So, I don’t know what the test would be, but we need to. Page – 10 – of 15 Evan Nappen 30:12 Well, the fight will definitely change, and you know, the gun rights oppressors are not going to give up. But. Teddy Nappen 30:21 Of courses not. Evan Nappen 30:21 It will absolutely take away one of their actually most successful modern gun rights oppression tax. This will be one of. This will destroy what has actually been one of their areas of success, to be honest. They have succeeded in multiple states, and even at one point federally over this. This will destroy it, kill it, and they’re going to be knocked back on their heels very hard by it. And then we need to finish the job. Evan Nappen 31:00 Repeal Hughes Amendment. Evan Nappen 31:01 We need to go at reparations and make it so that when any of these governments decide to embark on rights violations, that down the road we make them pay. We just don’t kill the law. We just don’t knock it out, so that it no longer has effect. We have to make them pay for what they did to good people, and we do that through reparations. Teddy Nappen 31:29 We should also repeal the Hughes. Amendment. Evan Nappen 31:31 That’s going to build. Once you get this case, then, of course, the rest of NFA, any other hardware bands, all these things are going to be on the table. We will have even stronger, better case law to take it all out as the house of cards built by the gun rights oppressors collapses. Hey, and by the way, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot, and that is, of course, where we get our training. And I want to tell you that they are offering New Jersey concealed carry, so you can get your CCARE so you can get your carry permit out of Jersey. They have a new price for their CCARE. It’s incredible. It’s only $225! You can sign up at WeShoot and get their carry course, and it is great. You’ll get your PTC certification, and they really set the gold standard there at WeShoot. You’ll be able to get re-qualification, too. This is the training that police departments use. They’re also USCCA and NRA backed courses. It’s all combined. This is where you can reserve and get it done, so you can get your carry. Evan Nappen 33:03 Particularly now where we’re knocking out “sensitive places”, as we just did with the Wolford case, which actually impacts New Jersey “sensitive places”. We’re going to see more and more availability of where we can carry, and every carry permit holder is another vote for carry. Probably by now, we are well over 100,000 carry permits in New Jersey. You know, it used to be 600. Literally just 600 carry Page – 11 – of 15 permits. Not 600,000. Six hundred. And now we’re in the 100,000 or damn close, if not over it, of permit carriers. I just showed you how their oppression law was so successful before, and after Bruen, it’s dead. Evan Nappen 33:50 So, go to weshootusa.com. Check out We Shoot, and I know you’ll love WeShoot, too. They have great training, and not only can you get your New Jersey permit certification, your CCARE, but they also offer special training to get that for seniors, 65 or older. They have a special deal for seniors – only $185. You can get your training there. They also offer New York City non-resident carry. They are offering New York City non-resident carry. They have it at a fantastic new low price of $289, and you can get your New York City carry, which also covers New York State non-resident carry permit. They’ll do all the training, and this is really great. Anthony Zalo will be doing this course. It spans two days, and it covers firearm safety and storage, pistol ammunition basics, de-escalation techniques, federal and state law, live fire training. If you’re seeking even more certifications, they offer Maryland Wear and Carry Certification, as well as Washington, D.C. carry permits for just $150 each. On Tuesday, August 4, they will be holding their New York resident and non-resident carry courses. Evan Nappen 35:37 WeShoot also has Civilian Shoot House Training. This is really cool. Their Civilian Shoot House Training, so you can understand how to clear rooms, move with purpose, and make decisions under pressure. This is great for homeowners and parents and security team. Anybody who’s serious about protecting their home and community, check out WeShoot’s Civilian Shoot House Training. They have that scheduled out. You can sign up for Friday, July 31st for that Training. They also have adult CPR / AED and Stop the Bleed, so that you know how to treat wounds. They’re offering that training on Monday, July 20. And for new shooters, they have great training called “From Nervous to Bullseye”. If you’re entry level, you want basic training. Here’s what you can do. They’re also offering weekend classes, and you can “Hit Your Weekend Target” with their great instructors – Grant Gallagher, Tony Zollo, and Lance Hubeny. They’re all there. Sign up at WeShoot. They are a phenomenal resource. We’re talking here about WeShoot in Lakewood. They offer USCCA and Sig Sauer Academy – “Close Quarter Defense Fundamentals. I mean, can you believe this? Just fantastic training. Make sure you check out weshootusa.com. You’ll love the range, you’ll love the pro shop, and you’ll love the people. They are the best. Go to weshootusa.com today, and take a trip down to Lakewood. They are right there in Central Jersey, conveniently off the Parkway. You’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 37:40 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of Jersey Gun Law, and you need to get your copy today. Go to EvanNappen.com and get a copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It’ll help keep you from being a GOFU. Hey, we are now celebrating, of course, the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This is a great moment in our history where that fantastic, earth shattering, world changing, humanity changing, document was signed and began the birth of our wonderful America, the greatest country on earth. I have nothing but reverence for our Founding Fathers and our Founding documents, and celebrate 100%. Page – 12 – of 15 Evan Nappen 38:48 Let me tell you about the author. Of course, the Committee of Five technically authored The Declaration, but the majority of the credit is given to, and I hope you know this, Thomas Jefferson. But let me tell you about how great Thomas Jefferson was. Not just because of his phenomenal presidency, his assertion of our national reputation against the Muslim pirates, the pirates of the day, standing up to them, and also the Louisiana Purchase, and so many amazing things under Jefferson. And, of course, the Declaration of Independence. But let me tell you something else about Thomas Jefferson. I want you to know, when it comes to firearms, Thomas Jefferson was one of us. He couldn’t be more one of us. Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest gun owning founding fathers to live. Evan Nappen 40:04 And let me read you, especially on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The man who wrote that and made us so where we are today, we can be proud and free. Listen to some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, specifically about guns. Here’s a great quote from Thomas Jefferson. “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Yeah, he said that. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. That’s from Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Constitution draft of 1776. Here’s another phenomenal quote by Thomas Jefferson. “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Let that sink in, folks. He preferred dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. He wrote that in a letter to James Madison in 1787 . Here’s another great quote from Thomas Jefferson. “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” That’s right. Enemies, foreign and domestic, my friends. You heard what Jefferson said. Evan Nappen 41:40 “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Pure common sense spoken by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, quoting the 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria. Here’s another quote from Thomas Jefferson. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” Let that one sink in, folks. Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Peter Carr from August of 1785. Evan Nappen 42:27 “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; and they may exercise it by themselves, and that is their right and duty to be armed at all times. Let all those quotes from Thomas Jefferson sink in. Think about them as we celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the man that was the chief engineer of that document and how that man viewed our Second Amendment rights. Page – 13 – of 15 Teddy Nappen 43:43 I will also say, like, I don’t know if you did. Did you ever get to go to Monticello? Did you and Mom get to go? Evan Nappen 44:09 Thanks for mentioning it. No, that is on my bucket list, and I’m going there. My wife went. You’ve gone. Teddy Nappen 44:18 No, I didn’t. I didn’t get to go. Evan Nappen 44:20 What? You didn’t either? Teddy Nappen 44:20 Nope. Just Mom. Evan Nappen 44:21 Teddy, you and I have got to go. Teddy Nappen 44:23 Just Mom got to go. That’s why. Evan Nappen 44:25 This is just wrong. I’ve got to go to Monticello. I’ve meaning to get there. And it’s bugging the hell out of me. Teddy Nappen 44:33 If you ever do go there, they have his pistols. His famed pistols that were, I think, gifted to him. (https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/firearms) Yeah, his famed twin pocket pistols that were gifts from, I believe it was a pair of Turkish pistols received from General Isaac Zane in place of a monetary bequest. Evan Nappen 45:07 Bequest. He gifted him these pistols. Teddy Nappen 45:11 Okay. Evan Nappen 45:12 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 45:14 It was also kind of interesting that Jefferson loved to go out and do competition shoots. He would do a lot of them, and he was a fairly good marksman. There were marks in his letters showing that he noted Page – 14 – of 15 in his accounts, I won a shooting in one of six, it was a muster with Captain Jacob Moon’s Albany County Militia Company. He lost two to six, but as he grew older, his limited exercise. He moved more to firearms and hunting over his horseback riding. He even had designs, and there was accounting of a double-barreled gun lock that he had drawn. So, there’s various other bits in his accounts. Evan Nappen 46:01 Like I said, he’s one of us, man. One hundred percent. Hey, this is wonderful, an incredibly important part of our heritage and our tradition. Jefferson stands tall. All the Founding Fathers were, of course, gun owners and knew the importance of arms, but Jefferson is special, without a doubt. Jefferson is special. Evan Nappen 46:32 And you know, Teddy, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU. This is a GOFU that every time in the practice of gun law, there’s something new. Some other GOFU that I’d not even heard about before, and it just blows me away. It constantly gets crazier and worse, and I want everyone to understand this GOFU, which is, of course, a Gun Owner Fuck Up. Where individuals are now experiencing expensive lessons, or have experienced expensive lessons that you can hopefully avoid for free by listening to Gun Lawyer. Evan Nappen 47:16 So, this week’s GOFU concerns the following. We have a couple, a husband and wife, that are not getting along well with one another, and okay, it happens, right? It happens. Well, it ends up where at some point there’s a fight, and like the old kind of comedy issue you’ve seen on TV, where often it’s the woman, it doesn’t have to be, but often is, throws the husband’s clothing or the belongings out the window to get out. That kind of a thing. Well, in this case, apparently his firearms were tossed out onto the lawn. I guess it sends a message as to throwing out things that the other party believes they care about. But whatever. I’m not going to get into the psychology of it. The bottom line is that this takes place. What happens? Well, it ends up where the police get involved. The police get involved because it falls under the so-called banner of domestic violence. Anytime there is domestic violence, police are called in over any claim of domestic violence, and it’s so broad. Remember, domestic violence could be anything, even harassment, which the essence of which is doing something to purposely annoy another. Now, I know none of you have ever purposely annoyed your spouse or your boyfriend or your girlfriend, but if you did, then you arguably committed domestic violence for harassment. Evan Nappen 48:57 Anyway, that can bring the police into your lives, and this is where you get to live the famous saying of Ronald Reagan. “We’re here from the Government, and we’re here to help.” And, of course, that was one of the best, most sarcastic things that Reagan ever said. Because we’re here from the Government and we’re here to help, is of course the exact opposite. And that’s what happened here. The Government gets involved, and both parties are questioned over various allegations. It doesn’t matter what. The bottom line is that the domestic violence forms are filled out where the issue is documented, and the wife is asked, do you want a restraining order? And she wisely says no. This is internal. They’re squabbling, or whatever. She doesn’t need a restraining order. The husband, who related his whole side of everything there too, is asked, “do you want a restraining order? And he wisely said no, as well. Page – 15 – of 15 Evan Nappen 50:11 So, now you have a couple that are trying. They’re going to do whatever, but they don’t want restraining orders. They don’t want the Government in their life. They’re not interested in that. But what happens? The Government files Red Flags, TERPOs, Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Orders on both of them. Neither of them wanted a restraining order. Neither one wanted it, but it didn’t matter. The Government now files to take away both of their gun rights. To take away their guns and put them on a list of extreme risk. This puts you on a database that could even arguably be accessed by TSA or others that you’re a danger. It has farther reaching collateral consequences than just taking guns and taking away your gun rights. Putting you into the court system now to have to individually fight TERPOs, because we’re from the Government and we’re here to help. That, my friends, is the GOFU. Keep it in mind at all times about being from the Government and there to help. Especially on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Evan Nappen 51:37 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Even Thomas Jefferson knew that. Speaker 3 51:50 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E297 Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell chapter 28 "Comfort in Sorrow" narrated by Isaac BirchallSubscribe on YT or Join the Book Club on KO-FI and support me as an independent creator :D⁠https://ko-fi.com/theessentialreads⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOFfvo05ElM96CmfsGsu3g/join⁠Summary:Margaret goes to the Higgins' house to see Bessy's body. She is glad that she came. Bessy, whose face was so often tormented by pain, is finally at peace. Margaret is calm but deeply affected by the scene. Downstairs, they come down and see Mr. Higgins, where he looks wild, and like he is struggling to process the news he has heard. He asks Margaret if she was with her when she died. Then asks if she really has died, or has just fainted, like at previous times. Margaret thinks that he has been drinking a little. He breaks down into tears and hurls himself onto the table, which shakes under his wails. Mary goes to him, but she is shoved away by her father. After he calms a little, he makes his way to the door. Mary goes to stop him, proclaiming that Bessy's last words were to keep their father from drink. Margaret steps in front of the door, not moving a muscle, and standing her ground. At last, Higgins gives in. Margaret asks him to come upstairs and see his daughter, and though uncertain, he goes. Following this, Margaret asks him to come and have tea with her father. They go to the Hale residence. Mr. Higgins suggests that he should have washed himself and while Margaret agrees, she doesn't want to leave him alone, where he could sneak off to a Gin House. Margaret runs in first to warn her father, and though he is very concerned after all Margaret had said about the man, he consents to sit with him. Margaret goes to her mother. Mrs. Hale is very worried about the letter that Margaret sent to Frederick. She is worried that he will be captured if he comes to England. Margaret, and especially Dixon, manage to calm her down though, Dixon stating that she was thinking of writing to him anyway. Once properly calmed, Margaret goes to sit with her father and Mr. Higgins. Her father and Mr. Higgins are engaged in a deep conversation, which only breaks for Mr. Hale to give his daughter a chair. They talk deeply about religion and politics, and Mr. Hale tells Higgins that he has no goal to convince him today, or tomorrow, but believes that the truth will come out over time. The conversation gets a little heated, but Margaret very gently calms him with soothing words. Eventually, the conversation moves onto the strike, which Higgins says has failed. The riot caused the strike to fail, which made Higgins incredibly angry at Boucher and his like. Margaret asks him questions about the Union, and states that she feels that the Union can be just as worse as the Masters, but she understands the need to for one. Before Higgins goes home, Home as Margaret verified, Mr. Hale asks Higgins to pray with them. SEO stuff I don't want to do. Elizabeth Gaskell's classic, "North and South" sees Margaret Hale's live uprooted as her family moves to the north of England. Initially disgusted by the ugliness of the industrial town of Milton, Margaret develops a strong sense of social justice after seeing the poverty and suffering of local mill workers.

(SPOILER) I begin by talking about the latest from Love Island, Taylor Frankie Paul has a legal matter awarded in her favor, and Nick Viall's rant on former producer Julie LaPlaca. Then Tess joins me (8:25) to discuss all things Love Island this season as we head down the home stretch, the overtly sexual behavior, Bryce & Trinity, Aniya and KC, Movie Nights tone, and much, much more. Music written by Jimmer Podrasky (B'Jingo Songs/Machia Music/Bug Music BMI)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two historic Second Amendment cases challenging AR-15 bans. Mark Walters explains Grant v. Higgins, Viramontes v. Cook County, Bruen, Heller, and why this could become the most important gun rights ruling in modern history.

This week, there's a verdict in the killing of O'Shae Sibley, a new analysis questions how The New York Times has covered trans rights, and we're celebrating Black queer excellence from the Native Son Awards to our latest WNBA check-in.In Am I A Bad Queer?, we're talking surviving the honeymoon phase without abandoning your friends, navigating income differences in a relationship, and what acceptance really looks like when your family refuses to acknowledge your partner. Plus, Bad Queer Opinions on bandwagoning in women's sports and whether the price of Pride is getting too high.Shoutouts:Kris: Xula Herbs is LGBTQ, Latina and Black-owned hemp brand. Born out of Mexico City, their mission is to utilize the ancestral knowledge of plant-based healing practices and combine it with modern CBD science to uplift “all bodies left out of our society's gaze”. Follow on IG: @xulaherbsShana: The book “A Little Kissing Between Friends” by Chencia C. Higgins. A contemporary, friends-to-lovers sapphic romance about a music producer, Cyn, and her best friend, Jucee, a dancer, who realize their close bond might be more than platonic, risking their friendship for a chance at love. Follow and support Chencia @chenciachiggins on IGEpisode notes:1:07 - Queer Urban Dictionary2:41- Category is: O'Shae Sibley's killer is convicted8:17 - Category is: The New York Times Helped Turn Trans Rights Into Political Controversy, Analysis Finds17:15 - Category is: Native Son Awards Marks 10 Years of Black Queer Excellence19:44 - Category is: WNBA updates39:08 - Am I A Bad Queer?59:22 - Bad Queer Opinions 1:14:57 - ShoutoutsShare your Am I A Bad Queer? hereSupport the showPATREON: patreon.com/BadQueersPodcastSubscribe to our Youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/@BadQueersPodcast The opinions expressed during this podcast are conversational in nature and expressed only for comedic purposes. Not all of the facts will be correct but we attempt to be as accurate as possible. BQ Media LLC, the hosts, nor any guest host(s) hold no liability over the conversations on this podcast and by using this podcast you understand that it is solely for entertainment purposes. Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, scholarship and research.  

Most hunters hang a tree stand and hope for the best. Don Higgins explains why that's not enough. In this episode of Chasing Giants, Don shares several habitat improvements that can transform an average stand location into a consistent mature buck hotspot. Learn how simple changes—including sprayed travel corridors, habitat manipulation, and stand setup—can dramatically increase your odds this fall. We also discuss: • Why July 1st is Don's favorite time to deploy trail cameras • The upcoming world premiere of Doubting Thomas • Grubb Implement's new Kubota tractor • Darren Bailey joining Chasing Giants • Boone Brothers and feeding hungry children through donated venison • Ivermectin and deer health • Pellet feed myths • Thermal drones and modern deer hunting • Listener Questions If you're preparing for deer season, this episode is packed with practical advice you can use immediately. Podcast Sponsors Asio Gear Real World Wildlife Products Hawke Optics Novix Outdoors Midwest Land Group 360 Hunting Blinds Mike's Mighty Micros Gingerich Tree Farms TagOut Technique Grubb Implement Brenton USA Mathews Archery Victory Auto Group Wildlife Farming WiseEye Technologies © 2026 Chasing Giants Podcast. All rights reserved. This content, including audio, video, graphics, logos, and written material, may not be copied, reproduced, redistributed, or republished in whole or in part without expressed written permission from Chasing Giants Podcast.

For our 200th episode of In My Humble Opinion, we're bringing it back to where it all started.Dante Higgins was the very first guest to sit down with us, and now he returns alongside producer and songwriter Mark Byrd for a full circle conversation about growth, artistry, and Houston hip hop.Hailed by the Houston Press as "Houston's underappreciated man of the people," Higgins has spent more than a decade building a reputation as one of the city's most respected lyricists, known for his introspective storytelling and vivid portrayals of life on Houston's Southside. Throughout his career, he has collaborated with artists including Paul Wall, Propain, Doughbeezy, Tawn P, M.A.C., and MC Beezy while carving out a lane rooted in authenticity and substance. (Houston Press)Joining him is Mark Byrd, a Grammy nominated producer and songwriter whose résumé includes work alongside Kanye West, Dr. Dre, Lil Wayne, 2 Chainz, Big K.R.I.T., CyHi, and Jeremih. Together, the duo discusses why regional identity still matters in rap, the intentional process behind their upcoming project, Southside of the Astrodome, and how years of studying the craft have shaped their approach to making music.It's a fitting way to celebrate 200 episodes: reconnecting with the artist who helped launch this journey and highlighting a creative partnership that is producing some of Houston's most thoughtful and intentional music.

North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell chapter 25 "Frederick", narrated by Isaac BirchallSubscribe on YT or Join the Book Club on Patreon and support me as an independent creator :D⁠https://ko-fi.com/theessentialreads⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOFfvo05ElM96CmfsGsu3g/join⁠Summary:Margaret reflects on her relationship with Mr. Henry Lennox and is at least relieved that he seemed only to have a lapse of judgement. With Mr. Thornton, they never had a stage of friendship. She truly cannot understand his feelings and feels even stranger about his statement of continuing his love for her in spite of her refusal. She tries to hide from the idea, but she cannot get it out of her mind. She stays in the room where he left her for a while. All is quiet in the house. Margaret refuses to be alone and decides that she should go to see Bessy Higgins. Bessy is lying by the fireplace, and Margaret sits the girl up so she can be more at ease. She is much worse, and Margaret excuses herself for not coming the previous day, almost letting slip that she was at the Thornton residence. Margaret goes to read her a chapter of the bible, but Bessy is restless and the bursts out with some talk about the riots. It seems that her father wasn't at the riots, and that the union told everyone that no matter what happens, they should not resort to violence, it would make everyone's problems much worse and works against the strikers. Mr. Higgins went to Boucher's the night before, as he was an instigator of the violence, and told him that he would be turned over to the police and the mill owners for his actions. Margaret corrects Bessy and tells her that Boucher was not the first person to react, letting slip that she was at the Mill. Boucher apparently punched her father and ran away, causing Bessy to throw herself at her father's feet and beg him not to go. After Bessy gets this information off of her chest, she is a lot calmer and receptive to hearing a chapter of the bible. At home, Margaret finds her mother awake and full of praise for the waterbed. She says that it is the best bed she has slept on since she was staying at the Beresford residence. She wonders how it is that people have forgotten how to make comfortable beds. She asks Margaret if she remembers them, to which her daughter replies that she never was at the Beresford residence. He mother remembers that it must have been Frederick and she goes on to talk about her exiled son, causing Mr. Hale to leave the room. Margaret then asks her mother more about her brother, and Mrs. Hale starts to cry and begs Margaret to write to him, feeling deep down, that if she were to see her son, then she would be healed of her malady. Margaret writes to him that day, and takes the letter to the post office herself. SEO stuff I don't want to do. Elizabeth Gaskell's classic, "North and South" sees Margaret Hale's live uprooted as her family moves to the north of England. Initially disgusted by the ugliness of the industrial town of Milton, Margaret develops a strong sense of social justice after seeing the poverty and suffering of local mill workers.

Can supplemental feeding actually add 10-15 inches to a mature buck's antlers? In this episode of the Chasing Giants Podcast, Don Higgins tackles one of the most controversial topics in deer management. Don explains the long-term impact of supplemental feeding, fetal programming, mineral nutrition, genetics, and why hunters often misunderstand what feed can and cannot accomplish. We also discuss: • Storm damage across Kentucky and Illinois • Soybean browse pressure and utilization cages • Real World's upcoming soybean research project • Listener letters that remind us why this community matters • Lester's Feet Foundation updates and the Texas Hunt Giveaway • Coyote control myths and predator management • Summer buck movement and why bucks disappear from trail cameras • Recommended deer hunting books for serious hunters If you're serious about growing and hunting mature whitetails, this is an episode you won't want to miss. Podcast Sponsors Asio Gear Real World Wildlife Products Hawke Optics Novix Outdoors Midwest Land Group 360 Hunting Blinds Mike's Mighty Micros Gingerich Tree Farms TagOut Technique Grubb Implement Vortex Optics Brenton USA Mathews Archery Victory Auto Group Wildlife Farming WiseEye Technologies © 2026 Chasing Giants Podcast. All rights reserved. This content, including audio, video, graphics, logos, and written material, may not be copied, reproduced, redistributed, or republished in whole or in part without expressed written permission from Chasing Giants Podcast.

Journalist Eoin Higgins was recently sued for defamation by a fellow journalist Matt Taibbi, who is subject on criticism in Higgins' book Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left. The case was briskly dismissed by a judge and is now on appeal. The lawsuit was manifestly frivolous and is filled with irony, since Taibbi likes to present himself as a free speech champion. I spoke to Higgins about it and the larger tendency of wealthy right-wing figures, including Donald Trump, to use lawsuits to intimidate critics.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this episode I spoke with comedian Kat Higgins who talked about wardrobe malfunctions, getting inspired, taking command of the pub and an echoey cement shell. "Kat Higgins: In Memory of Me" at Edinburgh Fringe Instagram @kat.higginscomedy The Comedy Nerd Instagram @TheComedyNerd thecomedynerd.com Comedy in a Nutshell Instagram @ComedyInANutshell comedyinanutshell.podbean.com

Journalist Eoin Higgins was recently sued for defamation by a fellow journalist Matt Taibbi, who is subject on criticism in Higgins' book Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left. The case was briskly dismissed by a judge and is now on appeal. The lawsuit was manifestly frivolous and is filled with irony, since Taibbi likes to present himself as a free speech champion. I spoke to Higgins about it and the larger tendency of wealthy right-wing figures, including Donald Trump, to use lawsuits to intimidate critics. Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Sandy Higgins explains 1. What is a spiritual gift? 2. Does everyone have a spiritual gift? and 3. What about tongues and miracles? (Recorded in Barrington Gospel Hall, NJ, USA, in 2025) The post Spiritual Gifts | Sandy Higgins first appeared on Gospel Hall Audio.

Episode 329 of the Chasing Giants Podcast is all about preparation for velvet season. Don Higgins and Terry Peer discuss: • Why July 1st is the most important date of the summer • When mature bucks start revealing themselves • Trail camera deployment strategy • Food plot updates and spraying schedules • Rope scrapes and Scrape Magnet tips • Managing cedar thickets for better habitat • Hairy vetch questions answered • Don's thoughts on woodsmanship, technology, and reconnecting with nature Plus, Don announces the official release date for the highly anticipated Doubting Thomas film. #WhitetailDeer #DeerHunting #DonHiggins #ChasingGiants #TrailCameras #FoodPlots #habitatmanagement Podcast Sponsors Asio Gear Real World Wildlife Products Hawke Optics Novix Outdoors Midwest Land Group 360 Hunting Blinds Mike's Mighty Micros Gingerich Tree Farms TagOut Technique Grubb Implement Vortex Optics Brenton USA Mathews Archery Victory Auto Group Wildlife Farming WiseEye Technologies © 2026 Chasing Giants Podcast. All rights reserved. This content, including audio, video, graphics, logos, and written material, may not be copied, reproduced, redistributed, or republished in whole or in part without expressed written permission from Chasing Giants Podcast. Unauthorized use of this content is strictly prohibited.

How do we apply metrics to art Dear Listener? Well, Higgins and Loe try, as they go though all of Steven Spielberg's theatrically released films and put them in order form worst to best, least to greatest, slightly brilliant to most brilliant? Something like that. Enjoy. Subscribe on Patreon Apple - The Film Talk Spotify - The Film Talk Facebook.com/TheFilmTalk

We are catching up with runner up Carson to get all the details and break down the drama!Carson sets the record straight on the rumors that spread across the farm about Emily being Sean's final pick, and was Carson in it to win it?? We find out! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us Fan MailAs prefunk to next week's first Peter Yates episode, BULLITT, for his HACKS 4X4, we re-present our first Yates film, covered last year, THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE. Coyle is so good and co-host Ken's befuddlement so severe that Yates also directed KRULL is what eventually led to this season of HACKS. Below is the sadly prescient original show notes for our Coyle episode written by show note genius, Thomas:The second 1x1 feature rounding out Season 14 and, chosen by Jack, the film is THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE (1973). Directed by Peter Yates, whose career TGTPTU is unlikely to cover in a future 4x4 despite having Krull and Bullitt in his credits, TFOEC is an adaptation of George V. Higgins' inaugural novel and notable as a unromanticized depiction of crime in artistic response to The Godfather, the Puzo book and Coppola film each preceding, respectively, the book and movie versions of TFOEC by one year.  Higgins would take issue with the book as his debut novel. The former deputy assistant attorney general claimed to have written and burned 14 novels over 17 years prior to TFOEC and would go on to author over 30 books, both fiction and nonfiction before his fatal heart attack in 1999, but none with the impact of his first. As seasonal guest host Jack points out, nearly all the dialogue in the film is as it is on the page, and the pages are dripping with dialogue that creates the setting and action for this ironic story of “friends” who double-cross and live less than glamorous lives as Irish mobsters and criminals in Boston.  Yates populates the film with faces, faces that we don't see much anymore, distinct faces and every one telling a story, from the titular Coyle plated by Robert Mitchum who earlier in this life reluctantly left the assembly line to be an actor to actor Alex Rocco who starred as Moe Greene in The Godfather and helped Mitchum meet some of his old criminal friends whom Rocco had to leave behind after he (the actor Alex Rocco) was held for questioning in relation to the murder that kicked off the Boston Irish Gang War of the 1960s to James Tolkan before he'd lost his hair a decade prior to portraying Principal Strickland in the Back to the Future movies and Detective Hugh Lubic in the Cannon Films classic Masters of the Universe.  For this episode, everyone did research: Jack and Thomas pair off for book report; Ryan covers the career of Mitchum; and Ken covers Yates and laments how now Hollywood lacks hacks as well as provides a new shaggy dog with The Pals of Charlie Brown. Make sure to wipe your prints clean on this one before listening with a friend. NEXT WEEK: Peter Yates, HACK, Episode #1: BULLITT. THEME SONG BY: WEIRD A.I.Email: thegoodthepodandtheugly@gmail.comFacebook: https://m.facebook.com/TGTPTUInstagram: https://instagram.com/thegoodthepodandtheugly?igshid=um92md09kjg0Bluesky: @goodpodugly.bsky.socialYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6mI2plrgJu-TB95bbJCW-gBuzzsprout: https://thegoodthepodandtheugly.buzzsprout.com/Letterboxd (follow us!): Podcast: goodpoduglyKen: Ken KoralRyan: Ryan Tobias

Talks about restricting hunting & fishing in Oregon

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for June 9, 2026 is: deleterious • del-uh-TEER-ee-us • adjective Deleterious is a word used in formal speech and writing to describe something that is damaging or harmful, usually in a subtle or unexpected way. // Though effective at keeping pests away from plants, the spray is no longer used because of its deleterious effects on the respiratory system. See the entry > Examples: “Canceling email addresses used by alumni over many years could have deleterious consequences for professional networking, which will become increasingly important as the AI roll-out accelerates and disrupts careers for thousands of college graduates.” — William Golz, NOLA.com (New Orleans, Louisiana), 15 Apr. 2026 Did you know? When you hold down the delete key on your keyboard or touchscreen, the effect—whoosh!—is instantaneous. Deleterious effects, however, are often not so obvious; deleterious (ultimately from a Greek word meaning “to hurt”) is used to describe things that are harmful in ways that are unexpected, slow-acting, or not readily apparent. Although most often used in formal speech and writing, deleterious is far from rare. It even pops up from time to time in film and television, especially from the mouths of wonky characters, as when Seven of Nine warns the Doctor in an episode of Star Trek Voyager, “The nebula is having a deleterious effect on all the ship's technology,” or when Higgins exclaims in the original Magnum P.I. series, “It's shocking what a deleterious effect a regimen of nothing but mushrooms can have on a man.” We'll take your word for it, Higgins.

North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell chapter 20 "Men and Gentlemen", narrated by Isaac BirchallSubscribe on YT or Join the Book Club on Patreon and support me as an independent creator :D⁠https://ko-fi.com/theessentialreads⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOFfvo05ElM96CmfsGsu3g/join⁠Summary:Margaret goes home heavy hearted and wondering how she can keep a positive mindset to help her mother's morale. Her mother asks her about how Bessy is doing and reflects on how bad it must be to be sick while living in one of those back streets. Margaret breaks down and tells her mother about what she heard at the Higgins'. They then work together preparing a basket to send to them and the Bouchers. When Mr. Hale comes home, they talk about the Bouchers a little more and he promises to go and see the man and his family. The following day, Margaret prepares to go to the Thornton dinner, and reflects on her time in London, preparing for dinners with her cousin. Margaret doesn't really wish to go to the dinner but goes nonetheless to appease her mother. Margaret and her father are the first guests to arrive at the Thornton residence, where they are greeted by Mrs. Thornton and Fanny. Mr. Thornton is a little late with business, and his mother supplies conversation while they wait for their host and the other guests. Mrs. Thornton talks about how proud she is to be able to live next to her son's factory, where she can reflect on his greatness. When Thornton arrives, he asks them how Mrs. Hale is and tries to keep his cool while struck by Margaret's beauty. When the guests arrive, Fanny and Mrs. Thornton get distracted welcoming the guests, and Mr. Thornton notices that Margaret is being left alone, and though he doesn't go to talk to her himself, he watches he discretely the whole time before dinner. At dinner, the men talk amongst themselves, and the women remain mostly quiet. This gives Margaret an opportunity to listen to the conversation, and she finally sees Mr. Thornton in his element, where is his respected and where he has none of the awkwardness that she had seen before when they had interacted at her home. Margaret enjoys the dinner and listens to the conversations, eagerly learning many new things about Milton. After dinner, Margaret is bored until the men come back into the room. Mr. Thornton comes to talk with her, and they discuss the conversation at dinner and then what it means to be a gentleman. Thornton says that he doesn't really understand the term and prefers the term “a true man” or “a man.” Thornton sees the term “Gentleman” as something that only applies to a man in his relationship to others, whereas “man” applies to the man as a whole. Before Margaret has time to respond, he is called away to talk with the other men. They are far enough away where Margaret can only get the gist of the conversation, but it seems to be about the strikes. The guest of honour, Mr. Horsfall, asks him about Margaret, the quiet, stately, beauty. Mrs. Slickson asks Fanny the same question.SEO stuff I don't want to do. Elizabeth Gaskell's classic, "North and South" sees Margaret Hale's live uprooted as her family moves to the north of England. Initially disgusted by the ugliness of the industrial town of Milton, Margaret develops a strong sense of social justice after seeing the poverty and suffering of local mill workers.

Pomeranian Draft Review, ADP Risers & Fallers, Early Round Strategy Ed and Jeremiah break down live draft decisions, the latest ADP movement, and how to approach the first three rounds of best ball this summer. Timestamps: 0:00 – Intro & Best Ball Summer update (Puppy 2, Pomeranians) 7:00 – Jeremiah's live Pomeranian draft review (Trevor Lawrence, Mahomes stack decision) 7:00 – Mahomes pick & team recap 9:34 – ADP Risers: Sean Tucker, Marshawnn Lloyd, Tre Harris, Jonathon Brooks, Kenneth Gainwell 11:03 – ADP Fallers: Josh Jacobs, Bucky Irving, Jacoby Brissett, Chris Bell, David Njoku 16:45 – Should you be clicking Bucky Irving on the dip? 18:25 – Josh Jacobs discussion — fade or value? 18:32 – Ed's live Pomeranian team breakdown (Caleb Williams + Stafford stacks) 26:19 – First three rounds strategy: How Ed & Jeremiah are approaching early picks 28:01 – Gibbs vs. Bijan at 1.01 — Ed's lean 29:38 – Steve Jobs T-shirt principle applied to drafting 30:39 – Trey McBride vs. Brock Bowers — onesie strategy 36:25 – Closing thoughts & running back philosophy Thank you for checking out the Podcast, be sure to follow and comment if you have any questions, we are always happy to answer any. For Access to our Premium Tools (Trinity, WAR & More) & Discord Community https://ddfantasyfootball.com/subscriptions/ Join the discord for FREE: https://discord.gg/TAeWz3B5VW Subscribe to the Youtube Channel DDFFB https://www.youtube.com/@DDFFB Sub to the Wake up YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaIJqSepjl-eZ2YEaaLciFA Subscribe to Ray's Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RayGQue Check out All of Ray's Articles at Yahoo!: https://sports.yahoo.com/author/ray-garvin/ Follow Ray on Bleacher Report: https://br.app.link/7ExIDsWfHVb Follow us on Twitter: https://x.com/destinationdevy Become a Member on Youtube for access to the Dynasty Deal Show Live, Destination Chill and other member benefits, like priority reply to comments and unique badges and emojis: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV84gHvtBMXxzN9ZPI9XHfg/join Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 171 - Ceri Higgins used her experience caring for her father to champion unpaid carers' rights in Wales as part of the Welsh Government Cross-Party Group on Dementia.Disclaimer: Please note that all information and content on the UK Health Radio Network, all its radio broadcasts and podcasts are provided by the authors, producers, presenters and companies themselves and is only intended as additional information to your general knowledge. As a service to our listeners/readers our programs/content are for general information and entertainment only.  The UK Health Radio Network does not recommend, endorse, or object to the views, products or topics expressed or discussed by show hosts or their guests, authors and interviewees.  We suggest you always consult with your own professional – personal, medical, financial or legal advisor. So please do not delay or disregard any professional – personal, medical, financial or legal advice received due to something you have heard or read on the UK Health Radio Network.

The Manoeuvres! A team of paramilitary men in weird hats train to overthrow an unspecified government, but what does this have to do with Magnum? Maybe it’s related to the shocking fact that Higgins has been sacked! Jason disapproves of Magnum’s dad wardrobe. Higgins is on a flag. And we consider going to Magnum Day in Detroit in August. Jason Snell, Philip Michaels and David J. Loehr.

The Manoeuvres! A team of paramilitary men in weird hats train to overthrow an unspecified government, but what does this have to do with Magnum? Maybe it’s related to the shocking fact that Higgins has been sacked! Jason disapproves of Magnum’s dad wardrobe. Higgins is on a flag. And we consider going to Magnum Day in Detroit in August. Jason Snell, Philip Michaels and David J. Loehr.

The Iran conflict contains dueling narratives. Iran says it repelled the attack. Israel says it decimated the nuclear program. The US says it brokered peace. So, how do you find out what actually happened? That's where Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) can provide valuable information to the public.  Eliot Higgins built Bellingcat from a Leicester living room blog into the world's most influential open source intelligence organization. Sir Richard Dearlove and Rosanna Lockwood sit down with him to find out how OSINT cuts through the war of narratives on Iran, Ukraine, and the fronts nobody's covering. Plus: why AI is making the truth harder to find, not easier, and why Higgins won't set foot in the United States right now. Show Notes:  bellingcat.com  The al-Qaeda offshoot looking to Syria as a blueprint | The Financial Times Senior State Department official sought internal communications with journalists, European officials, and Trump critics | MIT Technology Review Why these Irish cartel bosses are still free | Search Party   In this episode: 03:21 Iran Ceasefire 06:39 Israel Strategy Explained 08:53 EU Gets Tough on China 12:30 Mali The Next Syria 16:21 CIA Gold Bar Scandal 20:12 Meet Eliot Higgins 23:37 What Is Bellingcat 25:41 AI Slopaganda Threat 29:20 Dark Web Data Trails 31:13 Russia Adapts Tradecraft 32:54 UAE Image Manipulation 34:07 Rapid OSINT Response 35:57 Blackouts and Radar Tools 37:17 Iran Narrative War 39:17 Tomahawk Strike Verification 41:50 Prediction Versus Proof 43:19 Spies Versus OSINT 46:19 Threats and Harassment 50:56 Ukraine OSINT Evolution 54:50 Why China Is Hard for OSINT 01:00:31 Funding and Partnerships Hosted by Sir Richard Dearlove (former MI6 Chief) and guest co-host Rosanna Lockwood (International Journalist) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(Original Airdate 03/11/2026) We are off this week, but ICYMI, here's one of our favorite episodes from this season. In this episode, Jess welcomes not one, not two, but THREE pediatricians in to the pod to discuss the realities of pediatric practice.  You can also watch the episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/SBjH-1L3mCg   https://www.unbiasedscience.org/s/The-Real-Economics-of-Pediatric-Vaccination.pdf https://youtube.com/shorts/z3fxcOeonwQ?feature=share   https://youtube.com/shorts/_-PB7W1SI3U?feature=share   https://youtube.com/shorts/Kjdn6dkLJ2A?feature=share Dr. Higgins: @drhigginsmd everywhere (mostly Linkedin, Instagram, Bluesky, Substack). Substack: Community Immunity https://communityimmunity.substack.com/   (00:00) Intros - Dr. Higgins and Dr. Goza (08:52) How Are Some Vaccines "Wasted"? (06:33) Intro - Dr. Jones-Jobst (10:16) Dr. Higgins' Experience (13:50) Vaccine Preventable Illness Case Studies (18:15) Changes In Vaccine Hesitancy Over Time (20:40) Shared Clinical Decision Making (24:52) Response To People Looking For Pediatricians That "Don't Push Vaccines" (27:00) Have Pediatric Practices Ever Closed Due To Challenges Of Offering Vaccines? (30:20) Final Thoughts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Seth and Sean discuss what DeMeco had to say about Jayden Higgins' development and what Higg himself had to say about what's different for him in OTAs this time around.

The sight of Bengals stars Ja'Marr Chase and DJ Turner at organized team activities this week is helping fuel the energy around a team that believes it has made major offseason upgrades, according to Local 12 Digital Sports Columnist and Editor Richard Skinner. Skinny joined Mike Petraglia of CLNS media for a podcast Wednesday and discussed how Chase, Turner and Tee Higgins all taking part in OTAs sends a message that the team is “all in” after an offseason that included a major addition on defense. “It adds energy and enthusiasm,” Skinner said of the attendance at the voluntary workouts. Turner, who is entering the final year of his contract, said he wanted to be present because he wants to be part of the team's new vibe. Skinner said Chase's appearance also stood out, even though the star receiver had previously suggested he would be present for mandatory minicamp. Higgins took part in some of the seven-on-seven work and made a highlight-reel catch over defensive back Dax Hill. The offseason additions on defense, including the trade for defensive tackle Dexter Lawrence, have raised expectations in Cincinnati, Skinner said, and the team's early workouts appear to reflect that confidence. Skinner also said the Bengals' OTAs are helping show how the team plans to use some of its personnel, including tight end Erick All, who is returning from serious knee injuries. Skinner said All moved well in drills and may be part of more two-tight-end sets if he remains healthy. The Bengals continue OTAs next week before moving into mandatory minicamp.

In this week's episode, we sit down with Annie Higgins, CEO of Reaching Beyond Limits (RBL), to discuss the organization's mission of supporting adults with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder throughout Northeast Pennsylvania. Annie shares the inspiring story behind RBL, the importance of inclusion and community engagement, the challenges families face in accessing services, and her own remarkable journey from recovery to leadership. This heartfelt conversation highlights the power of compassion, advocacy, and creating opportunities for individuals to live fuller, more connected lives.To learn more about Reaching Beyond Limits, visit their website.If you or someone you know wants to be featured on our podcast, visit our website! 

To get live links to the music we play and resources we offer, visit www.WOSPodcast.comThis show includes the following songs:Christen Cooper - Lonely Lies FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYEverlae - Somewhere New FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYThe Marches - She FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYGail Silverman - Strange World FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYLiza Light - High Hopes FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYNancy Dunkle - Climb the Stairs FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYCamryn Quinlan - Problem Like Me FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYAlexandra Rotmann with JamalThaDon - Habit FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYTaija New - Butterflies FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYAngela Begin - Coquihalla FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYLouise Fraser - GOING HOME FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYFlorianna Huen - Patterns [LIVE at NLK Studio] FOLLOW ON YOUTUBEAlexandra Higgins - Clarity FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYColoma - Inside The Night FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYIndigow - solar system FOLLOW ON SPOTIFYFor Music Biz Resources Visit www.FEMusician.com and www.ProfitableMusician.comVisit our Sponsor Nick & Ashley at nickandashleysanders.comVisit www.wosradio.com for more details and to submit music to our review board for consideration.Visit our resources for Indie Artists: https://www.wosradio.com/resourcesBecome more Profitable in just 3 minutes per day. http://profitablemusician.com/join

In this episode of the Chasing Giants Podcast, Don Higgins returns after spending time helping Robin recover from major surgery at Mayo Clinic. Don shares an emotional update on Robin's condition, the road ahead with chemo treatments, and thanks the Chasing Giants family for the overwhelming prayers and support. Terry also recaps an unforgettable Manitoba black bear hunt filled with giant bears, unbelievable footage, close encounters, and stories that will eventually become two full Chasing Giants TV episodes. The guys also dive into: Spring food plot challenges and excessive rain Soybean planting strategies and browse pressure The upcoming “Doubting Thomas” video release Why Scrape Magnet played a major role in Don's success Michigan becoming a one-buck state Supplemental feeding vs baiting Why mature bucks become nocturnal Sanctuary intrusion and fawn survival As always, the show blends faith, deer hunting, land management, and real-life perspective. Please continue praying for Robin and the Higgins family. Sponsors: Asio Gear – https://asiogear.com Real World Wildlife Products – https://realworldwildlifeproducts.com Hawke Optics – https://us.hawkeoptics.com Novix Outdoors – https://novixoutdoors.com Midwest Land Group – https://midwestlandgroup.com 360 Hunting Blinds – https://360huntingblinds.com Mike's Mighty Micros – https://mikesmightymicros.com Gingerich Tree Farm – https://gingerichtreefarm.com TagOut Technique – https://tagouttechnique.com Grubb Implement – https://grubbimplement.com Brenton USA – https://brentonusa.com Mathews Archery – https://mathewsinc.com Victory Auto Group – https://victorykc.com Wildlife Farming – https://wildlifefarming.com WiseEye Technologies – https://wiseeyetech.com DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any sponsors or affiliated companies. © Chasing Giants. All rights reserved. This content may not be reproduced or distributed without written permission.

(SPOILER) I begin by talking about today's Daily Roundup, a Laura Owens point that's quite ironic, Survivor season 50, and Big Brother 28 gets a premiere date. Then Tess joins me (10:12) to discuss Taylor Frankie Paul's "Bachelorette" season and whether or not it should air, potential next Bachelor candidates, Survivor 50 talk, and the Summer House scandal.Music written by Jimmer Podrasky (B'Jingo Songs/Machia Music/Bug Music BMI)Ads:Ollie - Go to https://ollie.com/realitysteve Promo Code: REALITYSTEVE for 70% off your first box plus a Happiness Guarantee. Not satisfied? Get your money back.Ro – https://ro.co/RealitySteve to see if you're eligible for the new GLP-1 pill on Ro.Blissy⁠ - Wake up with clearer skin, smoother hair, and cooler sleep. Use code REALITYSTEVE for an extra 30% off at ⁠https://blissy.com/RealitySteve⁠See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.