Podcasts about Oligarchy

The eighth and final episode in a series on the history of Indonesia: a hinge in the world system where colonialism and revolution have decisively shaped the trajectory of global history. This last installment picks up with the 2014 election of Joko Widodo, or Jokowi, to the presidency. That promise was soon betrayed, laying the groundwork for the rise of Prabowo Subianto, a scion of Suharto who represents nearly everything repugnant about the New Order regime. And yet Prabowo's rule remains beset by contradiction and controversy—and the Indonesia's political future remains uncertain. Featuring Rianne Subijanto, Made Supriatma, Iqra Anugrah, and Farabi Fakih. Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Check out IndoPROGRESS promotion of Nusantara in Bahasa Indonesia instagram.com/reel/DafhG9-qdPW/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Watch Pig Feast: Colonialism in Our Time youtube.com/watch?v=A-pPemC8m_M Buy The Extended Universe at Haymarketbooks.org Find Money In The Mountains at Plutobooks.com

Join us for an illuminating conversation with John Perkins, the renowned author and ex-economic hitman, as he shares insights into the hidden systems that shape our world. Discover how perceptions are manipulated, the real story behind economic strategies, and practical ideas for transitioning to a more sustainable, equitable future.   In this episode: John's background in advising the World Bank, UN, IMF, and his unique blend of economic and shamanic knowledge The system of economic hitmen and how it influences international and domestic politics The distinction between the death economy and the life economy and the urgent need for change How perceptions mold reality and how shifting them can transform our future The internal and external political dynamics in the US, Canada, and globally The role of oligarchies and the global cabal in controlling nations and economies Practical solutions: rebuilding economies, resource management, and the importance of alliances The impact of AI and innovation on energy, environment, and societal progress The awakening of consciousness and systemic shifts happening worldwide   As Chief Economist at a major consulting firm, John Perkins was advisor to the World Bank, UN, IMF, Fortune 500 corporations, and government and business leaders in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and the United States. Before that, he apprenticed with shamans when he lived in the Amazon rainforest from 1968 to 1971 and has since studied with shamans from many different cultures. His eleven books on economics, shamanism, and transformation have been on the New York Times bestseller list for more than 70 weeks, sold millions of copies, and are published in at least 38 languages. https://www.johnperkins.org/art-of-the-steal Our show from 12 years ago with John https://grimerica.ca/2014/03/22/perkins/   To gain access to the second half of show and our Plus feed for audio and podcast please clink the link http://www.grimericaoutlawed.ca/support. For second half of video (when applicable and audio) go to our Substack and Subscribe. https://grimericaoutlawed.substack.com/ or to our Locals  https://grimericaoutlawed.locals.com/ or Patreon https://www.patreon.com/grimericaoutlawed   Support the show directly: https://open.spotify.com/show/2punSyd9Cw76ZtvHxMKenI?si=ImKxfMHgQZ-oshl499O4dQ&nd=1&dlsi=4c25fa9c78674de3 Watch or Listen on Spotify https://www.simulationmaps.com/#products Disaster Maps, Volcano Sim, Asteroid Sim, Shipwreck Map, UFO Map etc https://grimericacbd.com/ CBD / THC Tinctures and Gummies https://grimerica.ca/support-2/ Our Adultbrain Audiobook Podcast and Website: www.adultbrain.ca Check out our next trip/conference/meetup - Contact at the Cabin www.contactatthecabin.com Join the chat / hangout with a bunch of fellow Grimericans  Https://t.me.grimerica grimerica.ca/chats   Discord Chats Darren's books www.acanadianshame.ca Sign up for our newsletter http://www.grimerica.ca/news InstaGRAM https://www.instagram.com/the_grimerica_show_podcast/  Purchase swag, with partial proceeds donated to the show www.grimerica.ca/swag ART - Napolean Duheme's site http://www.lostbreadcomic.com/  MUSIC Tru Northperception, Felix's Site sirfelix.bandcamp.com    Timestamps: 00:00 - Welcome and introduction to John Perkins' background 02:23 - Reflection on past interview in 2014 and ongoing influence 03:04 - Book reflections: "Economic Hitmen Trilogy" and upcoming "The Art of the Steel" 06:12 - The importance of perception in shaping reality and system change 07:47 - The concept of the life economy versus the death economy 08:56 - The hijacking of green initiatives by corporate interests 11:20 - The predatory capitalism and the role of government and corporations 13:46 - The influence of green policies and resource management in Canada 15:05 - Immigration, economic dependency, and systemic issues 17:48 - The role of oligarchy, the entanglement of government and big business 20:33 - America's internal shifts and the global influence of the oligarchs 28:07 - How nations manipulate global perceptions to maintain control 31:28 - The shifting global economic landscape and China's role 39:49 - Solutions for resource management, local economy development, and international cooperation 47:35 - The importance of local resource sovereignty and fair trade 58:20 - Future energy solutions, AI's potential, and environmental innovation 66:16 - The revelation of AI-generated responses and human authenticity 67:13 - Personal reflection on actionable questions for systemic change 70:59 - Global awakening and the importance of a shared human purpose 75:10 - Closing thoughts, book pre-orders, and ongoing systemic challenges  

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

America's Work Force Union Podcast brings together two conversations that capture the labor movement's momentum heading into a consequential fall election season. First, Ohio AFL-CIO President Tim Burga joins fresh from the AFL-CIO's 30th Constitutional Convention in Minneapolis, where delegates voted to set a new organizing target of 2 million new union members by 2032 after surpassing the previous goal of 1 million. Burga reports on a broad wave of organizing activity across Ohio spanning healthcare, construction, higher education, hospitality, libraries, museums and the arts, with recent wins including workers at Jeni's Ice Cream, United Academics of Ohio University and the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. He also addresses the ongoing challenge of securing first contracts after organizing wins and what Ohio workers should watch for when the General Assembly returns from summer recess and the lame duck session begins after November's elections. Then, CWA District 4 Administrative Director Frank Mathews discusses a ratified four-year contract for approximately 300 DirecTV customer service workers across Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Minnesota and Colorado, delivering compounded wage increases of 13.4% and preserving health care after workers voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike in April. Mathews addresses the growing difficulty of protecting health care at the bargaining table, describes a roughly tenfold increase in CWA organizing activity since COVID and details the CWA's new Fighting Oligarchy political education training rolling out across Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan ahead of November's elections. Visit ohioaflcio.org for Ohio AFL-CIO updates and cwa-union.org for more from CWA District 4.

In the United States, elections hold our representatives accountable. But voters get a limited slate of options—and significant economic redistribution is usually excluded from the ballot. Meanwhile, economic inequality in the United States is growing to record levels, and many wealthy Americans are paying a lower effective tax rate than most of their fellow citizens. Jeffrey Winters joins host Alex Lovit to discuss American oligarchy, how it distorts our democracy, and what we can do about it. Jeffrey Winters is a professor of political science and director of the Equality Development and Globalization Studies program at Northwestern University. He is the author of several books about oligarchy, wealth, and democracy, most recently The Blind Spot: How Oligarchs Dominate Our Democracies. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Blind-Spot/Jeffrey-Winters/9781668221532 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The algorithm isn't just changing the game—it's rewriting the entire stadium. In this episode of the LTS Out of Office Podcast, Marcos, Josue, and Allen dive deep into the digital grid. We break down the unsettling intersection of massive sporting events like the FIFA World Cup, the terrifying capabilities of next-gen AI tech divides, and the latest drops from declassified UFO files. Is the simulation glitching in plain sight, or are we just reading the terminal code? Pull up, tune in, and look at the sky. #LTS #Podcast #OutOfOffice #SimulationTheory #WorldCup #AI #UFOFiles #TechFolklore----------

John Adams hosts Thomas Jefferson one last time on his final night in the White House, and the two men confront the meaning of party, power, and the peaceful transfer of authority. Built from real historical language, the episode follows Jefferson's inauguration, Adams's departure from Washington, and the tensions that follow as Jefferson begins rolling back the Federalist program.As the episode continues, James Callender's accusations against Jefferson and Sally Hemmings expose the hidden violence and contradiction at the center of the founding generation.With Adams, Jefferson, Abigail Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Sally Hemings all shaping the story, the episode becomes a study in principle, scandal, memory, and unfulfilled promises.Patriarchs is a six-part audio drama about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the founding of the United States, the American Revolution, and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence enacted in 1776.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Campaign donation limits look strict. Super PACs can make those limits feel almost meaningless. James Harrigan and Antony Davies join Josh Martens to debate who really controls American elections: donors, politicians, parties, or voters. How much does it cost to win a House or Senate seat? The Words and Numbers hosts explain individual contribution limits, candidate committees, political action committees, independent expenditures, and the unlimited spending available through super PACs. The conversation examines campaign finance, political incentives, the Thomas Massie race, outside spending, foreign influence, publicly funded elections, mandatory voting, gerrymandering, the Republican and Democratic duopoly, and the direct election of senators. The uncomfortable conclusion might be that campaign money is only a symptom. When government has enough power to sell favors, people will spend enormous amounts trying to control it. https://x.com/antonydavies https://x.com/JamesRHarrigan https://wordsandnumbers.org/ Chapters 00:00 James Harrigan and Antony Davies Join GML 02:00 The Thomas Massie Race and Outside Spending 03:30 What American Elections Really Cost 05:45 Campaign Money, Speech, and Property Rights 07:15 Are Voters Responsible for Selling Their Votes? 10:15 Unlimited Government and the Rise of Oligarchy 13:00 Donation Limits and the Super PAC Loophole 18:15 Political Spoils, Corporations, and Union Money 22:45 Libertarians Debate Public Election Funding 27:30 The Massie Race and Foreign Influence 31:15 Stupid Voters, Mandatory Voting, and the Party Duopoly 42:00 One Change That Could Fix American Elections Links Watch All Episodes: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr_8o0dDOX8DxO_Wwxu6WYhhA Watch Host Favorites: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi78svKlBr__Zu40RL7mWxCuOOe54zgy2 Join the Fed Haters Club @ https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/fedhatersclub Join GML: https://joingml.com [Martens Minute]: https://martensminute.podbean.com/ All links @ gml.bio.link Subscribe to Good Morning Liberty, like the video, and tell us who deserves more blame: donors, politicians, or voters. Share this conversation with someone who thinks contribution limits solved campaign finance. Please also leave GML a rating and review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

What happens when the DNC pulls the plug on a popular veteran lobster farmer's Senate run?

John Adams becomes President after narrowly defeating Thomas Jefferson in 1796, and the uneasy partnership between the two men is tested by cabinet politics, French aggression, and the rise of partisan warfare. Built from historical dialogue and source material, the episode follows Adams, Jefferson, Abigail Adams, John Quincy Adams, and James Callender as public principle, private friendship, and political survival collide.As France seizes American ships, Adams calls for military readiness and a stronger navy, while Jefferson turns to the press and to Callender to attack Adams and his administration. The episode closes with Adams triumphant over the peace with France, but personally wounded by defeat, setting up the final stage of the Adams-Jefferson divide.Patriarchs is a six-part audio drama about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the American Revolution, and the founding of the United States, and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence enacted in 1776.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Since 84-year-old Senator Mitch McConnell was hospitalized on June 14th after being found unconscious at his home, not one person — not even President Donald Trump — seems to know what is going on. McConnell is one of the most powerful Republican figures in political history. But over the last few years, he's had a number of health issues, including freezing episodes during press conferences. And while he's not running for reelection, his murky health status is not that uncommon for our very old Congress. To find out what that does for our politics and country, we spoke with Idrees Kahloon. He's a staff writer at The Atlantic who wrote about the incredible power of elder Americans.And in headlines: Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner announced he will withdraw from his race — but he's reportedly waiting until the last possible second to make it official, the U.S. launched new airstrikes against Iran, and FBI Director Kash Patel is facing new criticism for his taxpayer-funded lifestyle.Show Notes: Idrees Kahloon's “An Oligarchy of Old People” – https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/05/gerontocracy-wealth-power/686585/ Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com

Dave Rubin of "The Rubin Report" talks about Graham Platner's career possibly being over after Jake Tapper's shocking interview with former girlfriend Jenny Racicot, who accused Platner of raping her while intoxicated; Donald Trump's warnings about Graham Platner coming true despite Democrats ignoring all the numerous warning signs; CNN's Anderson Cooper going silent as Scott Jennings rips into Democrats for only believing Jenny Racicot's accusations against Graham Platner because she is liberal; Bernie Sanders staunchly defending his hypocritical use of private jets to Fox News' Bret Baier for his Fight the Oligarchy rallies; Christopher Nolan's "The Odyssey" attracting more controversy as Lupita Nyong'o complains about Homer's depiction of Helen of Troy; "The View's" Sunny Hostin pushing the debunked fake history of the book "Black Athena" to explain why Helen of Troy should be played by a Black woman in Christopher Nolan's "The Odyssey"; Dave Chappelle's sarcastic response to CNN's Anderson Cooper asking him if he is proud to be an American; and much more. Today's Sponsors: Angel Studios - Choose entertainment that is focused on stories about perseverance and real human experiences. If you go premium, you'll get 2 free tickets to see Young Washington in theaters this Independence Day, and be part of making this film the #1 movie in America for our nation's 250th birthday. Go to: http://Angel.com/rubin Mars Men - A potent and natural testosterone stack that optimizes your body's ability to forge usable testosterone. For a limited time, our listeners get 50% off FOR LIFE AND 3 Free Gifts at Mars Men when you use code RUBIN . Go to: http://Mengotomars.com

Welcome back to The Majority Report On today's program: Benjamin Netanyahu appears on Fox News to express his fears of the Democrats and "woke-right" no longer supporting Israel. Jeffrey Winters, professor of political science at Northwestern University, joins Sam in a pre-taped interview about his new book; "The Blind Spot: How Oligarchs Dominate Our Democracy." In the Fun Half: Trump interferes with the World Cup. The president admits he called the FIFA president to get Folarin Balogun's red card suspension overturned. Doug Burgum spars with Dana Bash over his claims that the D.C. reflection pool was compromised by vandals and not by Trump's motorcade of armored vehicles that drove all over the drained pool. Abdul El-Sayed has a great answer to CNN's Casey Hunt's question about whether Israel has a right to exist. GOP gubernatorial candidate Mike Mazzei is not very convincing when trying to claim that the $70k his campaign paid Roger Stone was not in exchange for a Trump endorsement. All that and more. Join Emma for a virtual DSA event, find info To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AM Quickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: ZOCDOC: Find and book the right doctor https://Zocdoc.com/MAJORITY SUNSET LAKE CBD: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com.  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.  

After The American Revolution, George Washington becomes the first President of the United States, John Adams is swept into the vice presidency, and Thomas Jefferson takes on a central role as Secretary of State. Built from real historical language and dramatized from the founders' letters, speeches, and memoirs, the episode explores how the new nation begins to define power, duty, and the limits of government.As Adams and Jefferson argue over the presidency, federal power, the British Constitution, political parties, and the French Revolution, the story also turns to Jefferson's alliance with Thomas Paine and the rupture it causes with Adams. The episode ends with the emerging divide between the two men and the growing tension between public principle and personal friendship.Patriarchs is a six-part audio drama about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the founding of the United States, and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence enacted in 1776.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

From the producers of The Asset. During the American Revolution, John Adams leaves Braintree for a dangerous crossing to France, while Thomas Jefferson retreats to Monticello, grief-stricken after the death of Martha Jefferson. Built from real letters, speeches, and memoirs, the episode follows Adams, Jefferson, Abigail Adams, and Sally Hemings as they move between war, diplomacy, family, and the moral contradictions of the founding era.From the Atlantic crossing and the French salons to London, Paris, and Monticello, the episode deepens the friendship between Adams and Jefferson while showing how power, marriage, slavery, and public duty shape their lives. Patriarchs is a six-part audio drama about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the founding of the United States, and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence enacted in 1776.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In light of this week's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we interview Catholic scholar and historian Charles Coulombe. While he is a proud American patriot, he also argues that many elements of the American Founding were incompatible with Catholic teaching (including the justification for the Revolution itself). We consider some of these issues on this auspicious anniversary.As much as we got into in this interview, there are many more issues yet to explore on this topic. Stay tuned for future interviews.VISIT OUR WEBSITEhttps://eternalchristendom.com/BECOME A PATRON OF THE GREAT TRADITIONAs a non-profit, you can support our mission with a tax-deductible gift. Help us continue to dig into the Great Tradition; produce beautiful, substantive content; and gift these treasures to cultural orphans around the world for free: https://eternalchristendom.com/become-a-patron/CONNECT ON SOCIAL MEDIAX: https://twitter.com/JoshuaTCharlesFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/joshuatcharles/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/joshuatcharles/DIVE DEEPERCheck out our “Becoming Catholic” resources, where you'll find 1 million+ words of free content (bigger than the Bible!) in the form of Articles, Quote Archives, and Study Banks to help you become, remain, and deepen your life as a Catholic: https://eternalchristendom.com/becoming-catholic/SUBSTACKSubscribe to our Substack to get regular updates on our content, and other premium content: https://eternalchristendom.substack.com/EXCLUSIVE BOOKSTORE DISCOUNTShttps://eternalchristendom.com/bookstore/CHAPTERS00:00 - Intro: Charles Coulombe, America, Monarchy, and Patriotism02:20 - Welcome, Prayer, and Opening Setup07:48 - Demographics, Immigration, Abortion, and Paying the Price18:08 - From 1492 to Jamestown: Colonization and the Protestant Revolt24:41 - Stuarts, Cromwell, and the English Civil War in America36:17 - Glorious Revolution, Oligarchy, and Parliamentary Sovereignty59:03 - George III, World Wars, and the Road to Revolution1:27:04 - Quebec Act, Catholic Emancipation, and Colonial Grievances1:39:10 - Loyalists, Revolution, and the War for Independence1:53:35 - Was the American Revolution Just?2:14:56 - Patriotism, Civil Religion, and Loving America Honestly2:45:25 - Foreign Policy, Woke America, and Final Reflections on HopeThis podcast can also be heard on Apple, Spotify, and other podcast platforms.

Modern Monetary Theory explains how sovereign currency systems work, but it doesn't tell us who controls the state or whose interests state power serves. Economist Bill Mitchell suggests that a dialectical understanding of capitalism is essential for answering that question.He and Steve discuss MMT not as a policy prescription but as a lens to dissect the capitalist state, not a neutral arbiter but an instrument of class conflict. Bill traces the motion of capital from the post-WWII "Golden Age," which was a temporary compromise forced by a strong working class. He takes us through what he calls the neoliberal counter-revolution, epitomized by the Powell Memorandum, wherein capital consciously exercised control to reverse social gains and redistribute income upward.The government's “fiscal crisis” is an ideological fiction (a fetish of money) that obscures the material reality: a currency-issuing government faces no inherent financial constraint, only real resource limits.From the erosion of labor power and the rise of think tanks to militarism, financialization, climate crisis, and AI-driven social control, Bill contends that today's crises are not policy mistakes but the logical outcomes of capitalism's extreme contradictions. The conversation explores why understanding monetary sovereignty is only the beginning, but reformism and electoralism are insufficient. The material conditions are driving toward a necessary rupture.William Mitchell is Professor of Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) at the University of Newcastle, NSW Australia. He is also the Docent Professor of Global Political Economy at the University of Helsinki, Finland, and Guest International Professor at Kyoto University, Japan.He is one of the founders of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). His daily blog is one of the world's leading economics blogs.Follow Bill's work and find his books at https://billmitchell.org/blog/

Today on Uncommon Sense, we're taking a deeper look at the Israel-Iran conflict, the continuing questions surrounding the Epstein files, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. We'll discuss why these stories continue to dominate public conversation, explore the political and geopolitical questions people are asking, and examine why these events should be viewed together rather than in isolation.--https://www.youversion.com/bible-app

The world order is changing. The West is no longer the undisputed center of global power. Europe is gradually experiencing a decline in influence. Developing nations are emerging as formidable competitors. Economic elites are increasingly locked in battles with one another. Meanwhile, public awareness is rising in a wave unlike anything seen before.These are the arguments put forward by Alex Krainer, market analyst and founder of Krainer Analytics, in his conversation with Gita Wirjawan. In this episode, Krainer invites us to rethink the long-term trajectory of our world and reflect on what truly matters about our shared humanity in an era of war: preserving our freedom, or becoming servants of the system.Full topics:0:00:00 - Intro0:01:30 - Grew up with history, power, and politics0:05:50- How war intellectually shaped Alex Krainer0:11:40 - "The European Union is going to disintegrate"0:20:26 - Civil war: "The clash is inevitable"0:28:30 - Ukraine-Russia hostility “will never end”?0:34:45 - Neocolonialism: “You're conquering a country through debt."0:39:35 - Oil price could worsen0:43:55 - Eschatological look of the Middle East conflict0:50:53 - Iran: “This isn't Trump's war”0:53:45 - We can't avoid Thucydides Trap1:00:40 - Oligarchy, “this is by design”1:08:30 - Why we can beat plutocracy#Endgame #GitaWirjawan #AlexKrainer------------------You may also like these episodes:   • We're Not in World War III Yet, Realist Jo...      • Francis Fukuyama: Is Western Civilization ...      • Myth on Capitalism and Sex Industry - Kimb...  ------------------Special thanks to our “future narrators” channel members:Mariko Yoshihara, Yemotto IBRAHIM, hobi kluyuran, Fajar Prasetyo, Dyah Firgiani, Arie Gunardi, Yayi Trisnawati D, Teddy Chow, Wwertyssnb, Widi Aphrian, Faizal …Mariko Yoshihara, Yemotto IBRAHIM, hobi kluyuran, Fajar Prasetyo, Dyah Firgiani, Arie Gunardi, Yayi Trisnawati D, Teddy Chow, Wwertyssnb, Widi Aphrian, Faizal Tajuli, hndraable, hendro trihatmojo, Muhammad Taufik Evendi, Qun＇an Syukrilah, Charles Andrew Tang, Ariyo Arinsa Putra, Reda Bellarbi, Jaz Simbolon, Muhammad Ismail Mubarak, KATE WOLSKA, rrtrent892, Itje Chodidjah, Geralt Fajar Bukan, Jack Duan, Elmi CK Ong, Lucy March, Anggun Noventina, Irawan Purwono, Krishna Putra, Agnes Pranindita, nazaruddin nasir, 747sgw, Patricia S, Gusko Adnyana, Jerry Budiman, Mawan Darmawan, diah anggraini, Adrian Baskoro, Bambang Haryanto, Ezwan Zakaria, Irene Kurniati, Naufal M, Kianti Darusman, Revolution R, liza dewi, Joanna felicia, Susanto Uno, Taswin Munier, M Firaldi Akbar Zulkarnain, Seno wibowo, Hendry Ahen, Ilham R, Ferdy Reza, Ayu Arman, Haju Ara Podcast, Flores Exotic Tours, Niki S, Anita Amalia, Dewi Risnawati, birgietta katherine, Derry Harnanda, Ridwan Sakidja, Rita Sahara

From The Asset team: Patriarchs. Subscribe hereThis first episode begins at the end, then rewinds to before the Revolutionary War, at the Continental Congress, where Adams and Jefferson clash, collaborate, and argue over independence, democracy, and the future of the nation. With powerful performances and historically grounded dialogue, Patriarchs explores the human cost of power, principle, and ambition.Patriarchs is a six-part audio drama about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the founding of the United States, and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence enacted in 1776. Patriarchs stars Stacy Keach as Thomas Jefferson and Edward Gero as John Adams.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

An Oligarchy of Landlords and Forced Enslavement. Guest: Patrick Scanlan. The conversation highlights the staggering concentration of land ownership in the Victorian era, where a mere 4,000 people owned 80% of Ireland. Batchelor characterizes this as a form of "forced enslavement," noting that the Irish people never voted for this arrangement; it was imposed through historical conquest. Scanlan explains that while the UK's electorate was growing, it remained an oligarchy dominated by aristocrats and rising industrialists. The Irish landscape, though appearing ancient and low-tech, was systematically disadvantaged by its political structure. This segment emphasizes that the political and legal frameworks of the British Empire were responsible for the vulnerability of the tenant farmers. The systemic extraction of rent by absentee landlords ensured the peasantry had no financial buffer when crop failures struck. This historical "backstory" explains why the famine was so catastrophic for the millions who were eventually driven to emigrate. 41847

Mesrob Vartavarian has written a wonderful book. Privileged Minorities: A History of Wealth Concentration on South Africa (Ohio UP, 2026) argues that the rise of privileged minorities – small, exclusive groups that dominate political and economic life – parallels the development of successful anticolonial movements. Vartavarian traces how distinct sociocultural groups in South Africa navigated and negotiated these advantages from the Dutch colonial era through the rise and decline of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). He then demonstrates why ANC elites have not dismantled minority privilege, and how challenges from marginalised groups have served to reshape entrenched advantages by incorporating new actors into existing structures. These dynamics have produced composite systems of accumulation that have deepened socio-economic inequality. Privileged Minorities offers a compelling framework for understanding how structural advantage persists and evolves, even in the wake of promised liberation from political and economic elites. Mesrob Vartavarian recommends two books for further learning at the end of our interview. They are: Anthony Butler (2025). Presidential Power, Jacana Media; and Jeffrey A. Winters (2012). Oligarchy, Cambridge University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Mesrob Vartavarian has written a wonderful book. Privileged Minorities: A History of Wealth Concentration on South Africa (Ohio UP, 2026) argues that the rise of privileged minorities – small, exclusive groups that dominate political and economic life – parallels the development of successful anticolonial movements. Vartavarian traces how distinct sociocultural groups in South Africa navigated and negotiated these advantages from the Dutch colonial era through the rise and decline of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). He then demonstrates why ANC elites have not dismantled minority privilege, and how challenges from marginalised groups have served to reshape entrenched advantages by incorporating new actors into existing structures. These dynamics have produced composite systems of accumulation that have deepened socio-economic inequality. Privileged Minorities offers a compelling framework for understanding how structural advantage persists and evolves, even in the wake of promised liberation from political and economic elites. Mesrob Vartavarian recommends two books for further learning at the end of our interview. They are: Anthony Butler (2025). Presidential Power, Jacana Media; and Jeffrey A. Winters (2012). Oligarchy, Cambridge University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Mesrob Vartavarian has written a wonderful book. Privileged Minorities: A History of Wealth Concentration on South Africa (Ohio UP, 2026) argues that the rise of privileged minorities – small, exclusive groups that dominate political and economic life – parallels the development of successful anticolonial movements. Vartavarian traces how distinct sociocultural groups in South Africa navigated and negotiated these advantages from the Dutch colonial era through the rise and decline of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). He then demonstrates why ANC elites have not dismantled minority privilege, and how challenges from marginalised groups have served to reshape entrenched advantages by incorporating new actors into existing structures. These dynamics have produced composite systems of accumulation that have deepened socio-economic inequality. Privileged Minorities offers a compelling framework for understanding how structural advantage persists and evolves, even in the wake of promised liberation from political and economic elites. Mesrob Vartavarian recommends two books for further learning at the end of our interview. They are: Anthony Butler (2025). Presidential Power, Jacana Media; and Jeffrey A. Winters (2012). Oligarchy, Cambridge University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

Mesrob Vartavarian has written a wonderful book. Privileged Minorities: A History of Wealth Concentration on South Africa (Ohio UP, 2026) argues that the rise of privileged minorities – small, exclusive groups that dominate political and economic life – parallels the development of successful anticolonial movements. Vartavarian traces how distinct sociocultural groups in South Africa navigated and negotiated these advantages from the Dutch colonial era through the rise and decline of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). He then demonstrates why ANC elites have not dismantled minority privilege, and how challenges from marginalised groups have served to reshape entrenched advantages by incorporating new actors into existing structures. These dynamics have produced composite systems of accumulation that have deepened socio-economic inequality. Privileged Minorities offers a compelling framework for understanding how structural advantage persists and evolves, even in the wake of promised liberation from political and economic elites. Mesrob Vartavarian recommends two books for further learning at the end of our interview. They are: Anthony Butler (2025). Presidential Power, Jacana Media; and Jeffrey A. Winters (2012). Oligarchy, Cambridge University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the age of oligarchy, where money buys you influence, where the rich and powerful like to mingle and party and where self-enrichment, corruption and tax evasion are commonplace. Where democracy is threatened by the ultra-wealthy. In this first episode of a new four-part series, we dissect the modern oligarchy with Pieter Omtzigt and Paul Caruana Galizia.When you think of oligarchs, you probably imagine ultra-wealthy Russians with Vladimir Putin's number in their phone. But oligarchy has spread to the Western world as well. Tech tycoons are closely intertwined with power, the United States is even led by an oligarch. In this new series we explore the shadowy network of billionaires, politicians, celebrities, and intellectuals – we introduce you: the new oligarchs.In this first episode, we speak with journalist Paul Caruana Galizia (Financial Times, podcast Londongrad). He wrote a book about the aftermath of the murder of his mother, Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who investigated corruption on her home island. Paul Caruana Galizia closely examined the rise of Evgeny Lebedev, the son of a spy who secured a seat in the House of Lords with the help of former prime minister Boris Johnson. Recently, he has been researching Donald Trump's donors and how they have benefited from his second term.Paul Caruana Galizia is an investigative reporter at the Financial Times. He became a journalist in 2018 after his mother Daphne's assassination and has since won ten journalism awards. He has also received the Magnitsky and Anderson-Lucas-Norman awards for campaigning for justice for his mother.Pieter Omtzigt is a former politician and member of the Dutch parliament. On behalf of the Council of Europe, Omtzigt investigated the functioning of the rule of law in Malta following the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.Programme editor: Ianthe MosselmanSupported by: VfondsZie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As Elon Musk stands to become the world's first trillionaire through the SpaceX IPO, Jon is joined by Quinn Slobodian, co-author of the new book "Muskism," to understand how we arrived at this moment of tech oligarchy. Together, they explore how Musk built a trillion-dollar empire on government money and then used that empire to capture the government itself, and discuss how we can renegotiate the balance of power between public interest and private wealth. Plus, Jon answers listener questions about Trump's amazing and enthusiastic boo-cheers, CNN, and Taco Bell, yet again! This episode is brought to you by: BOMBAS - Head over to https://Bombas.com/WEEKLY and use code WEEKLY for 20% off your first purchase. GROUND NEWS - Go to https://groundnews.com/stewart to see all sides of every story. Subscribe for 40% off the Vantage Subscription only for a limited time through our link https://groundnews.com/stewart. MINT MOBILE - Shop plans at https://MintMobile.com/TWS. SHOPIFY - Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at https://shopify.com/TWS. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast > TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod   > BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/theweeklyshowpodcast.com Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic  Producer – Gillian Spear Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Music by Hansdle Hsu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

More people than ever can vote, organise, and make their voices heard. Yet wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. How can democracy and extreme inequality coexist? American political scientist Jeffrey A. Winters argues that oligarchs are not primarily interested in governing. Their main objective is to protect and preserve their wealth — and this defence of wealth increasingly shapes the limits of democratic politics. Together with political scientist Vladimíra Dvořáková and political scientist and philosopher Ondřej Lánský, Winters discusses how economic power is converted into political influence, why oligarchs are becoming more visible, and what this means for democratic institutions, public media, taxation and the future of political equality. The discussion was recorded at last year's Inspiration Forum at the Ji.hlava International Documentary Film Festival and is moderated by Klára Votavová. The voices of Ondřej Lánský, Vladimíra Dvořáková, and Klára Votavová are AI-generated.

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop sits down with software engineer and entrepreneur Arowolo Muritadhor for a wide-ranging conversation that moves from agriculture and manufacturing in Nigeria to the evolving role of crypto in the country's economy. They touch on how hyperinflation, particularly the naira's dramatic drop in 2023, pushed Nigerians toward stablecoins as a practical savings tool, and how informal kiosk networks have stepped in where traditional banking infrastructure falls short. The conversation also covers the tension between government regulation and the permissionless nature of blockchain technology, comparisons between the decline of the Roman Empire and current shifts in US economic dominance, the role of mobile payments in Africa, language learning, and whether AI agents have any real utility in crypto infrastructure yet. You can connect with Arowolo on LinkedIn and X at @armolas_06.Timestamps00:00 - Host welcomes Arowolo Muritadhor, introducing topics of software engineering and animal food production in Nigeria.05:00 - Discussion shifts to manufacturing, components assembly, and China's dominance in low-cost production globally.10:00 - Conversation explores crypto adoption in Nigeria as a network state phenomenon, separating informed users from mainstream population.15:00 - Mobile payments and kiosk ATM replacements emerge as critical financial infrastructure bridging unbanked Nigerians.20:00 - Roman Empire parallels drawn to modern crypto taxation, government control, and inevitable death-and-taxes reality.25:00 - Bitcoin and Ethereum permissionless nature debated against government wallet-level censorship vulnerabilities.30:00 - AI agents examined as crypto infrastructure tools, revealing mostly trading bots rather than foundational builders.35:00 - Nigeria's 2023 naira collapse compared to Argentina's hyperinflation, driving citizens toward stablecoin dollar savings.40:00 - US Treasury history unpacked through FDR gold confiscation and Nixon ending convertibility, paralleling empire decline.45:00 - Crypto reframed as anti-bank rather than purely anti-government, enabling freedom through immutable accountability.50:00 - Transparent blockchain ledgers discussed as potential government accountability tools across democracy, republic, and oligarchy structures.Key Insights1. Nigeria has a significant divide between its northern and southern regions in terms of economic activity. The north, centered around Abuja, is more agricultural with substantial cattle production, while Lagos in the south functions as a dense urban and commercial hub. This geographic and economic split shapes how different financial tools and technologies are adopted across the country.2. China's dominance in low-cost manufacturing has made it nearly impossible for countries like Nigeria, the United States, or Argentina to compete on price alone. The more realistic path for developing economies is to import components and focus on local assembly and creativity, which is where meaningful economic participation becomes possible.3. Crypto adoption in Nigeria accelerated dramatically around 2023 when the naira experienced a sharp devaluation against the US dollar. Before that point, saving in dollars was difficult for many Nigerians, especially those without formal bank accounts, making stablecoins like USDT an attractive and practical alternative for preserving wealth.4. Informal kiosk operators in Nigeria have organically become a substitute for ATMs, giving communities access to basic financial services where traditional banking infrastructure does not reach. This grassroots financial layer is now a key entry point for integrating crypto and stablecoin payments into everyday commerce.5. Governments are increasingly trying to regulate crypto at the wallet and centralized exchange level, using tax compliance as a primary mechanism. While Bitcoin and Ethereum remain largely permissionless, the practical chokepoints for most users remain centralized platforms where identity and transactions can be monitored.6. The historical parallel between the fall of the Roman Empire and current shifts in US economic and geopolitical power offers a useful frame for understanding why crypto matters. Just as Rome debased its currency and struggled to sustain imperial costs, the US faces mounting debt and a financialized economy that may accelerate dollar instability and push more people toward alternative stores of value.7. One genuinely constructive use case for blockchain beyond speculation is immutable accountability, particularly for public institutions and prediction markets. A transparent ledger that governments or officials voluntarily adopt could create verifiable records of decisions and promises, reducing corruption and increasing trust in ways that traditional governance structures have struggled to achieve.

Venture into the shadowy realms of power and secrecy with Already Dead, where hosts Jose Galison (@towergangjose) and Austin Picard (@theatrethugawp) dissect the intricate web of conspiracy, covert operations, and the underlying political machinations that might just be pulling the strings of our society.What to Expect: Live Listener Interaction: Call in to share your theories, ask burning questions, or discuss personal experiences related to the topics at hand. In-Depth Explorations: Each episode focuses on a different conspiracy or hidden aspect of political history, offering a platform to question and analyze what's often left unsaid. Thought-Provoking Guests: We invite individuals with insider knowledge or those who've taken the red pill to discuss topics that range from the fringe to the forefront of conspiracy culture. Critical Analysis of Current Affairs: We don't just report on events; we interpret them through the lens of parapolitics, looking for patterns and hidden agendas.Join Us: Every Tuesday at 9:30 PM ET, dive into the depths of the unknown with us. Subscribe, participate in our live call-ins, and be part of a community that seeks to understand the world beyond the surface narrative.Disclaimer: This podcast thrives on speculation, hypothesis, and the examination of alternative theories. It's meant to provoke thought and encourage personal research. Not all discussed is proven fact, but rather a call to question, explore, and understand. Warning: For those not ready to challenge their worldview, tread carefully. Once you enter the world of Already Dead, you might find that the truth is often already dead to the uninitiated. Welcome aboard, where curiosity is your guide.Please consider supporting our work- Austin's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheUnderclassPodcastAustin's Spreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-underclass-podcast--6511540Austin's Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/TheUnderclassPodcastAustin's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheUnderclassPodcast#ApocalypticRaceWar #HelterSkelter #HenryNowakMurder #IncompetentPoliceResponse #ShalomProject #GuyanaGladio #MKUltra #MindControlMassMurder #AngolaMindControlMercenaries #EpsteinJournalistFleesCountry #DirectedEnergyWeapons #EpsteinsAccountant #IronLawofOligarchy #MechanismsofSelfPreservation #DystopianDataCenters #IranWarCeasefireCollapses #IsraeliHumanRightsViolations #IsraeliWarCrimes #2027NDAA #USIsraeliMilitaryIntegrationBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-underclass-podcast--6511540/support.

Venture into the shadowy realms of power and secrecy with Already Dead, where hosts Jose Galison (@towergangjose) and Austin Picard (@theatrethugawp) dissect the intricate web of conspiracy, covert operations, and the underlying political machinations that might just be pulling the strings of our society.What to Expect:Live Listener Interaction: Call in to share your theories, ask burning questions, or discuss personal experiences related to the topics at hand.In-Depth Explorations: Each episode focuses on a different conspiracy or hidden aspect of political history, offering a platform to question and analyze what's often left unsaid.Thought-Provoking Guests: We invite individuals with insider knowledge or those who've taken the red pill to discuss topics that range from the fringe to the forefront of conspiracy culture.Critical Analysis of Current Affairs: We don't just report on events; we interpret them through the lens of parapolitics, looking for patterns and hidden agendas.Join Us: Every Tuesday at 9:30 PM ET, dive into the depths of the unknown with us. Subscribe, participate in our live call-ins, and be part of a community that seeks to understand the world beyond the surface narrative.Disclaimer: This podcast thrives on speculation, hypothesis, and the examination of alternative theories. It's meant to provoke thought and encourage personal research. Not all discussed is proven fact, but rather a call to question, explore, and understand. Warning: For those not ready to challenge their worldview, tread carefully. Once you enter the world of Already Dead, you might find that the truth is often already dead to the uninitiated. Welcome aboard, where curiosity is your guide.Please consider supporting my work- Patreon- https://www.patreon.com/nowayjose2020Only costs $2/month and will get you access to episodes earlier than the public No Way, Jose! Rumble Channel- https://rumble.com/c/c-3379274 No Way, Jose! YouTube Channel- https://youtube.com/channel/UCzyrpy3eo37eiRTq0cXff0gMy Podcast Host- https://redcircle.com/shows/no-way-joseApple podcasts- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/no-way-jose/id1546040443Spotify- https://open.spotify.com/show/0xUIH4pZ0tM1UxARxPe6ThStitcher- https://www.stitcher.com/show/no-way-jose-2Amazon Music- https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/41237e28-c365-491c-9a31-2c6ef874d89d/No-Way-JoseGoogle Podcasts- https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5yZWRjaXJjbGUuY29tL2ZkM2JkYTE3LTg2OTEtNDc5Ny05Mzc2LTc1M2ExZTE4NGQ5Yw%3D%3DRadioPublic- https://radiopublic.com/no-way-jose-6p1BAO Vurbl- https://vurbl.com/station/4qHi6pyWP9B/Feel free to contact me at thelibertymovementglobal@gmail.com#ApocalypticRaceWar #HelterSkelter #HenryNowakMurder #IncompetentPoliceResponse #ShalomProject #GuyanaGladio #MKUltra #MindControlMassMurder #AngolaMindControlMercenaries #EpsteinJournalistFleesCountry #DirectedEnergyWeapons #EpsteinsAccountant #IronLawofOligarchy #MechanismsofSelfPreservation #DystopianDataCenters #IranWarCeasefireCollapses #IsraeliHumanRightsViolations #IsraeliWarCrimes #2027NDAA #USIsraeliMilitaryIntegration

Trump's fossil-fuel politics leave America behind as China builds the clean-energy future, while Sanders and Platner organize against corrupt politicians. Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. In our sample game we look at playing as Austria and aiming for a Diplomatic Victory. And our focus is on puppeting Citty-States, but be I misunderstood and instead of making a Diplomatic Victory easier, it makes it harder. I still managed to get my Diplomatic Victory, but a Science or Domination Victory would definitely have been easier in this scenario. Playing Civilization V, Part 12 A Diplomatic Victory Strategy Civilization V introduced a new Victory type and I thought it might be fun to try this strategy for a sample game to see broadly how this would work. I decided I would play as Austria on Prince level, which means that all players are equal and no one is favored. For my map I chose Fractal, Map Size = Standard, Game speed = Standard. My only Advanced Option was Quick Combat, because I didn't need to see that drawn out, particularly since I plan to avoid combat as much as necessary. My leader is Maria Theresa, and her Austria has a unique ability called Diplomatic Marriage. This allows us to either Annex or Puppet any city-state that has been allied to us for 5 turns with the proper expenditure of Gold. My plan was to use this to Puppet the city-states to control their votes for the Diplomatic Victory, but that was a misunderstanding. I actually implemented one of the hardest ways to win a Diplomatic Victory. But that is what I did. Now to get them to ally with me the most effective way to do this is with cash and lots of it, and of course even more cash to actually effect to Puppeting of them. So my overriding objective in this game is to amass a large Treasury. But of course I cannot ignore my military either, since a weak military invites attacks form greedy neighbors. And I may need to “liberate” the occasional city-state if another player conquers them. Austria also has a Unique Unit, the Hussar, which replaces the Cavalry unit. It can move after attacking, has a flanking bonus, and has one extra movement. And the Unique Building is the Coffee House, which increases the generation of Great People in the city by 25%. So you can expect me to build these in every city as well. With that in mind, I started the game and settled in place, I had Mountains nearby, but also Sheep and Silver within my city, so some useful resources. I immediately started to produce a Scout as my first unit, and sent my Warrior out to explore. In the very early stage I focus on exploring the surrounding area and finding any Goody Huts, i.e. Ruins. My initial city site is not exactly ideal, as it is all hilly with Jungle nearby. After building my two Scouts, my next priority was to build a Worker unit to increase the productivity of my city. And for my first social policy I unlocked Tradition. When I got my second policy I picked Oligarchy, and plan to complete all of the Tradition tree. I cleared out a Barbarian encampment, and then discovered my first City-state, Vilnius. Then I needed to clear out another Barbarian encampment that was blocking me from finishing my exploration. Meanwhile I am focusing on getting techs for sailing the ocean blue, because that is how I plan to get trade routes, discover City-states I can puppet, and so on. Because money is key to my strategy I made a beeline for Currency in the my Science research. And while headed there I completed the Tradition tree. When I can get there I will work on the Commerce tree to maximize my cash, but until then the Patronage tree will let me improve my City-state relations, which is important for improving my relationships with City-states. After all, you need to be allies with them for 5 turns before you can puppet them. I now have three cities, and can probably squeeze out a few more, which should be sufficient to my needs. At Turn 141 I have 6 cities, which is all I will build in this game. I now have the technology to build Workshops, which are the first productivity boosters available, so I set all my cities to building them. For Research my immediate object was to get to Compass so I could build the Galleass, which would let me do more ocean exploration. But to go into deep Ocean I will need to go further to get Astronomy, which will let me build the Caravel which can enter deep ocean. Once I got that I switched to Banking, not just for the money, but as a prerequisite to building the Forbidden Palace, which grants two additional delegates in the World Congress/United Nations. When I get Banking I'll go back to Astronomy, and then Navigation, to advance my seagoing capabilities. By Turn 216 I had gotten Banking and started on the Forbidden Palace. And by luck, just as I got started I got a Great Engineer. I am holding him in reserve in case I need to hurry production, since Great Engineers are the only way to do that in Civ 5. I also picked up Astronomy, which will let me build Caravels to explore the whole ocean. My next research priority will be Gunpowder since it is time to beef up my defenses. At Turn 240 my Caravels started to come out, and I found several new City-States. And since my Treasury is healthy (I started with 6,000 gold, and I'm bringing in 100 each turn), I began the process of puppeting the City-states. Puppeting City-states as Austria Let's look at this in detail since it is important. The requirements are 2 things: Be allied with the City-state for 5 consecutive turns Have the cash needed. This amount is not too much early on, but it rises over time. So, how do you become allies with a City-state? There are a number of things you can do to improve your relationship. You can take on a quest that a City-state has published, which can be things like “Find another Natural Wonder” or “Create a Great Admiral”. These quests pop up continuously throughout the game, and you are free to ignore them, but fulfilling one will improve your relationship. Trade will also improve your relationship, so in this game all of my Trade routes were made with City-states. If you are in a position to have a successful war, you can find a former City-state that was conquered by one of the other Empires, liberate it, and then it will be your ally for the rest of the game. Giving them presents is how I usually do it, though. You can give them units or money. If your purpose is to get allies, money works best. But I do gift units in 2 circumstances. First, if I have obsolete units, giving them away might be better then deleting them. Second, if a City-state is under attack by another Empire. Gifting them units might help them hold out and make life difficult for a rival. The place where all of this is done is the City-state screen which opens up when you click on the bar above the City-state, which is where you handle all of your relationships. At the top of this screen you see your current status, which more often than not will be Neutral, which is how all City-state relationships start out. But you can get them angry by, for instance, moving a unit of your into their territory. If you only do it once, and give them time to get over it, they will go back to Neutral. You can also improve the relationship by pledging to protect them, but be careful. If they get attacked and you do not try to protect them, they will get very angry. Giving a gift opens a pop-up to say what kind of gift: 250 gold, 500 gold, 1000 gold, or a Unit. Note that a Unit is only worth 5 influence points, while 250 Gold is worth 20, so as I said Money is more powerful if your aim is to improve your status with them. So at Turn 242 I found the City-state of Singapore, and it appears that I was the first Empire to find them. So I immediately pledged to protect them. My Influence with them was 20, which is Neutral. We just met, and that is where things stand on first meeting. The be Friends you need to get to 30, and to be allies you need to get to 60. When I clicked Next Turn, I got a Quest from Singapore. They were worried about a Barbarian Encampment nearby, and if I cleared it out I would get additional influence with them. In this case, though, I let that go by. I want to move more quickly, and Singapore is across the Ocean from me. My influence with them at this point was 21, so only a modest increase. But I have 6038 Gold in my Treasury, and I am bringing in 102 per turn. So let's see what a gift of 500 Gold will do. It brings me to 65 influence, so we are now Allies. But when I mouse-over Singapore, the pop-up window reminds me that my Influence will decrease by 1.12 per turn. For an Empire other than Austria this would mean a regular infusion of cash to keep up your status. And I have won Diplomatic victories with other Empires by saving up a lot of cash and dumping it on City-states just before the United Nations vote. But for Austria you have special ability called Diplomatic Marriage that lets you turn the City-state into a Puppet, and that is permanent. But it also presents some obstacles as we will see. We are allies now, but my influence will drop by 1 each turn, and I might lose my allyship before I can puppet them. But I can gift a unit and get another 5, and I happen to have a very obsolete Warrior unit that will serve the purpose. However, it takes three turns for the Unit to arrive, so I lose few more points. At Turn 247 I can now use the diplomatic Marriage option to make a puppet of Singapore. Prior to doing this I was fourth in score with 604, while the leader had 729. My Happiness Level was +25, and I now had 5833 Gold in my Treasury. Then I made Singapore a puppet, and now I am third in the game with a score of 664. My Treasury has fallen to 5258, which means it cost me 575 Gold. But most significant is that my Happiness fell from +25 to +9, which is a huge loss. I have enough gold to puppet 4-5 more City-states at this time but if I did I would have rebellions breaking out and my Empire would eventually collapse. This is the obstacle that Austria has to face. We need to promote Happiness before we go much further with making puppets. Civ is always a game of balances. Links https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/City-state_(Civ5) https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Austrian_(Civ5) https://www.palain.com/gaming/civilization-v/playing-civilization-v-part-12/ Provide feedback on this episode.

The Asset team is releasing a 6-part audio drama Patriarchs. As the United States approaches 250 years of independence, the nation is asking hard questions about how it began, who paid the price, and what kind of republic it has become. Patriarchs, a loaded but apt term in today's vernacular, is a six-episode historical podcast drama that answers those questions by chronicling the most consequential relationship in early America: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, told in their own words. Subscribe hereWe begin with two former presidents looking back over a life together as friends, rivals, and uneasy family. From there, listeners travel back to the moment these strangers first step outside the Continental Congress to talk, two lawyers, two farmers, two men who have no idea they are about to remake the world. Every scene, every argument, every confession in Patriarchs is drawn from real letters, speeches, and memoirs, voiced by an ensemble of award-‑winning actors—with Stacy Keach starring as Thomas Jefferson. The result is an intimate drama of brilliant founders who are also flawed fathers, husbands, slaveholders, and partisans. ​We hear their partnership forged in crisis, as they push Congress toward independence and wrestle the language of the Declaration onto the page.​ Alongside them is Abigail Adams, one of the sharpest political minds of the age, whose letters slice cleanly through ego and ideology. Patriarchs also confronts the reality of slavery and sexual exploitation in the founding generation, centering Sally Hemings not as rumor but as a speaking, thinking presence whose choices and constraints shape Jefferson's life. Patriarchs is a chance to hear the founding generation as they really sounded: insecure, vain, idealistic, petty, courageous, haunted—often in the same breath in a rare combination of rigorous primary-source history and bingeable character drama, led by Stacy Keach and a veteran cast capable of carrying both prestige storytelling and wide audience appeal. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Graham Platner, your Friendly Neighborhood Oyster Fuhrer, TWICE referred to Sen. Bernie Sanders as Berne "Standers" in Portland yesterday. Also, Andy Kim, not that one, gets pepper sprayed by ICE in New Jersey  Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

Thank you Gilda Johnson, Maureen McManus, For A Better World, Maggie Neale, Bobby K, and many others for tuning into my live video!* China Leads Sodium-Ion Battery Race As Trump's Green Energy War Leaves America Behind: China is scaling sodium-ion batteries while Trump's fossil-fuel politics leave America behind in clean energy, grid storage, and the next manufacturing boom. [More]* Rallying With Sanders, Platner Condemn… To hear more, visit egberto.substack.com

On February 20th of this year, the president of the US declared in a tweet that he would be directing the DOD to “begin the process of identifying and releasing” files related to the government's knowledge of UFO's. While this sounds hopeful, the unfortunate reality is that this seemingly good news comes at a time when the declining health of the United States' democracy is more obvious than ever before. In this episode Nik and Tom will be taking a critical lens to the current power dynamics at work within the US, and attempt to answer the question of how these dynamics might influence the process of any formal UFO disclosure. As always we're pairing our discussion with a playlist of 3 songs from up and coming shoegaze bands from around the globe. The songs on this episode are: "Dreams" by The Riverside Orca https://theriversideorca.bandcamp.com/"No Conviction" by Nursing https://whoisnursing.bandcamp.com/music"Who You Wish You Were" by Super Vehiclehttps://supervehicle.bandcamp.com/We hope you enjoy this episode of the Aliengazing Podcast, and until next time:Stay spacey, and keep gazin'

After two centuries of expanding democracy, why has America become more unequal — not less? On this episode we listen to highlights from a recent conversation with political scientist Jeffrey Winters of Northwestern University. His new book, The Blind Spot: How Oligarchs Dominate Our Democracy, examines the failure of democracy to address wealth inequality and why this issue is by design. This conversation was recorded on May 7 at the Englert Theatre, presented by the Iowa City Foreign Relations Council.

The AI “cloud” sounds weightless. But behind every chat bot, every prompt, and every promise of a coming AI revolution is a massive physical footprint: hyperscale data centers consuming enormous amounts of land, electricity, water, and public subsidies. This week, Nick and Goldy talk with Tim Murphy, national correspondent at Mother Jones, about his cover story on how the American oligarchy went hyperscale in the age of AI. Murphy has been reporting from communities across the country where residents are watching enormous data centers rise in their backyards, often with little transparency, few long-term jobs, and huge demands on local infrastructure. The result is a familiar story: public risk, private reward. Tech billionaires get the profits. Communities get higher utility costs, depleted resources, tax breaks they may never recoup, and facilities that could become tomorrow's stranded assets when the AI bubble bursts. AI may be new. But the economic model behind this boom is very old: extract from communities, concentrate power at the top, and call it progress. Tim Murphy is a national correspondent at Mother Jones. Social Media: @timothypmurphy.bsky.social @timothypmurphy @motherjones.com @MotherJones Further reading:  Mother Jones - How the American Oligarchy Went Hyperscale Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Facebook: Pitchfork Economics Podcast Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics TikTok: @pitchfork_econ YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer Substack: ⁠The Pitch⁠

Subscribe now to skip the ads and get all of our episodes. Danny and Derek speak with David Sirota, founder and EIC of The Lever, about journalism, independent media, and the consolidation of presidential power. They discuss the difference between journalism and media, the attention economy, capitalist media, audience capture, the decline of local news, the Powell Memo, the unitary executive theory, war powers, and Donald Trump's use of executive power.Be sure to listen to The Kingmakers, the second season of David's investigative podcast Master Plan. Don't forget that AP's new, weekly livestream is back this Wednesday at 8pm ET on our YouTube channel. And keep your eyes peeled for Season 2 of Welcome to the Crusades. Recorded 4/27/26 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Danny and Derek speak with David Sirota, founder and EIC of The Lever, about journalism, independent media, and the consolidation of presidential power. They discuss the difference between journalism and media, the attention economy, capitalist media, audience capture, the decline of local news, the Powell Memo, the unitary executive theory, war powers, and Donald Trump's use of executive power.Be sure to listen to The Kingmakers, the second season of David's investigative podcast Master Plan.Don't forget that AP's new, weekly livestream is back this Wednesday at 8pm ET on our YouTube channel.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In our latest, Scott discusses the roots of populist politics in American history, from the anti-robber baron movements of the Gilded Age to the New Deal era to the current Trump era with Professor Charles Derber. Guest Bio//Charles Derber is an American academic, author and political activist. He is a professor of sociology at Boston College. His work focuses on capitalism, globalization, corporate power and oligarchy, populism, authoritarianism and democracy, militarism, the climate crisis, cultural individualism, and social justice movements. He is the author of "Fighting Oligarchy: How Positive Populism Can Reclaim America."---------------------

This week we zoomed out to take stock of the greatest financial heist in recorded history. Sixteen years of bailouts, money printing, and acronym soup that kept corporate America whole while the rest of us fell further behind. And then we took a quick detour into crypto, where Bitcoin is quietly creeping back up and the guy sitting on $62 billion worth of it really wants you to think that’s a sign you should buy in. Chapters Intro: 00:00:00 Quick Takes: 00:00:44 Max Notes: 00:06:01 Killer Left Take of the Week: 00:20:45 Chart of the Week: 00:23:05 Headlines: 00:26:07 Pod Love + Book Love: 00:28:46 Outro: 00:30:01 Resources ProPublica: Bailout Tracker: Tracking Every Dollar and Every Recipient U.S. Department of the Treasury: Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) MIT Sloan: Here’s how much the 2008 bailouts really cost Levy Economics Institute: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bailout by Funding Facility and Recipient Parker Poe: Summary of the $2 Trillion Federal CARES Act U.S. Department of the Treasury: Airline and National Security Relief Programs Brookings Institution: What did the Fed do in response to the COVID-19 crisis? U.S. Small Business Administration: Paycheck Protection Program U.S. Congressional Budget Office: Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 Good Jobs First: Subsidy Tracker Top 100 Parent Companies The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder: Mamdani Is Rewriting The Democratic Playbook Bloomberg: Bitcoin’s Stealth Rally Has Traders Setting Sights on $80,000 Bloomberg: Climate Change Is Already Showing Up in the Cost of Living Mother Jones: Number Go Up. The Oligarchy in Overdrive WSWS: El Salvador’s Bukele regime stages mass show trial for nearly 500 alleged gang members Pod Love Straight White American Jesus: Project 2025 in Action Book Love Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff: Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed UNFTR Resources Essay: What Will the Next Bailout look like? Video: White House Assassination Plot, Bailout Coming, and Fed's Dangerous Gamble Video: MTN Macro Take: The Warsh Man for the Job -- If you like #UNFTR, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Bluesky, and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Become a member at unftr.com/memberships. Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee at shop.unftr.com. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility.Support the show: https://www.unftr.com/membershipsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guest host Joe Cirincione fills in for Bill Press and interviews Mother Jones investigative journalist Tim Murphy about his cover story, “Power Hungry: How the AI Oligarchy Gobbled Up America.” Murphy describes how the post–ChatGPT AI race has driven a boom in hyperscale data centers—projects the size of Central Park that demand immense electricity, water, and even on-site power plants, sometimes pushing nuclear plants like Three Mile Island to reopen. He argues this “hyperscale” moment has narrowed and intensified U.S. oligarchy, fusing concentrated tech wealth with political power, including major 2024 election spending and alliances with Donald Trump. Murphy details disruptive impacts on rural communities, secrecy via shell companies and NDAs, fears of boom-and-bust “empty hulks,” and growing bipartisan local backlash raising questions about democracy, agency, and the future envisioned by AI leaders.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Text us your questions!Prayer doesn't always happen in a church. Sometimes it happens under streetlights or beside old trees. We open with Randy's simple practice of late night walks and how nature has slowly become the place where his spirituality feels dynamic again. That shift also brings a collision with old religious instincts: the inner voice that says connection is dangerous, that wonder is “worship,” that the world exists mainly to serve us.Brian McLaren joins us to widen the frame. We talk about childhood experiences of creation, why Genesis begins with the goodness and value of the world, and how Psalm 19 might be less about “the book of nature” and more about wisdom embedded in reality itself. Kyle presses on the honest question: what makes a mountain feel like God instead of just a mountain? From awe to fear, from humility to love, we explore why these experiences can be spiritually formative.The conversation then turns outward to ethics and survival. We dig into reciprocity versus domination, how capitalism trains us for transaction without relationship, and how Darwin's “survival of the fittest” is often misunderstood. We also unpack pantheism and panentheism in plain language, wrestle with the moral weight of eating and harm, and return to the biblical tension of “till and keep” as both permission and responsibility. Finally, Brian shares why he wrote his sci fi novel The Last Voyage, how climate overshoot and oligarchy shape the story, and why resignation, whether optimistic or pessimistic, is the enemy of faithful action.=====Want to support us?The best way is to subscribe to our Patreon. Annual memberships are available for a 10% discount.If you'd rather make a one-time donation, you can contribute through our PayPal.Other important info:Rate & review us on Apple & SpotifyFollow us on social media at @PPWBPodcastWatch & comment on YouTubeEmail us at pastorandphilosopher@gmail.comCheers!

Veteran foreign correspondent and journalist John Helmer discusses propaganda today, how the U.S. Empire is not going away anytime soon, and examines the factionalism between Zionist advisors and pragmatic strategists like J.D. Vance regarding the conflict with Iran. Helmer notes that while the West maintains tactical military advantages, Iran has gained strategic ground by establishing a credible deterrent through its missile capabilities. Turning to Russia, he describes a nation navigating economic recession and internal political pressure ahead of elections, suggesting that President Putin is often forced into compromises to maintain domestic stability. BRICS as an anti-imperial force has collapsed. Ultimately, he provides a sobering outlook on a future of permanent war and the erosion of international legal standards. Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rumble / Substack / YouTube *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com Donate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donations Consult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Listen Ad-Free for $4.99 a Month or $49.99 a Year! Apple Subscriptions https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/geopolitics-empire/id1003465597 Supercast https://geopoliticsandempire.supercast.com ***Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopolitics American Gold Exchange https://www.amergold.com/geopolitics easyDNS (15% off with GEOPOLITICS) https://easydns.com Escape The Technocracy (15% off with GEOPOLITICS) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopolitics PassVult https://passvult.com Sociatates Civis https://societates-civis.com StartMail https://www.startmail.com/partner/?ref=ngu4nzr Wise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites John Helmer https://johnhelmer.net X https://x.com/bears_with About John Helmer John Helmer is the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. He first set up his bureau in 1989, making him today the doyen of the foreign press corps in Russia. His family has many links to Russia. The founding father was a soldier from Denmark in Napoleon's Grande Armée, who in 1806 decided his chances of survival were greater if he didn't try to keep Napoleon company on the return home. Other family members were killed by the Germans during the invasion of the Soviet Union of 1941. Born and educated in Australia, then at Harvard University, Helmer has also been a professor of political science, of sociology, and of journalism, and an advisor to government heads in Australia, Greece, the United States, and Sri Lanka. He is a regular presenter on Russian topics in China, Western Europe, and the United States, and at conferences organized by CRU, Center for Management Technologies, the Vicenza (Italy) Fair, and other industry conventions. Before Russia, Helmer published several books in the US on military and political topics. Essays on the American presidency and on urban policy in the US followed in book compilations in 1981 and 1982; essays on Greek and Middle Eastern politics between 1986 and 1989. Since 1989 he has published almost exclusively on Russian topics. Today Helmer is one of the most widely read Russian specialists in the business world for his news-breaking stories on Russian base and precious metals, diamonds, mining, shipping, insurance, food trade, and business policy. *Podcast intro music used with permission is from the song “The Queens Jig” by the fantastic “Musicke & Mirth” from their album “Music for Two Lyra Viols”: http://musicke-mirth.de/en/recordings.html (available on iTunes or Amazon)

Re-Air Date: 04-07-26 Original Air Date: 1-15-2025 Elon Musk is leading the way for his class of tech broligarchs anxious to take over the MAGA movement and shape it to their own ends of deregulation, tax cuts, and lucrative government contracts. The disappointment that is inevitable for the MAGA populists is coming even faster than expected. Be part of the show! Leave a voice message, message us on Signal at the handle bestoftheleft.01, or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Full Show Notes Check out our new show, SOLVED! on YouTube! BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) Join our Discord community! KEY POINTS KP 1: The long con of America's ultra-wealthy elites - The ReidOut - Air Date 1-2-25 KP 2: Crack-Up Capitalism- How Billionaire Elon Musk's Extremism Is Shaping Trump Admin & Global Politics - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-6-24 KP 3: GOP Already At Each Other's Throats While Musk Gloats - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-24-24 KP 4: MAGA civil war explodes between Elon & Trump faithful - No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Air Date 12-29-24 KP 5: Elon & Vivek's H1-B Crash Out - Bad Faith - Air Date 1-2-25 KP 6: Our Moment is Approaching - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-31-24 KP 7: Weekly Roundup Jimmy Carter vs Elon Musk - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 1-3-25 KP 8: The Oligarch Class - Left Anchor - Air Date 1-3-25 (55:36) NOTE FROM THE EDITOR On the rehashing of the anti-democratic argument for extreme wealth for the benefit of humanity DEEPER DIVES (1:07:48) SECTION A: OLIGARCHS (1:35:31) SECTION B: THE MAGA FRACTURE (1:51:12) SECTION C: GLOBAL INFLUENCE (2:21:52) SECTION D: ORGANIZING SHOW IMAGE Description: Composite image of a close-up of a MAGA hat with a tag attached that says "Made in China". The hat has cracks and the head of Elon Musk pokes out through a tear in the fabric. Trump's eyes are visible below the hat brim. Credit: Composite design by A. Hoffman | Images from Pixabay | License: Pixabay

Nicolle Wallace covers the threats Brendan Carr, chair of the FCC, and Donald Trump have made to the news media for covering the war in Iran in a matter that is ‘unfavorable' to the Trump administration. Later, Nicolle covers new reporting that young Trump voters regret their vote for Donald Trump because they feel betrayed by the war in Iran and by the state of the economy. For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewh To listen to this show and other MS NOW podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.