Podcasts about origins

In this episode, host Ken Fong sits down with New York Times bestselling author, filmmaker, and Silicon Valley tech leader Abigail Hing Wen. Famous for her hit Loveboat, Taipei trilogy (and the feature film adaptation Love in Taipei), Abigail expands her storytelling universe into artificial intelligence and virtual reality with her novel The Vale and its short film prequel The Vale — Origins. Amazon: Purchase The Vale Barnes & Noble: Purchase The Vale   And here is the Ambassador Book Club Link https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pHmm56EPG-re4EoWa42sRHtQDvT8zvmHnl2v29izxVk/edit?usp=drivesdk

(00:00) Happy hump day! Only two days away from Nick and Adolfo's 40th bday bash at Encore! It's been a hot minute since Hardy has been to a night club. There are lots of different types of house music. Fred just likes to think everything originates in Detroit. (00:17:49.54)(00:33:24.65) WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT: The world is awaiting where Lebron will end up next. The Red Sox got a double header today after last night's game was canceled. Can they make it to 15 games in a row? A's rookie Joshua Kuroda Grauer left the game after rupturing his testicle. Please note: Timecodes may shift by a few minutes due to inserted ads. Because of copyright restrictions, portions—or entire segments—may not be included in the podcast.CONNECT WITH TOUCHER & HARDY: linktr.ee/ToucherandHardyFor the latest updates, visit the show page on 985thesportshub.com. Follow 98.5 The Sports Hub on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Watch the show every morning on YouTube, and subscribe to stay up-to-date with all the best moments from Boston's home for sports!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson and Massachusetts state champion U.S. history and civics teacher Kelley Brown speak with Alison LaCroix, the Newton Reid Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, about the constitutional foundations of American federalism. Drawing on her book, The Ideological Origins of […]

NOTE: For Ad-Free Episodes, 100+hrs of Bonus Content and More - Visit our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/thewheelweavespodcastFind us on our Instagram, YouTube & Website, and join the conversation on Discord!In this episode Dani and Brett are joined by Special Guest, Michael Livingston, to discuss PERSPECTIVES 9-12 of Chapter 37 of A Memory of Light!Check out everything from Michael at www.MichaelLivingston.comWe would like to acknowledge and thank our Executive Producers Brandy and Aaron Kirkwood, Sean McGuire, Janes, LightBlindedFool, Big C, Deyvis Ferreira, Green Man, Bennett Williamson, Hannah Green, Noralia, Greysin Ishara, Helena Jacobsen, Matthew Mendoza, Sims, Cyndi, Manethraen, Andrew Scarponi, Mr. Boddy's Body, David, and HoneyBunchesOfJason!We want to thank and welcome David Mole, Monica Madden and Strange Lobo to the Wheel Weaves Patreon team!The Wheel Weaves is hosted and edited by Dani and Brett, produced by Dani and Brett with Passionsocks, Cody Fouts, Mozyme, Jamie Young, Jared Berg, Rikky Morrisette, Matt Truss, Antoine Benoit, MKM, Magen, Colby T, Gabby Young, Ricat, Chris G., Sarah Creech, Saverio Bartolini, Mag621, William Johnson, Courtney B, Hammar's Lament, Bret's Pickle Facts, ThElfwitch and Tina Gruene; with music by Audionautix.Don't forget to leave us that 5 star review if you enjoy the show for a chance to win exclusive merchandise!Check out https://www.thewheelweavespodcast.com for everything The Wheel Weaves!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-wheel-weaves-podcast-a-wheel-of-time-podcast--5482260/support.

Ghost welcomes War Hamster Brady back to the Badlands for a deep dive into a name most people have never heard but probably should: Yevgeny Primakov. Political mentor to both Putin and Lavrov, Primakov drafted a doctrine in the 1990s that Brady argues is basically the blueprint for everything unfolding on the world stage right now. The two trace it all back to the fall of the Soviet Union, that famous "not one inch" NATO promise, oligarch chaos, and the long game of building a Eurasian counterweight to Western dollar dominance. Expect maps, a rescued 1997 Heritage Foundation article, a tour through reserve currency history from the Dutch Guilder to today, and a healthy dose of "how does the world actually work" energy. Heavy on geopolitics, light on hand waving. If you like your history with receipts and a few dots connected, this one delivers.

Welcome back to the Alt Goes Mainstream podcast.We were live from Berlin, which becomes the “capital of private capital” in June as the private equity's industry leaders make the annual pilgrimage to the city for one of the marquee private equity conferences, SuperReturn Berlin.Much of the SuperReturn conference is centered on fundraising. GPs take up every available space — from hotel rooms to Tiny Space cabins that line the parking spots on Budapester Strasse outside of the InterContinental conference venue — to conduct meetings with LPs.With Prosek Partners and former Bloomberg TV journalist Deirdre Bolton as my producer, along with her team, we took over a Tiny Space cabin to hold big conversations with some of the industry's leading alternative asset managers.Our first conversation was with Apax Co-CEOs Andrew Sillitoe and Mitch Truwit.Apax is one of the pioneers in the private equity industry. The firm's rich history dates back to the 1970s, when its founders, Alan Patricof (US), Sir Ronald Cohen (UK), and Maurice Tchénio (France), came together to establish the first US-UK partnership firm in private equity. During that time period, the firm backed Steve Jobs and the first iteration of Apple. The UK and US firms merged in 1981, laying the foundation for Apax.Today, Apax stands at over $80B in aggregate funds raised. The firm underwent its second leadership transition in 2014, when Andrew and Mitch were elected as Co-CEOs, succeeding Martin Halusa, who became Chairman.Apax sits in a unique position. They are a scaled platform that focuses on the middle market. They operate across three sectors, Tech, Services, and Digital / Consumer, infusing a digital DNA and value creation team into everything they do. Their platform spans “a mile wide and a mile deep,” which is what much of the conversation between Andrew, Mitch, and me unpacked.We had a fascinating discussion about the current state of private equity and the middle market, why Apax focuses on “density-driven business models,” why the firm focuses on carveouts in the middle market, what's underappreciated about the middle market, why it's important to “buy in the right neighborhood and fix it up,” and how the firm's core values of “having impact through insight and tenacity” drive every decision they make.BiosAndrew Sillitoe has been Co-CEO of Apax since 2014. He is Chairman of the Apax Global Investment Committee and the Digital Investment Committee, amongst others. He is also a member of the Apax Executive Committee. He has been based in London since joining the Firm in 1998, focusing on Tech & Telco investments.Andrew has been involved in a number of investments including Inmarsat, Intelsat, King, Orange Switzerland, TIVIT, TDC and Unilabs.Prior to joining Apax, Andrew was a consultant at LEK. Andrew holds an MA in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from the University of Oxford and an MBA from INSEAD.BoardsAndrew has previously served on the boards of Inmarsat, King, Intelsat, Orange Switzerland and TDC.Mitch Truwit is Co-CEO of Apax, based in New York.Prior to joining Apax in 2006, Mitch was the President and CEO of Orbitz Worldwide between 2005 and 2006 and was the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of priceline.com between 2001 and 2005.Mitch is a graduate of Vassar College where he received a BA in Political Science. He also holds an MBA from the Harvard Business School.BoardsMitch serves as a Board member of Openlane and Trade Me. Prior boards include Advantage Sales & Marketing, Assured Partners, Dealer.com, Bankrate, Garda World, Hub International, Trader Canada, Boats Group and Quality Distribution Inc.Mitch serves on the charitable boards of the Apax Foundation, the John McEnroe Tennis Project, Posse and StreetSquash.Thanks, Andrew and Mitch, for a fascinating conversation and for sharing your expertise, wisdom, and passion at the intersection of investing and operating in private equity.Show Notes00:00 Meet Apax co-CEOs, Andrew Sillitoe and Mitch Truwit00:26 Andrew's Origins at Apax00:47 Private Equity Then vs Now01:25 Apax Growth and Values01:45 Curiosity as a Differentiator02:04 Mitch's Operator Background02:56 Why Mitch Joined Apax03:40 Defining the Middle Market04:14 Why Sub-Billion EV Works04:59 Middle Market Talent Gap05:20 Carve Outs as a Strategy05:29 TRADER Corporation - Canada App Turnaround06:12 Scaled Platform Advantage07:14 Digital DNA and AI Wave07:50 Top Line Growth Lever08:36 Add-ons and TAM Expansion09:33 ECI Case Study Roll Up10:07 Integration Over Collection10:28 Exit Options in a Bigger PE World10:59 Building for Multiple Buyers11:45 Fund Size Discipline12:34 Choosing Returns Over AUM13:16 Understanding Firm DNA14:01 Global Micro Investing14:49 Making Global Pods Work15:50 Scale Specialization Flexibility17:08 Where to Invest Now19:23 Buying Complexity for Value20:15 Moats and Investment Committee22:13 Why Middle Market Excites Them23:19 Future of PE and AI at Scale24:50 Impact Insight Tenacity Culture25:54 Obligation to Dissent Story26:55 Aspirational Brand Analogy27:48 Wrap Up and Thanks

The crux of this podcast episode revolves around the intriguing evolution of the process involved in spotting the football, as elucidated by our esteemed guest, Timothy Brown, an expert in football archaeology. Our discourse delves into the historical nuances of how the game's foundational rules regarding the placement of the ball have transformed over time, particularly examining the practices in antiquity when the rules were not as clearly defined. We explore the transition from an era where the ball's placement was dictated by custom and player discretion to a more structured system governed by modern officiating protocols. Additionally, we discuss pivotal moments in football history that shaped the current regulations surrounding the rotation and positioning of the ball during play. Join us as we navigate through these historical developments that have indelibly influenced the game we know and cherish today.The conversation is based on Tim's recent article titled: The Twists and Turns of Spotting Dead Balls - https://www.footballarchaeology.com/p/the-twists-and-turns-of-spottingThe discourse engages with the evolution of the fundamental aspects of American football, specifically the intricate process of how the ball is spotted during gameplay. The conversation unveils historical practices, revealing that the early iterations of football lacked a standardized method for ball placement, which was primarily dictated by custom rather than formal regulations. The dialogue emphasizes the transformative journey from a rudimentary and fluid style of play, akin to rugby, to the regimented and rule-bound game we recognize today. The speakers delve into the historical context, citing the contributions of notable figures such as Timothy Brown, who elucidates the significance of ball rotation and spotting techniques that have become integral to the sport. Through their discussion, they elucidate that the methods used to determine ball placement were not merely technicalities, but rather reflections of the game's evolution and the establishment of a more structured approach to play.⏰ Timecodes ⏰00:21 The Origins of Game Rules01:49 The Evolution of Spotting the Ball in Football04:31 The Evolution of Touchdown Rules in Football09:35 The Evolution of Football Rules: The Ball Rotation Controversy11:52 Understanding the Goal Line and the Ball's Position15:12 Exploring Football History and ResourcesDo you want more football history? Grab a copy of our Award-Winning book, "The World's Greatest Pro Gridiron Team: The 1903 Franklin All-Stars" at https://amzn.to/4rG6uVeDon't forget to check out and subscribe to the Pigskin Dispatch YouTube channel for additional content and the regular Football History Minute Shorts.Miss our football by the day of the year podcasts, well, don't, because they can still be found at the Pigskin Dispatch website. Do you want more football history? Test your Gridiron Knowledge, we feed you Daily with our new FREE activity, The Pigskin Trivia Drive.Grab a copy of our latest book, "Marooned," on the 1925 Pottsville Maroons NFL franchise saga.*OR* Grab a copy of our book on Western Pennsylvania football history, "World's Greatest Gridiron Team" on the 1903 Franklin All-StarsDrop us a line at PigskinDispatch@gmail .com and check out and subscribe to the Pigskin Dispatch YouTube channel.Contact us directly at PigskinDispatch@Gmail.comMiss our football by the day of the year podcasts, well, don't because they can still be found at the Pigskin Dispatch website.

Anime is a special kind of animation that started in Japan. It began over 100 years ago with simple black-and-white cartoons. As time went on, anime became colorful and filled with exciting stories. Famous shows like "Dragon Ball" and "Sailor Moon" helped anime become popular all over the world. Today, people of all ages enjoy watching anime because of its unique style and creativity. Learn how anime grew from small beginnings into a global sensation loved by millions.

3 HoursPG-13This is the complete audio of the modern policing series with Thomas777.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Adam and Jeff talk about the death of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and a few reasons why, no matter what side of the aisle you land on, you shouldn't be too sad he's not around anymore. Includes talk about his flip-flopping on Trump's viability as a president, his flip-flopping on January 6th, his history of supporting and promoting anti-LGBTQ legislation, and so much more! Reference Links:He Said Very Mean Things About Trumphttps://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/most-vicious-things-lindsey-graham-060507415.html And Then Took Those Mean Things Back To Keep the American War Machine Goinghttps://www.thenation.com/article/politics/lindsey-graham-obituary-trump/ https://specialto.thebulwark.com/archive?sort=new Said Very Mean Things About Trump On January 6thhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-sen-graham-says-presidents-actions-were-the-problem And Then Took Those Mean Things Back 40 Minutes Laterhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-graham-took-back-criticism-142414313.html The Origins of the Ladybugs/Anti-Gay Legislationhttps://www.distractify.com/p/lindsey-graham-ladybugs-meaning https://glaad.org/gap/lindsey-graham/ 

Evil never dies. Join Reneé, John Paul, and Travis as they discuss Stephen Cognetti's 2023 supernatural found footage horror film "Hell House LLC Origins: The Carmichael Manor." Please consider supporting the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thepodmortem  Pod Mortem / Stairhole Productions Merch: https://thepodmortem.dashery.com/  Pod Mortem would like to thank Original CINematic for sponsoring this week's episode! https://www.ogcinpro.com/  Feel free to contact: William Rush: wrush@ogcinpro.com Xxena Rush: xrush@ogcinpro.com    Where to listen to the podcast and follow us on social media: https://allmylinks.com/thepodmortem Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepodmortem https://www.instagram.com/travismwh https://www.instagram.com/bloodandsmoke https://www.instagram.com/juggalodaddy84 Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thepodmortem https://twitter.com/bloodandsmoke https://twitter.com/realstreeter84 https://twitter.com/travismwh What would you rate Hell House LLC Origins: The Carmichael Manor and what should we watch next? Email us at thepodmortem@gmail.com    "Pod Mortem Theme" written and performed by Travis Hunter-Sayapin. https://youtube.com/travismwh Podcast artwork by Brian Demarest. https://www.instagram.com/evilflynn

How do you go from producing Dirty Dancing to building the global Mortal Kombat franchise? Today's guest, legendary producer Larry Kasanoff, has raised over a billion dollars by embracing what others call a little bit crazy. He has shaped the entertainment landscape by constantly fighting the current of mediocrity. Today, we are breaking down how to lead through massive industry shifts and build brands that stand the test of time. What You'll Learn in This Episode How to identify the core essence of a brand so you can stretch it across different media successfully Why fostering a state of play is essential for leading creative teams and sparking innovation The importance of asking anyone anything to advance your projects and overcome creative barriers How to balance emerging technologies like AI with the enduring human elements of storytelling Why embracing a touch of the madness helps you fight the pull of mediocrity in your work Episode Chapters (00:00) Intro (01:08) Finding the Essence of Enduring Global Brands (04:41) Protecting the Brand and Knowing When to Say No (06:24) Embracing a Touch of the Madness in Leadership (08:13) The Create Ask Play Framework (10:20) The Origins of a Touch of the Madness (14:08) Balancing New Technologies with Timeless Storytelling (16:49) Leading Like a Visionary and the Value of Play (26:51) The Brand That Made Our Guest Smile About Larry Kasanoff Larry Kasanoff is a legendary producer who has raised over a billion dollars and shaped the entertainment landscape. He is known for building enduring global franchises across movies, video games, theme parks, and music, including the massive Mortal Kombat brand. Beginning his career as head of production at Vestron, he greenlit the Academy Award-winning film Platoon and has since led major tech shifts in the industry. Larry is the author of A Touch of the Madness, where he shares his philosophy on fighting mediocrity and taking bold creative risks. What Brand Has Made Larry Smile Recently? Larry recently smiled thinking about Sennelier, a historic French brand of pastels. As someone who enjoys drawing, he visited their store in Paris and was captivated by the brand's enduring story. Now, whenever he sees his Sennelier pastels on his work table, it brings a smile to his face. Resources & Links Connect with Larry on LinkedIn and his website. Learn more about Larry's company, Threshold Entertainment Group. Check out his new book, A Touch of the Madness. Listen & Support the Show Watch or listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon/Audible, TuneIn, and iHeart. Rate and review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify to help others find the show. Share this episode — email a friend or colleague this episode. Sign up for my free Story Strategies newsletter for branding and storytelling tips. On Brand is a part of the Marketing Podcast Network. Until next week, I'll see you on the Internet! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 2 of the Attachment Wounds & Erotic Emotions SeriesMaybe you have a tendency to intellectualize or spiritualize your experience, but not always fully feel it. Or maybe you can only really arrive in your body when something intense is happening. This episode is about how that happens, how it shapes your erotic needs and the way you show up in intimacy, and what to do about it, if you choose. The safety wound is the earliest developmental wound we're covering in this series. It shows up in desires, in relationship, and in sex, plus in every day life where people with this wound have a tendency to dissociate. This episode is Part 2 in the Attachment Wounds and Erotic Emotions series — if you haven't listened to Episode 130 yet, start there first.What Is the Safety Wound? Origins and Early DevelopmentThe safety wound forms in the very first stage of life — from the womb through infancy, before language, and before verbal memory as we know it. The unmet need is fundamental: a sense that the world is safe to exist in, and that the body is a safe place to be.The causes can include traumatic birth, early separation from a birth mother through adoption or loss, time in a NICU, parental anxiety or depression, domestic chaos, overwhelming or unpredictable environments, or generational trauma. Often nothing was done consciously or intentionally. The body simply learned, very early, that being present was dangerous — and dissociation became the primary survival strategy.This pattern is recognized across multiple psychological traditions. In Hakomi, it's called the Sensitive-Withdrawn pattern. In the Neuroaffective Model (NATouch and NARM), it's the Connection survival style. In the Somatica Institute® framework, it's the UnSAFE wound. Different names, same consistently observed pattern — and none of them mean anything is wrong with you. This is just a coping style, and it carries some challenges that can be worked with.We'll also cover here:What the Safety Wound Feels Like: Dissociation, Floating, and Empathy OverloadHow the Safety Wound Shapes Erotic DesiresThe Safety Wound in Intimate Relationships and SexHealing the Safety Wound: Coming Back to Your BodyIn this episode:What the safety wound is, where it comes from, and why it forms so early — before language, before memoryWhy dissociation here is a brilliant survival adaptation, not a pathology — and how I recognized it in my own experienceHow this wound is named across Hakomi, NARM, and the Somatica Institute® framework — and why the older Freudian label is worth leaving behindWhat the safety wound feels like from the inside: the floating quality, the empathy overload, the pull toward intellectualizing and spiritual bypassing — and the deep current of pain, fear, or rage that often lives underneathHow the safety wound shapes erotic desire through two pathways: resolution (craving calm, merged, held, contained, seen) and repetition with agency (craving intensity, edge, risk, primal)Why craving dangerous or intense experiences in a chosen context makes complete sense for this wound — and why felt safety is still the prerequisite, even for the edgy stuffWhat the safety wound looks like in relationships: the connection that arrives and quietly disappears, and what partners tend to experience in bedWhat healing looks like for this wound — embodiment first — and why somatic work is more relevant here than therapy or spirituality aloneCompanion resource for this series: The Wheel of Erotic Emotions → laurajurgens.com/wheelTopics: safety wound, attachment wound, dissociation and intimacy, dissociation and desire, not in your body during sex, childhood trauma and sexuality, somatic sex coach, somatic intimacy coach, intimacy coach, erotic emotions, erotic desires, attachment and desire, childhood wounds relationships, sensitive withdrawn attachment, connection survival style, attachment, healing dissociation, embodiment and desire, feminist sex coachGet my free guide: Get Out of Your Head: A Starter Guide to Releasing the Pressure, Shame, and "Shoulds" Around Intimacy at https://laurajurgens.com/guideMore links: Substack at https://laurajurgens.substack.com/Pleasure Path Diagnostic here: https://laurajurgens.com/diagnostic/About me, testimonials, blog, bookings: https://laurajurgens.com/Wheel of Erotic emotions, go to: https://laurajurgens.com/wheelCopyright notice: All content in this podcast is copyrighted and copying, scraping, data mining, or using the content to train AI is prohibited. 

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Turi Munthe is a journalist and policy analyst turned media entrepreneur and writer. As a journalist and Middle East policy analyst, Turi has written for the Economist, Guardian, TLS, THES, the Nation, Spectator, and many others. He has appeared on the BBC, Fox, CNN, al-Jazeera, NBC and others, and given lectures at universities all over the world - Oxford, Sciences Politiques Paris, CUNY, and elsewhere. He has also advised governments across Europe and the Middle East. He is the author of Why We Think What We Think: The Unexpected Origins of Our Deepest Beliefs. In this episode, we focus on Why We Think What We Think. We talk about what opinions are, and the many factors that influence them. We explore the social aspects that predict people's opinions; climate and geography; why conventionally attractive people are more right-wing; and peanut butter preferences. We discuss a biological basis to political beliefs, the social functions of opinions, and tribalism. Finally, we talk about philosophy and science, and political radicalization and polarization.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, HEDIN BRØNNER, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, HUGO B., JORDAN MANSFIELD, CHARLOTTE ALLEN, DAVID TONNER, PATRICK DALTON-HOLMES, NICK KRASNEY, RACHEL ZAK, DENNIS XAVIER, CHINMAYA BHAT, RHYS, ALEX MACLEOD, HAIDAR, JULIEN PORCHER, ROBERT SUNDSTRÖM, JON STEWART, AND JAMES DORLING!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, PER KRAULIS, ADAM HUNT, AND JOÃO BARBOSA!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER,SERGIU CODREANU, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Author Natasha Quadlin discusses the article, "Who Can Afford to Be an English Major? Economic Origins, Debt, and Public Beliefs about Higher Education," published in the July 2026 issue of Sociology of Education.

In this Fanbase Feature, The Fanbase Weekly Bryant Dillon is joined by special guests Corinna Bechko (writer - Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Blood Type), Moni Barrette (comics librarian, educator, co-founder - Creators Assemble, writer - Enhance Your Library, Enhance Your Well-Being: How to Fight Burnout and Reclaim Library Joy), and Janet Joyce Holden (writer – Origins of Blood, Carousel) to participate in a thorough discussion regarding The Descent (2006) in light of the feature film's 20th anniversary, with topics including what the film has to say about friendship between women, how the primal nature of The Descent relates to Aliens and Predator, honest feelings on Sarah's final choice in the cave, and more. (Beware: SPOILERS for The Descent abound in this panel discussion!)

Send us a text and let us know what you think of our podcast!BATTLES IN TIME - the classic trading card game that obsessed a generation of Doctor Who fans is BACK for 2026! And we're here with Creative Director BEN ROBINSON from Master Replicas, the devious brain-mind behind the original game and its 2026 revival for an inside look at what's in store for fans who are about to have their Whoniverse rocked! What's it all about? How easy is it to play?Who's Who on the cards?How gorgeous is the artwork?Who has the highest Fear Factor?Jump in and listen up right now to get all the essential info you need to start playing Doctor Who: BATTLES IN TIME!Chapters00:00 Introduction02:47 The Origins of Battles in Time05:27 Behind the Scenes of Doctor Who Trading Cards08:26 The Gameplay and Design Philosophy11:09 The Evolution of the Trading Card Market13:47 The Return of Battles in Time16:38 Targeting a New Audience19:21 Nostalgia and the Future of Doctor Who23:11 Limited Editions and Market Strategies27:27 Card Design and Collectability29:45 Future Doctor Sets: Planning Ahead31:18 Licensing Challenges: The Roadblocks32:13 The Vortex Cards: Rarity and Excitement34:56 Fan Engagement: Questions and Answers36:47 Demand and Pre-Orders in Merchandise39:08 The Role of Merchandise in Keeping Doctor Who Alive40:17 Excitement for New Card Designs42:41 Debating Character Intelligence and Scare Factor48:06 Family Connections Through Doctor Who Merchandise50:08 Looking Forward to Future ReleasesSupport the showSubscribe to Who Corner to Corner on your podcast app to make sure you don't miss an episode! Now available to watch on YouTube!Join the Doctor Who chat with us and other fans on Twitter and Facebook!Visit the Who Corner to Corner website and see our back catalogue of episodes!Visit the WHOC2C merch store!Enjoying what we do? Consider joining our Explorers Subscription plan for more content! Who Corner to Corner: Great guests and 100% positive Doctor Who chat!

Could evidence exist that challenges conventional timelines of human history? In this fascinating episode of The ‘X' Zone, Rob McConnell welcomes author and researcher Michael Cremo to discuss Hidden Archaeology and the discoveries that have fueled debate about humanity's ancient past. Known for examining controversial archaeological findings, Michael explores reports of artifacts, fossil discoveries, and historical evidence that some researchers argue do not fit within mainstream models of human evolution and civilization. He discusses why certain discoveries remain controversial, how archaeological evidence is evaluated, and the importance of questioning assumptions while maintaining rigorous standards of scientific inquiry. Throughout the interview, Rob and Michael examine the ongoing dialogue between conventional archaeology and alternative historical interpretations. Listeners will gain insight into how archaeological theories evolve, how new discoveries are assessed, and why critical thinking and evidence-based analysis are essential when considering extraordinary claims about the origins of humanity. Whether you're interested in archaeology, ancient civilizations, human origins, lost history, or alternative perspectives on the past, this episode offers an engaging exploration of one of the most debated subjects in historical research.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-x-zone-radio-tv-show--1078348/support.Please note that all XZBN radio and/or television shows are Copyright © REL-MAR McConnell Meda Company, Niagara, Ontario, Canada – www.rel-mar.com. For more Episodes of this show and all shows produced, broadcasted and syndicated from REL-MAR McConell Media Company and The 'X' Zone Broadcast Network and the 'X' Zone TV Channell, visit www.xzbn.net. For programming, distribution, and syndication inquiries, email programming@xzbn.net.We are proud to announce the we have launched TWATNews.com, launched in August 2025.TWATNews.com is an independent online news platform dedicated to uncovering the truth about Donald Trump and his ongoing influence in politics, business, and society. Unlike mainstream outlets that often sanitize, soften, or ignore stories that challenge Trump and his allies, TWATNews digs deeper to deliver hard-hitting articles, investigative features, and sharp commentary that mainstream media won't touch.These are stories and articles that you will not read anywhere else.Our mission is simple: to expose corruption, lies, and authoritarian tendencies while giving voice to the perspectives and evidence that are often marginalized or buried by corporate-controlled media

Mark Thornton looks at the growing strength of democratic socialism inside the Democratic Party and asks whether the United States may be entering another era of major party realignment. Drawing on Rothbard's analysis of long-term ideological change, Mark explains how younger voters, burdened by debt, unaffordable housing, healthcare, and education, are understandably angry—but are turning toward policies that helped create the crisis. Mark also examines how war, inflation, government intervention, and broken political promises are reshaping both major parties.On Side B, Thornton joins the Liberty and Finance podcast to discuss monetary disorder, central bank digital currencies, programmable money, AI-driven surveillance, the war on cash, and the need for education and resistance against the next monetary reset.Additional Resources"Keith Knight's Top Ten Problems with Democratic Socialism" (Human Action Podcast) with Bob Murphy: https://mises.org/MI_186_A"How Democratic Socialists of America Has Developed Into a Movement Party" by David Duhalde: https://mises.org/MI_186_B"The Myth of Democratic Socialism" by Murray Rothbard: https://mises.org/MI_186_C"How Democratic Socialism Created California's Housing Crisis" by Chris Calton: https://mises.org/MI_186_D"Democratic Socialism IS Totalitarianism" by Bill Anderson: https://mises.org/MI_186_E"How to Fix the Economics of Healthcare" by Bob Murphy: https://mises.org/MI_186_F2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of The Origins of the Federal Reserve through July 31. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/issuesfree20% off listener offer on the insulated Minor Issues tumbler and three of Mark's books: https://mises.org/MinorIssuesTumbler. Use coupon code Thornton.Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

We're back! slamming some cold ones and getting into deep conversations. We discussed popular Conspiracies about our government and the origins of money. Video also available on YouTube. Follow my co-host DAVINCLEvr on YouTube https://youtube.com/@davinclvr?si=1j7Sb-Dy6K0g_UztCheck out our sponsor DUBBY energy at dubby.gg and use promo code SCREAMINGCHUY for 10% off on all products! https://www.dubby.gg/discount/JESUSPAZ?ref=zkzhblds ** For more Episodes and Platforms https://linktr.ee/ScreamingChuyShow. *For cool merch https://my-store-10115944.creator-spring.com/?*

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

Subscribe now for ad-free listening, early access, and bonus content. Now well into its fifth year, Russia's invasion of Ukraine appears to be a stalemate on the ground while the combatants seek a decisive edge in the air with drones and missiles. Diplomacy to end the war seems to be going nowhere. No one can say with any certainty how or when the war may end. Do the war's origins point toward an exit? Anatol Lieven is our guest. Anatol Lieven is Director of the Eurasia Program and the Andrew Bacevich chair in American Diplomatic History at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Misha Glenny and guests discuss the origins and evolution of an alliance which transformed the geopolitics of the classical world: the Delian League. Since the start of the 5th Century BCE, city states across Greece had been fighting a series of armed conflicts in the Greco-Persian Wars. After the defeat of a second Persian invasion in 478 BCE, a league of cities across Greece came together and formed a new alliance led by Athens. That alliance is now known as the Delian League, after the island of Delos where it was established. In the following decades, Athens used the Delian League to grow its own wealth and formidable naval power. Cities which tried to leave the alliance found themselves violently put down and their lands confiscated by the Athenians. What had begun as a cooperative alliance sworn to resist the Persian Empire gradually started to seem like it may have created another imperial power: the Athenian Empire.WithLeah Lazar Lecturer in Hellenistic Culture at the University of ManchesterPolly Low Professor in the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of DurhamAndPaul Cartledge AG Leventis Senior Research Fellow of Clare College, University of CambridgeProducer: Martha OwenAristophanes (trans. David Barrett and Alan H. Sommerstein), The Birds and Other Plays (Penguin Classics, 2003)Mary Beard, The Parthenon (Profile Books, 2010)M. Canevaro and D. M. Lewis, 'Between ‘The Character of the Athenian Empire' and The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (and beyond): The Popularity of the Athenian Empire Revisited' (Polis 41:1, 2024)Paul Cartledge, Ancient Greece: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2011)Lisa Kallet and John H. Kroll, The Athenian Empire: Using Coins as Sources (Cambridge University Press, 2020)Leah Lazar, Athenian Power in the Fifth Century BC (Oxford University Press, 2024)Polly Low (ed.), The Athenian Empire (Edinburgh University Press, 2008)Malcolm F. McGregor, The Athenians and their Empire (UBC Press, 1987)Robin Osborne (ed. and trans.), The Athenian Empire (Cambridge University Press, 2023)P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Empire (Clarendon Press, 1985)Thucydides (trans. Robin Waterfield, introduced by Polly Low), The History of the Peloponnesian War (Basic Books, 2025)Thucydides (ed. Robert B Strassler), The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Free Press, 1998)Thucydides (trans. Rex Warner), History of the Peloponnesian War (Penguin Books, 2000)Thucydides (trans. Martin Hammond), The Peloponnesian War (Oxford University Press, 2009)In Our Time is a BBC Studios productionSpanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time from BBC Radio 4 is essential listening for the intellectually curious. In each episode, host Misha Glenny and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.

9 Hours and 55 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the first 10 episodes of our ongoing Continental Philosophy series with Thomas777. He covers Aristotle, Thucydides, Socrates, Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Grotius, and Hegel.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

9 Hours and 15 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the final 9 episodes of the Continental Philosophy series with Thomas777. He covers Kant, Sombart, Husserl, Wolfgang Smith, Marx and the Frankfurt School.Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

In this episode, Dr. Stuart Slavin is joined by Dr. Daniel Saddawi‑Konefka, associate professor of anesthesia, and Dr. Matthew Tung, instructor in anesthesia, both at Harvard Medical School. They discuss their JAMA viewpoint, Meaning and Comfort in Physician Well‑Being: An Integrated Framework, and explore how two complementary dimensions of well‑being—meaning and comfort—can help physicians thrive throughout their careers. Drawing on concepts rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, Drs. Saddawi‑Konefka and Tung examine the relationship between eudaimonia (the sense of purpose and fulfillment that comes from service, growth, and connection) and hedonia (the well‑being associated with comfort, safety, and the reduction of unnecessary burdens). They discuss why these concepts are often framed as competing priorities in medicine and argue instead that both are essential components of sustainable physician well‑being. The conversation also explores practical applications within graduate medical education, including fostering intrinsic motivation, promoting autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and creating opportunities for learners to connect with the meaning inherent in patient care. Throughout the discussion, the speakers highlight how organizational efforts to reduce administrative burdens and improve working conditions can create the space needed for physicians to engage more deeply with purpose, connection, and professional fulfillment. Listeners will gain valuable insights into how an integrated approach to meaning and comfort can support well‑being for learners, educators, and practicing physicians alike. Podcast Chapters (00:00) – Intro and Guest Introduction (01:15) – Origins of the Meaning and Comfort Framework (03:00) – Rethinking Physician Well-Being (04:30) – Understanding Meaning and Comfort (06:03) – Hedonia, Eudaimonia, and Well-Being (08:10) – Finding Life and Meaning in Work (10:06) – Balancing Purpose and Comfort (11:20) – Intrinsic Motivation and Medical Training (12:56) – Self-Determination Theory in Practice (14:47) – Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness (16:39) – Creating Cultures of Meaning and Connection (18:18) – Gratitude, Recognition, and Daily Purpose (19:45) – Rediscovering Meaning in Everyday Clinical Work (21:20) – When Loss of Meaning Signals a Need for Support (22:27) – Hedonic Adaptation and Sustainable Well-Being (23:11) – Integrating Meaning and Comfort (24:48) – Closing and Resources

Aubrey Masango speaks to Prof Musa Xulu, Cultural Expert to explore how language, culture, history and indigenous knowledge come together to reveal the powerful stories hidden within our surnames. Tags: 702, Aubrey Masango Show, Aubrey Masango, Bra Aubrey, Kwantu Feature, Prof Musa Xulu, Surnames, Totem, Culture, Tradition The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

America faces a Manufactured Crisis, or are today's biggest challenges simply a series of unrelated failures? Author Jim Simpson argues that open borders, illegal immigration, institutional capture, education, crime, and cultural upheaval are not isolated events but part of a larger strategy reshaping America. In this episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano sits down with investigative journalist and author Jim Simpson to discuss the central thesis of his book, Manufactured Crisis: The War to End America. Together, they examine whether America's biggest domestic challenges stem from government incompetence or a deliberate ideological strategy. The conversation explores institutional capture, critical theory, the Cloward-Piven Strategy, communist influence, media narratives, political polarization, and whether the country still has a path forward. What You'll Learn In This Episode: The Interconnected Crisis: Why Jim Simpson believes America's biggest challenges are connected rather than isolated policy failures. How America's Institutions Changed: How open borders, illegal immigration, education, crime, and political activism fit into a broader theory of institutional transformation. The Origins of Today's Political Battles: How critical theory, the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and decades of ideological activism continue to shape modern politics. The Power of Narrative: Why media narratives, political messaging, and information control influence public opinion and public policy. Can America Reverse Course?: The legal tools, policy changes, and accountability measures Jim Simpson believes could help restore America's institutions. Topics Covered: Manufactured Crisis, Jim Simpson, America's decline, open borders, illegal immigration, institutional capture, Cloward-Piven Strategy, critical theory, communist influence, Marxism, socialism, border crisis, media narratives, political polarization, American politics

https://www.patreon.com/breakingsocialnorms/posts/mkultra-for-pt-1-163785211?pr=true (*Go ad-free, early access with bonus content and chat with Josie on Patreon!)Today on Breaking Social Norms we're giving you the condensed version of MKULTRA in two digestable and fun episodes so ANY normie can understand what it was and the conspiracies behind it! We'll discuss the recent government hearings before revealing the origins of the CIA trying to change our world, the people involved, the books discussing the theories and what REALLY happened! We'll also hit the Patreon.com/BreakingSocialNorms Tier 2 shoutouts!Show Sponsor: Get super soft shirts, signed books and MushroominatiWatcher coffee (*peep the 5-star reviews!): OccultSymbolism.comYou can now sign up for our commercial-free version of the show with a Patreon exclusive bonus show called “Morning Coffee w/ the Weishaupts” at Patreon.com/BreakingSocialNorms  OR subscribe on the Apple Podcasts app to get all the same bonus “Morning Coffee” episodes AD-FREE with early access! (*Patreon is also NOW enabled to connect with Spotify! https://rb.gy/r34zj)Want more?…Index of all previous episodes on free feed: https://breakingsocialnorms.com/2021/03/22/index-of-archived-episodes/Leave a review or rating wherever you listen and we'll see what you've got to say!Follow us on the socials:instagram.com/theweishaupts2/Check out Isaac's conspiracy podcasts, merch, etc:AllMyLinks.com/IsaacWOccult Symbolism and Pop Culture (on all podcast platforms or IlluminatiWatcher.com)Isaac Weishaupt's book are all on Amazon and Audible; *author narrated audiobooks*STATEMENT: This show is full of Isaac's and Josie's useless opinions and presented for entertainment purposes. Audio clips used in Fair Use and taken from YouTube videos.

This episode was recorded live at Lumpen Radio on Saturday, July 11, 2026Ep 117: More Than a Movie: Building Community Through Black Film with Troy and Chi of Black Film Club CollectiveWhat happens when a love of movies turns into a movement?This week, Stephanie sits down with Troy and Chi of Black Film Club Collective, a Chicago-based platform creating spaces for people to gather, watch films, and have the conversations that happen after the credits roll. From apartment screenings to citywide events, they share how film became a catalyst for community, connection, and cultural preservation.What We Talk AboutHow Black Film Club Collective grew from living room conversations into a thriving cultural communityWhy film creates a unique space for connection, dialogue, and deeper understanding across culturesHow screenings became a way to rebuild community after the pandemicThe power of discussing movies instead of just watching themWhat makes a film "Black" — even when people don't immediately think of it that wayHow their Fine Lines exhibition evolved into a larger storytelling and archival projectWhy community, memory, and family stories matter in preserving neighborhood historyThe unexpected joy of becoming artists, curators, and filmmakers along the wayIf you love film, culture, community building, or thoughtful conversations, this episode is for you.Chapters00:00 - Introduction to noseyAF02:18 - The Origins of Black Film Club Collective20:23 - Exploring the House of the Collective25:56 - The Evolution of Screenings and Audience Engagement32:24 - Introduction to Fine Lines Project44:12 - The Journey of Artistic Discovery47:48 - Transitioning from Artists to Curators54:43 - Discussion on Black FilmsAll about Troy & ChiYou're gonna love Troy and Chi, they're thoughtful, joyful, and deeply committed to creating spaces where people can gather around Black storytelling. As the co-founders of Black Film Club Collective, they've built a Chicago-based platform centered on screenings, exhibitions, conversations, and cultural programming that celebrates Black film and visual culture. Their work brings together audiences, artists, filmmakers, and community members to engage with stories that inspire connection, reflection, and dialogue.Things We MentionedBlack Film Club CollectiveFine Lines ExhibitionChicago Film SymposiumLove JonesMississippi MasalaAtlanticsBanel & AdamaMy Father's ShadowLove BrooklynSinnersHouse of the Collective (gotta be picked for this link , i dont even have this plug yall) LOL!Connect with Black Film Club CollectiveIG: @blackfilmclubcltvWebsite: https://blkfilmclub.comStay Connected

Press Coverage, Season 4, Episode 24: Wyatt Bertolone (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WyattB_FF)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is joined by Ryan McDowell (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@RyanMC23⁠) to discuss tips and mistakes to avoid when joining a new dynasty league. --

Yascha Mounk and John Harpham examine how early modern thinkers justified slavery long before modern theories of race took hold. John Samuel Harpham is Assistant Professor in the Department of Classics and Letters and Wick Cary Assistant Professor at the Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage at the University of Oklahoma. He is the author of The Intellectual Origins of American Slavery.  In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and John Harpham discuss why the standard racial account of slavery's origins misses the earliest justifications for the practice, how Aristotelian and Roman conceptions of freedom and slavery shaped the intellectual world of the first English colonists, and what this history means for our understanding of slavery today. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following ⁠⁠this link on your phone⁠⁠. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Apple⁠⁠ X: ⁠⁠@Yascha_Mounk⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠@JoinPersuasion⁠⁠ YouTube: ⁠⁠Yascha Mounk⁠⁠, ⁠⁠Persuasion⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Birthright citizenship has been part of the U.S. Constitution for more than 150 years, but why has it become the focus of such intense political debate in recent years? Professor Anna Law breaks down the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Barbara, explains what birthright citizenship actually means, and traces the long history of who gets to be an American. Drawing from her new book, she separates fact from fiction on immigration, citizenship, and the Constitution, and explains why understanding that history matters today. For more on this topic: Check out Law's new book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship Read her blog post, I Read Trump v Barbara So You Don't Have To Read her Made by History essay in TIME Magazine, History Shows Why Birthright Citizenship is so Important   

Send us Fan MailWe trace a straight line from a 1697 blasphemy execution to modern cancel culture by focusing on one variable: the cost of turning speech into coordinated punishment. We break down how social media creates common knowledge at near-zero cost, making outrage faster, bigger, and harder to control. • Thomas Aikenhead's case as a story about information and enforcement costs • Transaction costs as the hidden limiter on persecution and social punishment • The First Amendment limiting state coercion while leaving private sanctions intact • Social media as a collapse in the cost of broadcasting accusations • Common knowledge as the trigger for coordinated action by strangers • Justine Sacco as the early template for modern cancellation dynamics • Brendan Eich, Emmanuel Cafferty, James Damore, and PyCon “donglegate” as repeating patterns • John Cleese on offense and the urge to control others' behavior • Listener letters on healthcare markets, consolidation, and transaction costs • Certificate of need laws and price systems that shape competitionAmy Poehler's super bowl ad (Dongle!):John Cleese on cancel cultureLetters:Dr. Anthony Digiorgio, UCSF, Graphic Novel Claim Denied, Off Label IdeasSurgery Center of OklahomaBook-o-da-week:Steven Pinker's When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . .: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life  Scribner, 2025. If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com !You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz 

"This is why insurance is such a beautiful problem... there is no solution. There are only psychological or philosophical answers to it."What if the rising cost of health insurance is a deeply ingrained philosophical problem?My guest this week is Tom Stein, CEO of American Trust Administrators (ATA). But this episode isn't just a tactical breakdown of stop-loss and aggregate underwriting; it is a masterclass in the history, psychology, and economics of the U.S. healthcare system.Tom and I explore the deeply embedded Machiavellian forces that drive insurance carrier monopolies, and why small business owners often choose the "safe" option of a 97% fully-insured renewal simply out of a psychological fear of loss. We trace the origins of employer-sponsored care back to Henry Kaiser and WWII, discuss the ethics of "compulsion vs. choice" in taxation and single-payer models, and analyze whether the U.S. is currently in a "Fourth Turning" crisis phase of our healthcare delivery system.This is one of the most fascinating conversations you will hear all year. Tune in.Thank you to our 2026 sponsors!ParetoHealth: ParetoHealth empowers midsize employers with a long-term solution to reduce volatility and lower overall health benefits costs. Visit https://www.paretohealth.com/fully-insured-vs-self-funding-with-paretohealth-spencer-podcast/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=SelfFundedwSpencer to learn more.Samaritan Fund: A program that connects those who need help to the support they need. We are proud to offer the Samaritan Fund Program. Visit SamaritanFundProgram.com to learn more.Vālenz Health: We're Vālenz Health, your partner in improving health literacy, reducing plan spend, and delivering high-value healthcare. Visit ValenzHealth.com to learn more.Imagine360: Imagine360 helps self-funded employers save on healthcare with smarter health plans. Cut expenses by 20-30% with custom solutions. Contact us today at Imagine360.com.Chapters:(00:00:00) Intro: The Philosophy of the Insurance Problem (00:01:35) The Illusion of Comfort: Why Employers Flee Responsibility (00:05:17) Breaking the System: When "Decent Men" Say Enough (00:08:05) The Psychology of Loss Aversion in Benefits Consulting (00:10:24) Are You a Serf or a Landlord? The Risk of Self-Funding (00:13:08) The "Marshmallow Test" and Delayed Gratification in Business (00:19:42) Tom's Background and the Origins of Level-Funding (00:23:39) Level-Funding a 5-Life Group: The Hard Way to Underwrite (00:30:56) The Fascinating History of U.S. Employer-Sponsored Healthcare (00:35:13) Machiavelli, Trust, and the "Brother Rule" of Business (00:41:09) Are We in the "Fourth Turning" of Healthcare? (00:45:54) How AI Will Bring Deeper Value to Client Relationships (00:49:40) Subsidizing Medicare: The Hidden Tax on Commercial Plans (00:53:35) Milton Friedman's Four Types of Money and the State (01:00:01) The Morality of Healthcare Bankruptcies (01:04:27) The Crisis of Meaning and "Earned Leisure" (01:08:23) Closing Thoughts: The Optimism of the Next GenerationKey Links for Social:@SelfFunded on YouTube for video versions of the podcast and much more - https://www.youtube.com/@SelfFundedListen/watch on Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/1TjmrMrkIj0qSmlwAIevKA?si=068a389925474f02Listen on Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/self-funded-with-spencer/id1566182286Follow Spencer on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/spencer-smith-self-funded/Follow Spencer on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/selffundedwithspencer/

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn't just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law. Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson's phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration's ideals can translate into concrete protections today. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell's framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection. [00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick's thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions Bolick argues the Declaration's influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution. [00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia's 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories” Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. [00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases) Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes. [00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford's recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Cross Point Ministry's Executive Director, Clifton Roth discusses the importance of presence in pastoral care. He emphasizes that the best gift pastors can offer is their transformed and transforming presence, which is central to the journey of spiritual formation for pastors.Clifton shares insights into spiritual disciplines for pastors, highlighting how these practices are essential for maintaining emotional and spiritual health. He explains that strategies for building strong pastoral communities involve fostering authentic relationships and being present to God and others.The discussion also touches on how does recovery relate to spiritual formation for pastors? Cliff notes that recovery processes, such as 12-step programs, are integral to spiritual growth and healing. These programs are part of the broader journey of spiritual formation for pastors, helping them navigate personal and professional challenges.Cross Point Ministry offers various resources, including retreats and counseling, to support pastors. These initiatives are part of their strategies for building strong pastoral communities, ensuring that pastors have the tools they need for effective ministry.Understanding how does recovery relate to spiritual formation for pastors is crucial.

John had a twenty-minute conversation this week with the Loch Ness Monster and decided to finish up an episode five years in the making. Also, Brandon starts talking about Loch Nussey, which, of course, was a whole thing.   So yeah, the explicit tag is load-bearing this episode.   Merch: https://www.etsy.com/shop/cryptopediamerch Discord: https://discord.gg/AWpen8aYQG Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=14015340 YouTube (Videos have [questionable] captions!): http://youtube.cryptopediacast --- Abominable Science!: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids Report of strange spectacle on Loch Ness in 1933 leaves unanswered question - what was it? Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature Wikipedia: Loch Ness "There'll Always Be A Monster in Loch Ness" The San Francisco Examiner (1941) LOCH NESS MONSTER: Some Observations on the Arthur Grant Land Sighting Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths , Naish, Darren  LOCH NESS MONSTER: Analysis of the G.E. Taylor Film Loch Ness Monster Massive four-day 'Watcher of the Monster' hunt for Nessie on 90th anniversary of expedition - Scottish Daily Express Searching For Nessie The MacNab Photograph (1955) The Loch Ness Monster - Tim Dinsdale The Dinsdale Loch Ness Film. An Image Analysis. Loch Ness Muppet — Google Arts & Culture Tony Shiels - Wikipedia Photos of the Loch Ness Monster, revisited The Flipper Pictures of Nessie Raynor Film (3:05) Scientists Plan All‐Out Loch Ness Search - The New York Times Technology Review - Search for Loch Ness Monster Loch Ness monster could be a giant eel, say scientists | Science | The Guardian The Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register | Sightings from 2021 on

Kate is joined by returning guest and friend of the show, Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton, and one of the world's leading scholars of democratic backsliding, autocracy, and the rule of law. They discuss how the Supreme Court has been “captured,” the ways Donald Trump is attempting to remake Washington, D.C., in his image, and what Hungary can teach us about autocracy and how to recover from it.Favorite things: Kate:Emil Bove Defended Trump in Court. Then Trump Made Him a Judge, Mattathias Schwartz (NYT); Mailman: My Wild Ride Delivering the Mail in Appalachia and Finally Finding Home, Stephen Starring Grant Kim:Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, Maggie Haberman & Jonathan Swan; Into the Wood Chipper: A Whistleblower's Account of How the Trump Administration Shredded USAID, Nicholas Enrich; The Dual State, Ernst Fraenkel; The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt; It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis; Borgen - Power & Glory (Netflix); Gok Wan's Easy Asian (Prime Video) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC: Crookedcon.comBuy Melissa's book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah's book, Lawless, now out in paperbackFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and BlueskyFor a transcript of an episode of Strict Scrutiny please email transcripts@crooked.com

Live July 12, 2026(The Yaron & Nikos Dialogues, Episode 7)Egalitarianism, Khmer Rouge & the Killing Fields of Cambodia | Yaron & Nikos DialoguesWhat Happens When Equality Becomes an Absolute? The Deadly Lessons of Pol Pot's CambodiaCould the pursuit of equality become one of history's deadliest ideas?The Khmer Rouge didn't simply commit mass murder—they attempted to erase individuality itself. Under Pol Pot, Cambodia became history's most radical experiment in egalitarianism, where intelligence, achievement, family, love, private property, and even wearing glasses could become death sentences.In this episode, Yaron Brook and Nikos Sotirakopoulos examine the philosophical roots behind one of the twentieth century's greatest atrocities. They explore how egalitarian ideals became totalitarian terror, why many Western intellectuals excused the regime, and what Cambodia still teaches us about collectivism, freedom, and human nature.The discussion also includes updates on the Yaron Brook documentary project, film recommendations, and the return of the show's music segment.Watch the full episode: https://youtube.com/live/ESzykH4naC8More from Nikos Sotirakopoulos: https://www.nikos.org/Support Nikos: https://www.youtube.com/@nikos_1717Main Topics00:00 Introduction, World Cup & documentary update10:26 Why Cambodia matters12:21 Cambodian genocide overview16:03 French colonialism & Pol Pot's influences22:18 Rise of the communist movement25:10 Vietnam War & revolutionary momentum29:04 Origins of the Khmer Rouge30:12 Mao's influence33:19 U.S. bombing & communist recruitment38:01 Radical egalitarianism becomes terror45:02 Emptying Phnom Penh49:34 S-21 prison & ideological purges54:00 Love and family under communism59:31 Starvation, terror & Vietnam's invasion1:04:28 Fate of Khmer Rouge leaders1:07:18 Western intellectuals and Cambodia1:12:31 Film recommendations1:13:51 Justice after the Khmer Rouge1:13:59 Music Review: R.E.M. – Stand1:23:20 Next Dialogue: Ronald Reagan & Ayn RandLive Audience Q&A1:18:50 Simple Minds – Don't You Forget About Me1:26:27 Brad Pitt on Atlas Shrugged & The Fountainhead1:31:23 Could Western egalitarianism lead to another Cambodia?1:34:22 China's support for the Khmer Rouge1:36:12 Germany, Argentina & defeating bad ideas1:39:39 Is cynicism rational today?1:43:21 Christian New Right vs. Democratic Socialists1:45:00 Why does collectivism demand self-sacrifice?1:48:13 The cost of anti-profit morality1:51:05 Connor McGregor—an egoist?1:54:42 Did Pol Pot use starvation as a purge?1:58:56 Was Vietnam heroic for ending the Khmer Rouge?2:00:19 Richard Wolff revisited2:02:51 Does France owe Cambodia an apology?2:04:42 World Cup red card controversy2:05:53 Did communist leaders think Pol Pot went too far?2:08:00 Why Vietnam embraces capitalism today2:09:25 Did Ayn Rand comment on Pol Pot?2:11:43 Resistance inside Cambodia2:15:35 Why didn't Mao invade Hong Kong?2:16:38 Cambodia reading recommendations2:21:18 London's Muslim neighborhoods & the documentary2:23:55 John Galt's real message2:26:56 Ayn Rand on censorship2:33:49 Why communist Poland & Cuba tolerated Christianity2:34:33 Did Tito prove socialism works?2:37:21 Lisbon event with Nikos?2:39:53 Is colonialism part of Western civilization?

Dangerously hot conditions are forecasted for SoCal this week, with an extreme heat watch going into effect Tuesday morning. There’s a risk of big waves and dangerous rip tides at SoCal beaches today. We learn how a group of Angelenos came together to build a nature park for their community in El Sereno. Plus, more. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.com Support the show: https://laist.com

Grab our breakdown of the 5 Low-Cost Businesses That Make $1 Million: https://www.franchiseempire.com/lowcost?utm_source=feWhat does it actually take to scale a painting franchise from $50 million to nearly $1 billion in revenue? In this episode of the Zero to Profitable Franchise Podcast, host Chantel Soumis sits down with Mike Stone, President and CEO of CertaPro Painters, for a conversation that covers the full journey from the ground up. Mike started as a residential sales associate in 1999 helping a single franchisee cross the $1 million mark and worked his way through nearly every role in the organization before taking the top seat in 2015. ------------------Considering Investing In A Franchise?

Canary Cry Radio is on the bleeding edge of reporting boots-on-the-ground from Burning Man for nearly a decade. Standing on the shoulders of researchers like Carl Teichrib and his work on the Re-Enchantment, and Transformative Events, no other Christian podcast has addressed why these events are important for the future of our culture, while evangelizing and preaching the Gospel message of Jesus Christ in the middle of the most esoteric annual event in Black Rock City. Carl is back with an much needed update on everything! Visit BurningManResearch.com to get the archive of episodes on this topic over the last 15 years! Find out how to support Basil's trip to Burning Man 2026, where the theme is AXIS MUNDI!LINKShttps://orbis-sentry.orghttps://www.gameofgods.cahttps://CanaryCry.Support0:00 — Intro: Carl Teichrib returns1:25 — Carl's research background6:23 — Globalism, interfaith, transhumanism converge9:25 — Discovering transformational festival culture11:35 — Burning Man's countercultural roots18:07 — Festivals prove secularism's dead20:15 — What makes festivals "transformational"31:27 — Origins of "re-enchantment" term33:35 — Pagan environmentalism: Rio quote35:53 — SXSW: consciousness, psychedelics admission42:35 — Re-enchantment history since 1800s46:16 — California: spiritual petri dish54:49 — True re-enchantment: the resurrection57:17 — "Christians made resurrection boring"1:04:59 — Jesus: the true Axis Mundi1:12:31 — Warning: parroting worldly language1:20:17 — "Not a place for Christians"1:22:28 — 2017: first burn story1:24:03 — Camp of the Unknown God1:28:22 — Naming the camp: Acts 171:30:50 — Paul at Athens breakdown1:35:21 — Cultural diplomacy, not war1:48:40 — This year's theme & concerns1:51:25 — Burning Man: propaganda target?1:57:18 — Handling the temple carefully1:59:23 — Christians bear false witness2:07:04 — Rosie's story: rights of nature2:09:52 — Psalm 51 tears moment2:14:25 — Orbis origin: Texas Eclipse2:16:42 — George's three-day culture shock2:19:44 — NATO Dayton, forming Orbis2:33:16 — Prayer requests & farewell

Canary Cry Radio is on the bleeding edge of reporting boots-on-the-ground from Burning Man for nearly a decade. Standing on the shoulders of researchers like Carl Teichrib and his work on the Re-Enchantment, and Transformative Events, no other Christian podcast has addressed why these events are important for the future of our culture, while evangelizing and preaching the Gospel message of Jesus Christ in the middle of the most esoteric annual event in Black Rock City. Carl is back with an much needed update on everything! Visit BurningManResearch.com to get the archive of episodes on this topic over the last 15 years! Find out how to support Basil's trip to Burning Man 2026, where the theme is AXIS MUNDI! LINKS https://orbis-sentry.org https://www.gameofgods.ca https://CanaryCry.Support   0:00 — Intro: Carl Teichrib returns 1:25 — Carl's research background 6:23 — Globalism, interfaith, transhumanism converge 9:25 — Discovering transformational festival culture 11:35 — Burning Man's countercultural roots 18:07 — Festivals prove secularism's dead 20:15 — What makes festivals "transformational" 31:27 — Origins of "re-enchantment" term 33:35 — Pagan environmentalism: Rio quote 35:53 — SXSW: consciousness, psychedelics admission 42:35 — Re-enchantment history since 1800s 46:16 — California: spiritual petri dish 54:49 — True re-enchantment: the resurrection 57:17 — "Christians made resurrection boring" 1:04:59 — Jesus: the true Axis Mundi 1:12:31 — Warning: parroting worldly language 1:20:17 — "Not a place for Christians" 1:22:28 — 2017: first burn story 1:24:03 — Camp of the Unknown God 1:28:22 — Naming the camp: Acts 17 1:30:50 — Paul at Athens breakdown 1:35:21 — Cultural diplomacy, not war 1:48:40 — This year's theme & concerns 1:51:25 — Burning Man: propaganda target? 1:57:18 — Handling the temple carefully 1:59:23 — Christians bear false witness 2:07:04 — Rosie's story: rights of nature 2:09:52 — Psalm 51 tears moment 2:14:25 — Orbis origin: Texas Eclipse 2:16:42 — George's three-day culture shock 2:19:44 — NATO Dayton, forming Orbis 2:33:16 — Prayer requests & farewell

Head to https://squarespace.com/jonsolo to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code JONSOLO! Thanks to Squarespace for sponsoring the show!

Dr. Mike Day continues to examine 2 Kings 16-25–Josiah's reforms and how the Book of Mormon may correct and illuminate what the reforms left behind, and closes with his own testimony of Jesus Christ and how scripture carried him through crisis.YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/pzsYQXMyDvASHOW NOTES/TRANSCRIPTSEnglish: https://tinyurl.com/podcastOT229ENFrench: https://tinyurl.com/podcastOT229FRGerman: https://tinyurl.com/podcastOT229DEPortuguese: https://tinyurl.com/podcastOT229PTSpanish: https://tinyurl.com/podcastOT229ESFREE PDF DOWNLOADS OF followHIM QUOTE BOOKSNew Testament: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastNTBookOld Testament: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastOTBookBook of Mormon: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastBMBook WEEKLY NEWSLETTERhttps://tinyurl.com/followHIMnewsletter SOCIAL MEDIAInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/followHIMpodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/followhimpodcastTIMECODE0:00 - Part 2 - Dr. Mike Day2:36 Hezekiah's treasures and Isaiah's dark prophecy4:49 Hezekiah's tunnel 7:01 The water-drawing ceremony9:03 Manasseh and the Isaiah martyrdom legend11:33 Josiah takes the throne12:07 Finding the Book of the Law13:00 Huldah's prophecy14:42 Josiah's seven reforms15:52 One place of worship16:43 Is Deuteronomy a later redaction?19:27 Hosts of heaven and the secret things20:20 Moses and “You only heard a voice.”21:40 Defining the Deuteronomists24:49 1 Nephi 1 counters the reforms27:13 Origins of biblical monotheism29:13 The Book of Mormon correcting the reformers32:32 Lehi's altars and brass plates testify of Jesus Christ34:04 Josiah's fatal move against Egypt36:46 Josiah's death and the editorial 40:33 The fall of Jerusalem and Zedekiah43:00 End of Kings44:16 Mulek and the Book of Mormon connection45:25 Dr Day's testimony49:05 End of Part 2 - Dr. Mike DayThanks to the followHIM team:Steve & Shannon Sorensen: Cofounder, Executive Producer, SponsorDavid & Verla Sorensen: SponsorsDr. Hank Smith: Co-hostJohn Bytheway: Co-hostDavid Perry: ProducerKyle Nelson: Marketing, SponsorLisa Spice: Client Relations, Editor, Show NotesWill Stoughton: Video EditorKrystal Roberts: Translation Team, English & French Transcripts, WebsiteAriel Cuadra: Spanish TranscriptsAmelia Kabwika: Portuguese TranscriptsHeather Barlow: Communications DirectorSydney Smith: Social Media, Graphic Design "Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise" by Marshall McDonaldhttps://www.marshallmcdonaldmusic.com

For the past decade, Raphael Bob-Waksberg has pioneered the niche genre of hilarious-yet-heartwrenching animated TV comedies. The BoJack Horseman creator's new show, Long Story Short, recently landed on Netflix and was immediately met with praise for its perfect balance of madcap humor and intricately layered storytelling. It's not the kind of show one puts together without many years of developing a craft and a voice. Long before he was creating and writing animated shows, Raphael was a member of a college comedy troupe alongside our very own Adam Conover. Today, Adam and Raphael discuss their earlier sketch work together, using it to plot a foundation for their creative careers over the past decades. --SUPPORT THE SHOW ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/adamconoverSEE ADAM ON TOUR: https://www.adamconover.net/tourdates/SUBSCRIBE to and RATE Factually! on:» Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/factually-with-adam-conover/id1463460577» Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0fK8WJw4ffMc2NWydBlDyJAbout Headgum: Headgum is an LA & NY-based podcast network creating premium podcasts with the funniest, most engaging voices in comedy to achieve one goal: Making our audience and ourselves laugh. Listen to our shows at https://www.headgum.com.» SUBSCRIBE to Headgum: https://www.youtube.com/c/HeadGum?sub_confirmation=1» FOLLOW us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/headgum» FOLLOW us on Instagram: https://instagram.com/headgum/» FOLLOW us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@headgum» Advertise on Factually! via Gumball.fmSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On this episode Aries and Andy talk about Waterloo & Medford, Eddie Murphy Celebration & Origins of Hip Hop.  Social Media Instagram: @SpearsBergPod Twitter: @SpearsBergPod Facebook: SpearsBergPod Patreon: SpearsBergPod Youtube: SpearsBergPod  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Verno and Jacoby return to discuss the Celtics trading Jaylen Brown to the Philadelphia 76ers and debate Brad Stevens's reasoning for trading him away at this point in time. Next, they discuss Giannis Antetokounmpo's comments since being traded to the Miami Heat, their latest ideas on where LeBron James will end up, and the most recent free agency news. Also, a brief conversation about Cameron Boozer, Darryn Peterson, and the early slate of NBA summer league games. (00:00) Welcome to The Mismatch! (4:01) Brad Stevens and the Celtics front office speak on trading Jaylen Brown to the 76ers (22:13) Giannis Antetokounmpo speaks on leaving Milwaukee (30:08) Origins of the LeBron James whiteboard and dissecting where he could possibly go (39:57) Recent free agent news: DeMar DeRozan waived, Rui Hachimura signs with the Clippers, and Quinten Post's Grizzlies offer sheet (46:57) Early summer league reactions Leave us a message on our Mismatch Voicemail line! (323) 389-5091 Hosts: Chris Vernon and David Jacoby Producers: Jessie Lopez, Stefan Anderson, and Jeff Shearin Social: Keith Fujimoto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices