Podcasts about Sumner

In Today's Episode: Host: Brandon Elliott,  https://zez.am/brandonelliottinvestments Guest: Sumner Healey Flipping Dirt Making more than your Average Home Flipper | Ready, Set, Go! Podcast Welcome back to the Ready, Set, Go! Real Estate Investing Podcast with your host, Brandon Elliott! In this episode, we sit down with Sumner Healey, Sumner Healey is a serial entrepreneur, real estate visionary, and a massive disruptor in the raw land investing space. Born in the rural town of Big Sur, California to "hippie" parents, Sumner was a natural capitalist from day one. By his early 20s, he had launched an Amazon FBA brand, opened a gym, and ran a highly successful textbook arbitrage business. However, in 2019, while stuck in a dead-end sales job in San Diego making a tiny 3% commission, he started looking for an escape route. After trying and failing to wholesale houses, he discovered land flipping. He bought his very first quarter-acre lot in Nevada for $1,027 and flipped it on Facebook Marketplace three weeks later for $2,400. He has never looked back. ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Resourceful Links:  How To Get Up To $500,000 Every 6 Months At 0%: https://www.creditcounselelite.com/ Get Your Most Accurate Credit Report:https://myfreescorenow.com/enroll/?AID=COUNSELELITELLC&PID=18983 Best Credit Cards: https://milevalue.com/best-credit-cards/?aff=cce Free Credit Education Resources: https://creditcounselelite.com/articles Guide to Taking Massive Action: https://amzn.to/2IZMN8Z LEARN MORE CLICK HERE: https://www.creditcounselelite.com/fb-start-here ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Meet Your Host, Brandon:  Brandon Elliott went from being off track finding himself on house arrest and burning 40% of his body to getting on track reaching $8.5 million in Assets and being acknowledged part of the "Top 100 Yahoo Finance" by using Credit Cards to buy small multi-family and scaling his businesses using the exact strategies taught in Credit Counsel Elite (CCE). CCE teaches business owners how to get up to $500,000 every 6 months at 0%. By being a member with CCE, you get to learn how to Travel Hack, get access to the 800 FICO Score Club in 30 days or less, fix credit quickly, receive $5K-15K+ of free sign up bonuses, buy Real Estate with Credit Cards, deep dive into Business Credit and Personal credit. To learn more visit: https://www.creditcounselelite.com/ ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Connect with Brandon Elliott:  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/brandonelliottinvestor YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BrandonElliottInvestments Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brandonelliottinvestments LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-elliott-6b1643148

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

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

Washington is leading the charge in a very dumb lawsuit that will make homelessness worse. A man has been charged for allegedly breaking the windows of a King County Metro bus and wielding a machete near the CID in Seattle. Is AI taking our jobs? One expert says no. // Big Local: A black bear used the I-90 animal bridge and WSDOT is hailing this as some great victory. Federal Way passes emergency data center ban despite zero applications to build any. A Sumner man sprang from his bed while naked in the middle of the night to put out a fire. // You Pick the Topic: The US men’s and women’s national soccer teams are going to evenly split the $16 million World Cup prize.

[REBROADCAST FROM July 5, 2025] Author Zaakir Tameez talks about his new biography, Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation. Sumner was a fierce abolitionist and statesman from Massachusetts who was a pivotal advisor to President Lincoln and an influential force during the Civil War. Image courtesy of Brady-Handy Photograph Collection via Wikimedia Commons Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Wesley has gone viral for heroically putting out a garage fire in his birthday suit!

GUEST - CATHY ALLEN - PRESIDENT AND CEO OF CONNECTIONS GROUP POLITICAL STRATEGISTS // Maine Democratic Party leader claims Graham Platner is negotiating potential exit // New U.S. passports with Trump's image are available. Here's how to get (or avoid) one // The overtone window on profiting off the office // Naked and unafraid: Sumner man springs into action to fight garage fire in birthday suit

DeHuff is back from vacation, and he just had to do a show.DeHuff Uncensored is ranked #10 in the United States for top Weird News podcast - Million podcast!Indiana man cut off his own penis, dumped gasoline on it — then used it to light a blaze inside a neighbor's garage, according to police.Wesley Howard of Sumner, Wash. is a hero who fought a fire while completely naked.Nearly 1,200 people in Michigan and 200 in Ohio have been diagnosed with a parasitic infection, Cyclospora, that can cause weeks of watery diarrhea, making it the largest such outbreak in Michigan state history and one of the nation's largest in years.A pair of experienced campers in Britain broke a Guinness World Record by erecting their two-man tent in a time of 1 minute and 4.95 seconds.Waymo basically arrested 2 teens for being idiots.A Chicago man attempted a Guinness World Record by walking a distance of nearly 33 feet while holding a balloon between his knees.

Hello friends! Nashville based singer-songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, and producer Amelia Day is my guest for episode 1581! Her new EP, Ego Trip is available now on all the streamers. Amelia will be on tour this summer in support of Ego Trip. Go to ameliadaymusic.com for tour dates, music and more. We have a great conversation about co-producing Ego Trip with Taylor Carroll, songwriting, Jon Brion, growing up in the small town of Sumner, Washington, growing up religious, how she overcame paralyzing stage fright and began performing publicly in college, coming out, touring, finding her creative voice, and much more. I had a great time getting to know Amelia. I'm sure you will too. Let's get down! find Amelia on Spotify, Instagram Follow us on Instagram, TikTok, X, Facebook, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere you pod. Go to johnny-goudie.com for all things Johnny.   If you feel so inclined. Venmo: venmo.com/John-Goudie-1  Paypal: paypal.me/johnnygoudie

We welcome the magic of Marceline, Missouri on this week's Hyperion Hub. From the Peoria Riverfront Museum, we're joined by Kaye Malins and Sumner Nesbitt of the Walt Disney Hometown Museum to explore the town that helped shape Walt Disney's imagination.Kaye shares her incredible firsthand story of hosting Walt during his return visit to Marceline in 1956, while Sumner discusses his journey from Main Street U.S.A. at Walt Disney World to the original Main Street in Marceline, where he now serves as the Operations Manager of the museum.Join us as we discover the people, stories, and history behind Walt's hometown!Hosts John Alois, Shawn Degenhart and John Redlingshafer would love to hear from you! Email or send a recorded audio message at podcast@thehyperionhub.com. Find us on social media. The Hyperion Hub is not affiliated with the Walt Disney Company or its subsidiaries.  https://www.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=100063622463796 https://www.instagram.com/hyperion_hub/ https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2FHubHyperionfile:///Users/johnalois/Library/Group Containers/group.com.apple.coreservices.useractivityd/shared-pasteboard/items/ED41A3B5-68D7-49B8-AA95-EF007C05D6A4/ca88ea8e62c2560786f3f8567fd22bbc70895c35.rtfd/

Without Forgiveness There is NO Forgiveness

President Trump's administration has created a nearly $1.8 billion fund designed to pay out people who say the government unfairly investigated or prosecuted them, including people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Two police officers who defended the Capitol that day are suing, calling the fund a way for Trump to “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence” in his name. Brendan Ballou, who is representing the officers, explains more.Then, the U.S. continues to put pressure on Cuba, indicting former president Raúl Castro and sending an aircraft carrier to the southern Caribbean. Associated Press reporter Cristiana Mesquita shares the reactions she's hearing from Cubans.And, on May 22, 1856, tensions over slavery boiled over on the Senate floor when a slave-owning representative from South Carolina used a cane to beat Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner, an outspoken opponent of slavery. David Freudberg talks about his new radio documentary which explains how Sumner was “ahead of his time.”See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Jessey sits down with Sumner Healey, land investor, founder of LIA and co-founder of Land Insights, for a candid conversation about what it actually takes to scale a land business in today's market. Sumner pulled back from his land business for two years, kept it on maintenance mode, and still did $500,000 in profit annually. Then in 2025 he went all in and everything exploded.In this episode Sumner breaks down the sales system behind 17 acquisitions in a single month, how he cut his days on market from 120 down to 21, and the one tactic that gave him a 50% lift in close rate that most land investors are completely skipping.If you have ever lost a deal after a good conversation with a seller, this episode will tell you exactly why and what to do about it.What you'll learn in this episode:- Why walking sellers through a contract live on the phone can lift your close rate by 50%- How to pre-qualify sellers using the Three Whys framework- Why objections are actually a good sign and vague ones are the real problem- The difference between cowboys and nerds in land and how to know which one you areConnect with Sumner Healey:LIA Community: https://www.skool.com/lia/aboutLand Insights: https://www.landinsights.coEmail: sumner@landinvestor.co30 day free trial to Land Insights Pro plus $200 in credits for podcast listeners

A look at how slaveholders mercilessly trafficked in human beings, the outrageous Fugitive Slave Act and the time Sumner was viciously assaulted for his beliefs on the floor of the U.S. Senate To see additional resources and our other programs, please visit humanmedia.org . Humankind specials are  heard on NPR and PRX member-stations, in association with GBH Boston.

Feliks Banel's guests on this BONUS ENCORE EPISODE of CASCADE OF HISTORY include Bill Yeend and Andy Ludlum, who were both working for KIRO Newsradio in Seattle in 1980 when Mount St. Helens erupted; Bill was host of the morning news and Andy was managing editor, and they share their memories and recollections in this live conversation marking the 45th anniversary of the May 18, 1980 eruption. Then, Nick Biermann checks in with an update on the (now since demolished) Ryan House in Sumner, Washington; and we hear audio from Feliks' visit to Westminster Abbey in London for the 80th anniversary of VE Day and his chat with 99-year-old veteran Robert Piper. This BONUS ENCORE EPISODE of CASCADE OF HISTORY was originally broadcast live at 8pm Pacific Standard Time on Sunday, May 18, 2025 via SPACE 101.1 FM and gallantly streaming live via www.space101fm.org from historic Magnuson Park - formerly Sand Point Naval Air Station - on the shores of Lake Washington in Seattle. Subscribe to the CASCADE OF HISTORY podcast via most podcast platforms and never miss regular weekly episodes of Sunday night broadcasts as well as frequent bonus episodes. "LIKE" the CASCADE OF HISTORY Facebook page and get updates and other stories throughout the week, and advance notice of live remote broadcasts taking place in your part of the Old Oregon Country.

A look at how slaveholders mercilessly trafficked in human beings, the outrageous Fugitive Slave Act and the time Sumner was viciously assaulted for his beliefs on the floor of the U.S. Senate To see additional resources and our other programs, please visit humanmedia.org . Humankind specials are  heard on NPR and PRX member-stations, in association with GBH Boston.

WTiN speaks with Mark Sumner, textiles programme lead at WRAP in the second of a two-part episode about policy and regulations driving circularity and durability in textiles. This is the second episode in a two-part series with Mark Sumner, textiles programme lead at global environmental action NGO, WRAP.In this episode, Sumner delves into durability in textiles and how this influences circularity. He analyses what durability means to individuals and what consumers have come to expect from their garments.In this context, Sumner speaks at length about policy informing garment design and choices. He details how data will have the ability and power to influence policy as we move forward, with more accurate results that can inform design principles.Additionally, we speak about WRAP's Footprint Tool, which helps users navigate the complexities of the life cycle of textile products. It provides data on the full life cycle impacts of textiles and is used by retailers and brands.Learn more at wrap.ngo.  

We examine the remarkable life of Charles Sumner, a U.S. senator from Mass. who boldly championed the abolition of slavery. Sumner coined the phrase “equality before the law” and was viciously assaulted for his beliefs. To see additional resources and our other programs, please visit humanmedia.org . Humankind specials are  heard on NPR and PRX member-stations, in association with GBH Boston.

We examine the remarkable life of Charles Sumner, a U.S. senator from Mass. who boldly championed the abolition of slavery. Sumner coined the phrase “equality before the law” and was viciously assaulted for his beliefs. To see additional resources and our other programs, please visit humanmedia.org . Humankind specials are  heard on NPR and PRX member-stations, in association with GBH Boston.

In this episode, Andrea and David sit down with immigration lawyer Emily Somner to explore the evolving challenges and complexities of navigating immigration within veterinary medicine. Moving countries is hard, becoming a veterinary professional in a new one is even harder. This episode breaks down immigration, licensure, and the real life journey of practicing veterinary medicine across borders and how partnering with an immigration lawyer can help reduce risk and uncertainty. So, grab your coffee or pour a glass of wine, and join us for an engaging conversation. Stay happy and sane!   Guest Links: https://www.youtube.com/c/sumnerimmigrationlaw https://www.linkedin.com/in/emilysumner/ linkedin.com/company/sumner-immigration-law https://www.facebook.com/sumnerimmigration/ https://www.instagram.com/sumnerimmigration/ https://www.sumnerimmigration.com/   Our Links: Website: https://www.pawsitiveleaders.com/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/PAWSitiveLeaders IG: https://www.instagram.com/pawsitiveleaders/ Furpaws Consulting: https://www.furpawsconsulting.com/ Andrea Crabtree-Wood (Host) LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-crabtree-bs-cvpm-sphr-phrca-ccfp-fear-free-000a7985/ David Liss (Host) LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-liss-mba-cvpm-rvt-6915743b/ To learn more about our social media: http://www.dogdaysconsulting.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rhondabellcvpm/

An unexpected—and ironic—detour to an infamous abandoned school in Kansas sparks the kickoff of season 4. When Blake accidentally stumbles into the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education at the Sumner School in Topeka, he finds himself confronting the moment his childhood imagination collides with historical transmissions the country once tried to erase. Note: Episodes 1–4 of Season 4 form “Fading Transmissions from a Republic of Ruins,” a four-part series embedded within the season. This Season 4 premiere was recorded in front of a live audience at Green Box Arts in Green Mountain Falls, Colorado.

An unexpected—and ironic—detour to an infamous abandoned school in Kansas sparks the kickoff of season 4. When Blake accidentally stumbles into the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education at the Sumner School in Topeka, he finds himself confronting the moment his childhood imagination collides with historical transmissions the country once tried to erase. Note: Episodes 1–4 of Season 4 form “Fading Transmissions from a Republic of Ruins,” a four-part series embedded within the season. This Season 4 premiere was recorded in front of a live audience at Green Box Arts in Green Mountain Falls, Colorado.

In this episode of the Massive Passive Cash Flow Podcast, Gary Wilson sits down with land investor Sumner Healey to uncover one of real estate's most overlooked opportunities—land flipping.   Discover how investors can generate active income without dealing with tenants, repairs, or utilities, and why vacant land is a powerful entry point into real estate investing. Sunder shares his journey from failed door-knocking to closing profitable land deals, along with a simple blueprint for beginners to get started with as little as $5K–$10K.   If you're a real estate agent, investor, or entrepreneur looking for scalable income strategies in 2026, this episode breaks down how to leverage data, direct mail, and smart acquisition tactics to build a profitable land business.  

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

On this episode of Zen and the Art of Real Estate Investing, Jonathan Greene interviews Sumner Healey, founder of Land Insights and the Land Investor Accelerator. Sumner shares how he built a land flipping business from scratch and breaks down the strategies, systems, and mindset needed to succeed in today's market. Sumner walks through his early struggles getting started, from sending handwritten letters with no results to landing his first deal for just over $1,000 and flipping it for a quick profit. He explains how that initial success created a proof of concept that led him to scale into larger deals and eventually build a full business around land investing. The conversation dives into what makes land unique compared to other real estate asset classes, including its flexibility, scalability, and the wide range of deal sizes available. Jonathan and Sumner also discuss the importance of marketing, pricing, and consistency, along with why many new investors fail due to unrealistic expectations and lack of execution. Sumner also shares how to identify strong markets, improve listings to sell faster, and think like a business owner instead of just chasing deals. He emphasizes that long-term success comes from building systems, staying consistent, and being willing to learn through repetition. In this episode, you will hear: How Sumner Healey got started and closed his first land deal Why land investing offers flexibility across deal sizes and strategies The biggest mistakes new investors make when starting out How to identify strong markets and improve listing performance Why consistency and treating it like a business are key to success Follow and Review If you enjoy the show, please follow Zen and the Art of Real Estate Investing on Apple Podcasts and leave a rating and review. It helps other listeners discover the show and supports its continued growth. Supporting Resources Connect with Sumner: Website: http://landinvestor.co/  Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@landinvestorco  Facebook: https://www.instagram.com/sumnerhealey/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sumnerhealey/  Free Zero To Hero Course: https://landinvestor.co/zerotohero/  Free Trial To LIA: https://www.skool.com/lia/about  Free Land Insights Account: https://www.landinsights.co/lite  Land Insights Free Demo Call (where we will build out your first marketing list with you): https://www.landinsights.co/lite  Connect with Jonathan: Website: www.streamlined.properties  Website: https://www.trustgreene.com/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/jonathangreenere  Instagram: www.instagram.com/trustgreene  Instagram: www.instagram.com/streamlinedproperties    Zillow: www.zillow.com/profile/streamlinen​j Bigger Pockets:  www.biggerpockets.com/users/jonathangreene Facebook:  www.facebook.com/streamlinedproperties  Email:  info@streamlined.properties   This episode was produced by Outlier Audio.

David Sumner, alias DMO, alias VEX, member of Regis' seminal Sandwell District collective, belongs to this category of legendary producers who withstood the test of time with durably impressive poise. The man behind some of Ostgut Ton, Tresor, Sandwell District, Stoor and his own imprint, Infrastructure New York's most enlightening releases, has been dishing out game-changing releases one after the other. Championing a sound that swings the pendulum between pure groove cerebrality and superior functionality, Sumner creates mixes like one weaves tapestries, mastering the warps and wefts of rhythmic entanglement and the mind's curious architecture like no other. Brace yourself for a wild, inspirational thriller of a mix. 

Ep 059 – Nonfiction. Author Zaakir Tameez discusses his book, “Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation.”‘A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and Reconstruction.Charles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law.'Subscribe to the War Books podcast here:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@warbookspodcastApple: https://apple.co/3FP4ULbSpotify: https://spoti.fi/3kP9scZFollow the show here:Twitter: https://twitter.com/warbookspodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/warbookspodcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/warbookspodcast/

WTiN speaks with Mark Sumner, textiles programme lead at WRAP in the first of a two-part episode about policy and regulations driving circularity and durability in textiles. This is the first episode in a two-part series with Mark Sumner, textiles programme lead at global environmental action NGO, WRAP.In the next two episodes, Sumner will speak about policy frameworks and legislation that is driving circularity in the textile industry. During this first episode he explores the evolution of Wrap's Roadmap to Circularity to the Roadmap for its Textiles Pact. The UK Textiles Pact (formerly Textiles 2030) is the UK's leading voluntary initiative supporting businesses and organisations within the fashion and textiles industry to transition to more sustainable and circular practices by the end of the decade.The roadmap, meanwhile, charts the course for navigating the climate-critical years, from 2026 to 2030. It establishes priority indicators and actions to scale progress and achieve the Pact's targets, while encouraging flexibility in individual business pathways. Sumner touches upon the regulation and policy and speaks about where he believes the priorities lie for the textile and fashion industry. Learn more at wrap.ngo. 

On America at Night with McGraw Milhaven, Craig Sumner, retired NASA aerospace engineer and former Artemis II propulsion manager, joined the program to discuss the long road that led to NASA's Artemis II mission. Sumner explained the history of the Artemis program, the technological progress behind NASA's return to human deep-space missions, and how decades of engineering and testing are paving the way for astronauts to once again travel around the Moon. Next, Nikki Gerber, co-organizer for Ohio Residents for Responsible Development, discussed growing opposition to the construction of large data centers in parts of Ohio. Gerber explained concerns from residents about energy consumption, environmental impact, and the strain that large-scale tech infrastructure could place on local communities. Later, Dr. Bruce Betts, Chief Scientist and LightSail Program Manager for The Planetary Society, joined the show to talk about the Artemis II splashdown and what it means for the future of space exploration. Betts discussed how Artemis missions are setting the stage for Artemis III and eventually human missions to Mars, and why the success of these missions is critical for the future of human spaceflight. Finally, Theo Lewis Clark, the show's Hollywood Executive for a Day, returned for the weekly movie trivia segment, challenging McGraw and listeners with film questions and pop culture trivia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Written by Will LochamyPlayed by Reed Lochamy, David Shaddix, and Kevin Sumner For most rounds, there are three questions, and you rank your answers, assigning point values of 5, 3, and 1 each round, depending on your level of confidence. The one you feel best about is your 5-point answer, the one you're just guessing on is your 1-point answer. (For any rounds where the points don't work this way, we'll discuss that during the game.)If you feel certain that you know the answer to all three questions in a typical round, then instead of assigning points of 5, 3 and 1, you can go for 11 points. If you do that and you answer all three questions correctly, you get 11 points (instead of 9). However, if you do that and you miss just one question, you get a 0 for the round.The bonus round question has five possible answers. You get 3 points for every correct answer you submit. Like with going for 11 in typical rounds, though, you can choose to go for 20 in the bonus round (but doing so is risky in the same way that going for 11 in typical rounds is).Have questions about the game or how it works? Please feel free to email those to will@bhammountainradio.com

Join us as we speak with Angela Park the Executive Director of 52 Sumner in Springfield. They are a 501(c)(3) performing arts venue. They want to bring the arts back in a more accessible way to Springfield. In their building, they have the Springfield Community Theatre of Massachusetts and can rent the venue out to a variety of places, activities, and events. From weddings to concerts to fundraisers, they are drawing from a wide geographic area and creating economic development for the region. Cofounder Dan Mckellick was also instrumental in getting this project off the ground. The attractiveness of 52 Sumner is that they are an accessible and easy venue to engage with, there is free parking and easy on and off the highway with police escorts to cross the street into the venue. Listen in as we hear of upcoming shows, and the stories of what it takes to create something new for the community that you love. www.52sumner.com

Though turbidity currents are massive and frequent underwater events, we have rarely observed them directly. Esther Sumner is one of the few researchers who has. In the podcast, she describes what it's like to instrument an active submarine canyon, what these flows have revealed about the way sediment moves across the seafloor — and the day her team accidentally flew an underwater robot into a live turbidity current in the Mendocino canyon off the coast of California. She is an Associate Professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Southampton.

If you've noticed one too many leaves starting to change colour and you're doing everything you can to hold onto those summer vibes, this conversation might be exactly what you need. From the 26th - 29th of March in Christchurch's Sumner, it's The Single Fin Mingle. Founder, Ambrose McNeill spoke to Jesse.

There are numerous businesses here in the High Country that we all drive by every day and wonder, "what do they do in there?"This week we continue our 12-part series: Built in the High Country. This monthly feature will take us physically inside some of the most unique and successful businesses in Watauga County, as we examine what got them started and why they chose the High Country as the home for their business.This week on Mind Your Business, we visit Jackson Sumner & Associates. Established in Boone in 1981, JSA has grown to become one of the top Excess & Specialty Lines Brokers in the eastern United States. CEO Danielle Wade explains the company's origin story, and how Boone's location plays in to their workforce recruitment and retention strategy. We'll also hear about JSA's place as an industry leader, and how they've earned that recognition while being located in rural North Carolina.We'll also bring you the latest on Blue Ridge Parkway construction tied to the Great American Outdoors Act, including updates on detours planned for Watauga County in the near future.Mind Your Business is written and produced weekly by the Boone Area Chamber of Commerce. This podcast is made possible thanks to the sponsorship support of Appalachian Commercial Real Estate.Catch the show each Thursday afternoon at 5PM on WATA (1450AM & 96.5FM) in Boone. Support the show

This week on the podcast, we're excited to meet more of the Sumner family — because we're watching the Uchū Sentai Kyuranger episode "Space.16: Stinger's Reunion With His Brother"! What sub-plot of the series do they pitch out and then snatch away? Who goes full Spider-Man? And how can a Kamen Rider kick be a tragedy? The answers to these questions (and more!) await, on this episode of the Ranger Danger Kyuranger podcast!

Spen Harris is joined by special guest, former Brooklyn Net Edmond Sumner who discusses playing in the CBA, breaks down his lone year in Brooklyn & shares his thoughts on this year's upcoming NCAA draft class!Twitter: @spenharrisYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/@spennyandthenetsInstagram: instagram.com/spennyandthenetsTikTok: @Spennyandthenets

Last up from Spoken Label (Our Spoken Word / Writer Podcast) features Part 2 of our extended chat with the Environmental Poetry collection ‘I am Nature', this time an extended chat with the wonderful Andrew Sumner andPatricia (Pat) Sumner. Andrew Sumner grew up near Stroud in Gloucestershire,surrounded by deep woods and floriferous meadows thronged with butterflies. These places he explored with his mother, father and younger sister. Sadly, all that rich nature has since gone under the plough and the conifer. Later, his father's work took the family south to Somerset and the new and differentlandscapes of the Somerset Levels, the Quantock Hills and the Mendip Hills.Andrew's poems have been published in group anthologies and poetry collections, including ‘Travelling with the Saints' (Y Lofa, 2013) and ‘Both Sides of the Border – An Anthology of Writing on the Welsh Border Region (Gwasg Carreg Gfwlach, 1998). He has illustrated a children's book written by hiswife, Pat and enjoys walking, gardening, turning wood, drawing, painting, and researching family history. *Patricia Sumner (Pat) grew up on the Isle of Anglesey and nowlives in the Vale of Clwyd. She has loved creative writing ever since she was very young. As an adult, she studied under the poet and author Dr Gladys Mary Coles,namong other writers. It was at these Creative writing classes in Chester that she met her husband, Andrew.As a poet, she has had two collections published. Her pamphlet ‘Beyond the Glass' came first in a national poetry competition run by Thynks Publications. Pat's second collection of poems and readings, ‘The Promise of Dawn: Rites of Passage for all Beliefs', is published by Veneficia Publications.Pat has won awards for some of her poems and plays, and her poetry has appeared in magazines and anthologies. Pat has a BA (Hons) in English Literature and Philosophy, and a Post Graduate Certificate in Education.  This book (which is recommended) can be found here:https://www.amazon.co.uk/I-Am-Nature-Environmental-Poetry-ebook/dp/B0FH7PRW78/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1SAZ97SPX6WAQ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.boHw9Hvv-eiwk0u6a82ZqWgjmK5G_sB28inaUJj0xhnHDE2LARcrHr8SrLCATjQSwE33nT3rAzsmfAznxsyx5IGxWZdQS_e_hS0b6ZwycAw.ulpWQy3YfH1rRkpCS96xbDozvPLa_m20qWAIz00uIUc&dib_tag=se&keywords=andrew+sumner&qid=1771620249&s=books&sprefix=andrew+sumner%2Cstripbooks%2C591&sr=1-1

What does it take to become a legendary figure in the music industry? Join host Buzz Knight on this captivating episode of "Takin' a Walk" as he delves into the extraordinary life of Ron Delsener, the iconic concert promoter whose influence shaped the live music scene in New York City. Buzz Knight welcomes Jake Sumner, the visionary director behind the documentary "Ron Delsener Presents," which chronicles Delsener's remarkable journey from humble beginnings to a pivotal role in the music history landscape. Ron built his concert promoter empire from scratch, ultimately becoming part of Live Nation. As the conversation unfolds, listeners will gain invaluable insights into the challenges and triumphs of bringing a documentary to life. Sumner shares his experiences working with Delsner and the treasure trove of archival material that offers a glimpse into the evolution of live music promotion. This isn't just a story about concerts; it's about passion, risk-taking, and the artistic reinvention that defines successful music careers. Throughout the episode, Buzz Knight invites notable guests, including iconic industry veteran Jules Belkin, who draws parallels between Delsner's influence in Ohio and the broader rock music history narrative. Their anecdotes serve as a testament to Delsner's legacy and the cultural impact of music promotion, emphasizing how one individual's vision can transform the concert landscape. From classic rock stories to the intricate details of the indie music journey, this Ron Delsener episode is a rich tapestry of personal stories and industry insights that highlight the essence of what it means to be part of the music community. As listeners embark on this auditory stroll through the streets of music history, they will discover not only the stories behind iconic songs but also the emotional healing that music provides. Buzz Knight's engaging storytelling style makes this episode a must-listen for anyone passionate about exploring music history, from jazz to country and everything in between. Tune in to "Takin' a Walk" for an inspiring discussion that celebrates the artistry and resilience of legendary musicians and the behind-the-scenes stories that shaped their careers. Whether you're a fan of classic rock history, a lover of indie artists, or someone who appreciates the intricate narratives behind songwriting, this episode is packed with music history lessons that resonate deeply. Don't miss out on this opportunity to walk alongside Buzz Knight and Jake Sumner as they uncover the inspiring artist journeys that define our favorite sounds. Experience the magic of music and the stories that bring it to life in this unforgettable episode of "Takin' a Walk. " #music history #buzz knight podcast #New York music history #Ron Delsener Presents #live nation concerts #Jake Sumner #music documentary #Jules Belkin #beatles music history #american musicSupport the show: https://takinawalk.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"Happy Birthday, Peter Hook" There's nothing about Peter Hook that I can tell you you don't already know, so let's just do a refresher run through his musical CV. In the late '70s Hook formed Joy Division with childhood pal Bernard Sumner after the two friends saw the Sex Pistols play in Manchester. The band only put out two albums and one of those albums, the legendary Closer was put out two months after the band had ceased to b,e due to the suicide of singer Ian Curtis on the eve of Joy Division's debut US/Canada tour. Rechristened New Order and consisting of the remaining members of Joy Division plus keyboardist Gillian Gilbert, New Order blended jittery post-punk rhythms with dance music. The result? Well, you know the result. They were one of the biggest bands of the '80s, spawning hits like True Faith, The Perfect Kiss, Subculture and Blue Monday, which was the biggest selling 12-inch of all time. It might still be. New Order dominated the '80s, but the '90s weren't too shabby—they had a #1 UK hit with World In Motion in 1990 and they had their biggest US hit with “Regret” in 1993. They kept crushing it, putting out Get Ready in 2001 and collaborating with Billy Corgan and Bobby Gillespie of Primal Scream. They were given the Godlike Genius award at the 2005 NME awards and got nominated for a Grammy in 2006 for Guilt Is a Useless Emotion. Then things got a bit sour, with Hook leaving the band in 2007 and forming his own outfit Peter Hook and the Light, a band that featured his son Jack and much to his fans delight, revisited the Joy Division and New Order songbooks. Over the course of his career Hook has worked with The Stone Roses, and Perry Farrell, he toured with the Durutti Column, put out albums with Revenge and Monaco and wrote one of the best music books ever: Substance; Inside New Order. This is a partial list, btw. Almost a partial partial list because when it comes to Peter Hook, there's a lot of ground to cover. But these are the basics. Do a deeper dive after you hear the show—the guy is a titan. As for his split with New Order and his boyhood pal Bernard, we don't have time to go over the legal end of that dissolution, so let's just say this. If you're hoping for a reunion you're wasting your good hope energy. Not going to happen. As a bassist, he plays with an authoritative blend of prowl and sting and not only is he one of the all time greats, he also happens to be a nice guy. This chat covers his fractured friendship with Sumner, why the New Order/Joy Division songbooks appeal to fans across generations and what Hooky has learned from his old material. www.peterhookandthelight.live www.bombshellradio.com www.embersarts.com www.stereoembersmagazine.com www.alexgreenbooks.com Stereo Embers The Podcast Twitter: @emberseditor Instagram: @emberspodcast Email: editor@stereoembersmagazine.com

Tune in as Evan Lazar and Alex Barth go live from Radio Row in San Francisco in this special Super Bowl LX edition of Catch-22. They preview the Patriots-Seahawks matchup with keys to the game, schemes to look out for, and players to watch. They talk the NFL Honors and make their picks for the season's most coveted awards. Plus, special guests Benjamin Solak from ESPN and Shawn Syed from Sumner Sports join the show to share their perspectives!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A tie-dyed-in-the-wool rock & roll space odyssey to infinity and beyond which stops off this week at … … why the Dead's music was “like lighting a match in the wind” … Ha Ha Harlem! Rebels Without Applause! – Morrissey song or Lenny Bruce comic routine? … Sting v Sumner & Copeland and what Every Breath You Take makes daily just from streaming … is Oasis “the biggest exchange of money for old rope in the history of commerce?” … rock stars in shorts … John Hartford and his Willie Nelson Sliding Doors moment … how Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions became the most hi-tech band on the planet … Rock ‘babes' in the Bob Weir mould – eg Michael Clarke of the Byrds, Evan Dando and Mark Gardener from Ride … has anyone made more by doing less than JJ Burnel on Golden Brown? ... plus Warren Zevon song titles, Mary Coughlan in a coracle and the first records we reviewed for money.Help us to keep The Longest Conversation In Rock going: https://www.patreon.com/wordinyourear Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When Anthony Christopher and his wife bought Pine Lawn Manor in Sumner, Illinois, they didn't just acquire an old building—it seems they acquired a building full of restless spirits. Once rated the worst nursing home in the state, this former hotel and care facility harbored untold stories of abuse, neglect, and despair. Now, it's become one of the most active paranormal hotspots in the Midwest. Many investigators have reported chilling encounters with shadow figures, disembodied voices, and a ghostly nurse named Ed who may still roam the halls. Objects seem to materialize out of nowhere. Lights flash without electricity.  Some buildings don't forget. Some spirits never leave. And some places like Pine Lawn Manor were never meant to be silent. Today, on The Grave Talks, we go behind the manor's aging walls with owner Anthony Christopher. For more information, search Haunted Pine Lawn Manor and Rehab Center on Facebook. #PineLawnManor #HauntedIllinois #MidwestHauntings #HauntedNursingHome #ParanormalHotspot #GhostlyEncounters #ShadowFigures #TheGraveTalks #RealGhostStories #HauntedHistory  Love real ghost stories? Don't just listen—join us on YouTube and be part of the largest community of real paranormal encounters anywhere. Subscribe now and never miss a chilling new story:

When Anthony Christopher and his wife bought Pine Lawn Manor in Sumner, Illinois, they didn't just acquire an old building—it seems they acquired a building full of restless spirits. Once rated the worst nursing home in the state, this former hotel and care facility harbored untold stories of abuse, neglect, and despair. Now, it's become one of the most active paranormal hotspots in the Midwest. Many investigators have reported chilling encounters with shadow figures, disembodied voices, and a ghostly nurse named Ed who may still roam the halls. Objects seem to materialize out of nowhere. Lights flash without electricity.  Some buildings don't forget. Some spirits never leave. And some places like Pine Lawn Manor were never meant to be silent. Today, on The Grave Talks, we go behind the manor's aging walls with owner Anthony Christopher. For more information, search Haunted Pine Lawn Manor and Rehab Center on Facebook. This is Part Two of our conversation. #PineLawnManor #HauntedIllinois #MidwestHauntings #HauntedNursingHome #ParanormalHotspot #GhostlyEncounters #ShadowFigures #TheGraveTalks #RealGhostStories #HauntedHistory Love real ghost stories? Don't just listen—join us on YouTube and be part of the largest community of real paranormal encounters anywhere. Subscribe now and never miss a chilling new story:

The third installment of our Charles Sumner episode covers how, two days after Charles Sumner delivered an incendiary speech before the senate, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina came into the Senate chamber and attacked Sumner at his desk. Research: "Sumner, Charles (1811-1874)." Encyclopedia of World Biography, Gale, 1998. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A148425674/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=95485851. Accessed 31 Oct. 2025. “Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. 198, 59 Mass. 198 (1849).” Caselaw Access Project. Harvard Law School. https://case.law/caselaw/?reporter=mass&volume=59&case=0198-01 “The Prayer of One Hundred Thousands.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/PrayerofOneHundredThousand.pdf Alexander, Edward. “The Caning of Charles Sumner.” Battlefields.org. 3/6/2024. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/caning-charles-sumner Beecher, Henry Ward. “Charles Sumner.” Advocate of Peace (1847-1884) , MAY, 1874. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27905613 Berry, Stephen and James Hill Welborn III. “The Cane of His Existence Depression, Damage, and the Brooks–Sumner Affair.” Southern Cultures , Vol. 20, No. 4 (WINTER 2014). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26217562 Boston African American National Historic Site. “Abiel Smith School.” https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/abiel-smith-school.htm Boston African American National Historic Site. “The Sarah Roberts Case.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-sarah-roberts-case.htm Child, Lydia Maria. “Letters of Lydia Maria Child.” Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 1883. https://archive.org/details/lettersoflydiam00chil Commonwealth Museum. “Roberts v. The City of Boston, 1849.” https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/commonwealth-museum/exhibits/online/freedoms-agenda/freedoms-agenda-8.htm Frasure, Carl M. “Charles Sumner and the Rights of the Negro.” The Journal of Negro History , Apr., 1928, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Apr., 1928). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2713959 Gershon, Livia. “Political Divisions Led to Violence in the US Senate in 1856.” JSTOR Daily. 1/7/2021. https://daily.jstor.org/violence-in-the-senate-in-1856/ History, Art and Archives. “South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks’s Attack on Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts.” U.S. House of Representatives. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/South-Carolina-Representative-Preston-Brooks-s-attack-on-Senator-Charles-Sumner-of-Massachusetts/ Longfellow House Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site. “An Era of Romantic Friendships: Sumner, Longfellow, and Howe.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/an-era-of-romantic-friendships-sumner-longfellow-and-howe.htm Lyndsay Campbell; The “Abolition Riot” Redux: Voices, Processes. The New England Quarterly 2021; 94 (1): 7–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_a_00877 Mahr, Michael. “Sumner vs. Cane.” National Museum of Civil War Medicine. 5/24/2023. https://www.civilwarmed.org/sumner-vs-cane/ Meriwether, Robert L. “Preston S. Brooks on the Caning of Charles Sumner.” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine , Jan., 1951, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1951). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27571254 Mount Auburn Cemetery. “Charles Sumner (1811-1874): U.S. Senator, Abolitionist, & Orator.” https://mountauburn.org/notable-residents/charles-sumner-1811-1874/ National Park Service. “Charles Sumner and Romantic Friendships.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/charles-sumner-and-romantic-friendships.htm Potenza, Bob. “Charles Sumner.” West End Museum. https://thewestendmuseum.org/history/era/west-boston/charles-sumner/ Ruchames, Louis. “Charles Sumner and American Historiography.” The Journal of Negro History , Apr., 1953, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1953). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2715536 Senate Historical Office. “Senate Stories | Charles Sumner: After the Caning.” United States Senate. 5/4/2020. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/senate-stories/charles-sumner-after-the-caning.htm Sinha, Manisha. “The Caning of Charles Sumner: Slavery, Race, and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War.” Journal of the Early Republic , Summer, 2003, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 2003). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3125037 Sumner, Charles. “Barbarism of Slavery.” 6/4/1860. https://dotcw.com/documents/barbarism_of_slavery.htm Sumner, Charles. “Freedom National; Slavery Sectional.” 8/26/1852. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Freedom_National;_Slavery_Sectional Sumner, Charles. “The equal rights of all.” Washington, Printed at the Congressional globe office. 1866. https://archive.org/details/equalrightsofall00sumn Tameez, Zaakir. “Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation.” Henry Holt and Co. 2025. United States Senate. "The Crime Against Kansas.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Crime_Against_Kansas.htm United States Senate. “REPORT.” 5/28/1856. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/SumnerInvestigation1856.pdf United States Senate. “The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm Various, “Southern Newspapers Praise the Attack on Charles Sumner,” SHEC: Resources for Teachers, accessed October 31, 2025, https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1548. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The second installment of our episode on Charles Sumner picks up in the wake of his controversial antiwar speech. He next argued a school integration case before the Massachusetts supreme judicial court. Research: "Sumner, Charles (1811-1874)." Encyclopedia of World Biography, Gale, 1998. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A148425674/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=95485851. Accessed 31 Oct. 2025. “Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. 198, 59 Mass. 198 (1849).” Caselaw Access Project. Harvard Law School. https://case.law/caselaw/?reporter=mass&volume=59&case=0198-01 “The Prayer of One Hundred Thousands.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/PrayerofOneHundredThousand.pdf Alexander, Edward. “The Caning of Charles Sumner.” Battlefields.org. 3/6/2024. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/caning-charles-sumner Beecher, Henry Ward. “Charles Sumner.” Advocate of Peace (1847-1884) , MAY, 1874. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27905613 Berry, Stephen and James Hill Welborn III. “The Cane of His Existence Depression, Damage, and the Brooks–Sumner Affair.” Southern Cultures , Vol. 20, No. 4 (WINTER 2014). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26217562 Boston African American National Historic Site. “Abiel Smith School.” https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/abiel-smith-school.htm Boston African American National Historic Site. “The Sarah Roberts Case.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-sarah-roberts-case.htm Child, Lydia Maria. “Letters of Lydia Maria Child.” Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 1883. https://archive.org/details/lettersoflydiam00chil Commonwealth Museum. “Roberts v. The City of Boston, 1849.” https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/commonwealth-museum/exhibits/online/freedoms-agenda/freedoms-agenda-8.htm Frasure, Carl M. “Charles Sumner and the Rights of the Negro.” The Journal of Negro History , Apr., 1928, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Apr., 1928). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2713959 Gershon, Livia. “Political Divisions Led to Violence in the US Senate in 1856.” JSTOR Daily. 1/7/2021. https://daily.jstor.org/violence-in-the-senate-in-1856/ History, Art and Archives. “South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks’s Attack on Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts.” U.S. House of Representatives. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/South-Carolina-Representative-Preston-Brooks-s-attack-on-Senator-Charles-Sumner-of-Massachusetts/ Longfellow House Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site. “An Era of Romantic Friendships: Sumner, Longfellow, and Howe.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/an-era-of-romantic-friendships-sumner-longfellow-and-howe.htm Lyndsay Campbell; The “Abolition Riot” Redux: Voices, Processes. The New England Quarterly 2021; 94 (1): 7–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_a_00877 Mahr, Michael. “Sumner vs. Cane.” National Museum of Civil War Medicine. 5/24/2023. https://www.civilwarmed.org/sumner-vs-cane/ Meriwether, Robert L. “Preston S. Brooks on the Caning of Charles Sumner.” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine , Jan., 1951, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1951). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27571254 Mount Auburn Cemetery. “Charles Sumner (1811-1874): U.S. Senator, Abolitionist, & Orator.” https://mountauburn.org/notable-residents/charles-sumner-1811-1874/ National Park Service. “Charles Sumner and Romantic Friendships.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/charles-sumner-and-romantic-friendships.htm Potenza, Bob. “Charles Sumner.” West End Museum. https://thewestendmuseum.org/history/era/west-boston/charles-sumner/ Ruchames, Louis. “Charles Sumner and American Historiography.” The Journal of Negro History , Apr., 1953, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1953). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2715536 Senate Historical Office. “Senate Stories | Charles Sumner: After the Caning.” United States Senate. 5/4/2020. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/senate-stories/charles-sumner-after-the-caning.htm Sinha, Manisha. “The Caning of Charles Sumner: Slavery, Race, and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War.” Journal of the Early Republic , Summer, 2003, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 2003). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3125037 Sumner, Charles. “Barbarism of Slavery.” 6/4/1860. https://dotcw.com/documents/barbarism_of_slavery.htm Sumner, Charles. “Freedom National; Slavery Sectional.” 8/26/1852. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Freedom_National;_Slavery_Sectional Sumner, Charles. “The equal rights of all.” Washington, Printed at the Congressional globe office. 1866. https://archive.org/details/equalrightsofall00sumn Tameez, Zaakir. “Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation.” Henry Holt and Co. 2025. United States Senate. "The Crime Against Kansas.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Crime_Against_Kansas.htm United States Senate. “REPORT.” 5/28/1856. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/SumnerInvestigation1856.pdf United States Senate. “The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm Various, “Southern Newspapers Praise the Attack on Charles Sumner,” SHEC: Resources for Teachers, accessed October 31, 2025, https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1548. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The first installment of the deeper examination of Charles Sumner's life begins with his early years, including his close relationships with Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Samuel Gridley Howe. Research: "Sumner, Charles (1811-1874)." Encyclopedia of World Biography, Gale, 1998. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A148425674/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=95485851. Accessed 31 Oct. 2025. “Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. 198, 59 Mass. 198 (1849).” Caselaw Access Project. Harvard Law School. https://case.law/caselaw/?reporter=mass&volume=59&case=0198-01 “The Prayer of One Hundred Thousands.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/PrayerofOneHundredThousand.pdf Alexander, Edward. “The Caning of Charles Sumner.” Battlefields.org. 3/6/2024. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/caning-charles-sumner Beecher, Henry Ward. “Charles Sumner.” Advocate of Peace (1847-1884) , MAY, 1874. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27905613 Berry, Stephen and James Hill Welborn III. “The Cane of His Existence Depression, Damage, and the Brooks–Sumner Affair.” Southern Cultures , Vol. 20, No. 4 (WINTER 2014). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26217562 Boston African American National Historic Site. “Abiel Smith School.” https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/abiel-smith-school.htm Boston African American National Historic Site. “The Sarah Roberts Case.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-sarah-roberts-case.htm Child, Lydia Maria. “Letters of Lydia Maria Child.” Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 1883. https://archive.org/details/lettersoflydiam00chil Commonwealth Museum. “Roberts v. The City of Boston, 1849.” https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/commonwealth-museum/exhibits/online/freedoms-agenda/freedoms-agenda-8.htm Frasure, Carl M. “Charles Sumner and the Rights of the Negro.” The Journal of Negro History , Apr., 1928, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Apr., 1928). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2713959 Gershon, Livia. “Political Divisions Led to Violence in the US Senate in 1856.” JSTOR Daily. 1/7/2021. https://daily.jstor.org/violence-in-the-senate-in-1856/ History, Art and Archives. “South Carolina Representative Preston Brooks’s Attack on Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts.” U.S. House of Representatives. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/South-Carolina-Representative-Preston-Brooks-s-attack-on-Senator-Charles-Sumner-of-Massachusetts/ Longfellow House Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site. “An Era of Romantic Friendships: Sumner, Longfellow, and Howe.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/an-era-of-romantic-friendships-sumner-longfellow-and-howe.htm Lyndsay Campbell; The “Abolition Riot” Redux: Voices, Processes. The New England Quarterly 2021; 94 (1): 7–46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_a_00877 Mahr, Michael. “Sumner vs. Cane.” National Museum of Civil War Medicine. 5/24/2023. https://www.civilwarmed.org/sumner-vs-cane/ Meriwether, Robert L. “Preston S. Brooks on the Caning of Charles Sumner.” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine , Jan., 1951, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 1951). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27571254 Mount Auburn Cemetery. “Charles Sumner (1811-1874): U.S. Senator, Abolitionist, & Orator.” https://mountauburn.org/notable-residents/charles-sumner-1811-1874/ National Park Service. “Charles Sumner and Romantic Friendships.” https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/charles-sumner-and-romantic-friendships.htm Potenza, Bob. “Charles Sumner.” West End Museum. https://thewestendmuseum.org/history/era/west-boston/charles-sumner/ Ruchames, Louis. “Charles Sumner and American Historiography.” The Journal of Negro History , Apr., 1953, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr., 1953). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2715536 Senate Historical Office. “Senate Stories | Charles Sumner: After the Caning.” United States Senate. 5/4/2020. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/senate-stories/charles-sumner-after-the-caning.htm Sinha, Manisha. “The Caning of Charles Sumner: Slavery, Race, and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War.” Journal of the Early Republic , Summer, 2003, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 2003). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3125037 Sumner, Charles. “Barbarism of Slavery.” 6/4/1860. https://dotcw.com/documents/barbarism_of_slavery.htm Sumner, Charles. “Freedom National; Slavery Sectional.” 8/26/1852. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Freedom_National;_Slavery_Sectional Sumner, Charles. “The equal rights of all.” Washington, Printed at the Congressional globe office. 1866. https://archive.org/details/equalrightsofall00sumn Tameez, Zaakir. “Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation.” Henry Holt and Co. 2025. United States Senate. "The Crime Against Kansas.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Crime_Against_Kansas.htm United States Senate. “REPORT.” 5/28/1856. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/SumnerInvestigation1856.pdf United States Senate. “The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner.” https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm Various, “Southern Newspapers Praise the Attack on Charles Sumner,” SHEC: Resources for Teachers, accessed October 31, 2025, https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1548. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.