Monday, June 29, 2026

Choosing Penelope

Riley and I were married on a Saturday in a small Los Angeles church.

We had only been engaged for a month when, at the counsel of our close friend, we decided to have the wedding in three weeks, right before we planned to move away from LA to live in a small town in Louisiana, where I was born and raised.

Initially, the wedding was going to be an incredibly humble affair. I pictured us and a couple of friends in the first few pews. To our surprise, three weeks later, with the nearly-free and movie-montage-esque help of friends and family, eighty-something people showed up (some from clear across the country) at the behest of a mass text that said what amounted to “I know you probably can’t make it, but…”

It was a strange and beautiful wedding, not least because it was also a goodbye. It was a little like the final episode of a beloved sitcom. Also, thirty minutes before the wedding, I was helping my groomsmen clear away shelves of Narcan and lube for the homeless program in the very room where our reception was going to be about an hour later. This is that sort of perfect memory that arises from unplannable imperfection that no amount of time or money can reproduce.

Pronounced man and wife, we ran outside to be showered in rice. Cars horns erupted and windows rolled down to release pumping fists. People just can’t help it, possessed by the spirit of a cloud of cheering witnesses.

My argument for marriage starts and ends with that image. Even jaded LA people sitting in traffic automatically know a good thing when they see it, before they can rationalize their way into thinking something else. Generally, language makes us into casuists, able to twist ourselves into believing whatever helps us avoid the pain of making a permanent choice. Automatic responses remind us what we really must think and what should be attuned to with gentle attention. That’s a long way of saying why we know stories are truer than data.

Speaking of The Data, it suggests the opposite of happily ever after. Divorce is more than likely. My parents got divorced. That whole ordeal nearly ruined me. But the end of my parents’ marriage being catastrophic did not convince me it was a poor institution. If anything, it made me think that the force of the catastrophe could only be produced in the destruction of something good. What kept me living the bachelor’s life into my 30’s was not fear of repeating my parents’ mistakes; it was the lie of eternity promised in fleeting relationships. It was Swiping’s Lie: hookup culture and the corporate hustle that we all know is its conjoined twin.

In The Odyssey, Odysseus is held captive on an island after the Trojan war. Holding him there is the goddess, Calypso promising him eternal life, eternal youth and eternal sex. This is the image of hookup culture, in case you thought it was something new. It’s the age-old promise of never having to grow up—the ability to continuously find newness and youth in others and to therefore renew the youth in yourself. You can easily imagine how a man like Great Odysseus would be tempted to rest on his laurels. The dream of Calypso, after all, is only available to those brave, chosen few men who have risen to the top of the hierarchy. She, then, is the spirit within the droves of young women who would share a hero instead of settling for a man. That image is also still alive and well. Think of DiCaprio. It’s maybe not a coincidence that you might also picture him on an island with his girls, or a yacht at least.

The first part of a man’s life is occupied by the desire to become worthy of Calypso’s island. For Odysseus, that took place in The Iliad. Once the war is over and he is well-known as a brave man, the rules change. The very desire that drove him away from Ithaca to go on a grand adventure now threatens to keep him trapped on an island of his rewards. What the gods conspire to inject in him now is a new kind of courage: the courage to choose his eventual grave. The temptations against this odyssey are great: Calypso is more beautiful than any mortal woman could ever be (because she is the essence of youth and beauty itself, expressed only in part and at times in individual women). His wife back home, Penelope, though very beautiful, does not compare to Calypso. Worse, she will quickly become old and ugly and tired, like Odysseus himself would, if he left the island.

He chooses Penelope. He chooses to go home. And he is punished for the length of the novel as a test of the graveness of that choice.

Riley and I had a strangely old-fashioned wedding, which was made even more strange by its setting in the infinitely hip neighborhood of Silverlake. An artist friend of ours, who, in my opinion, is very hip indeed, said the aesthetic was cool, almost “gothic.” I liked that. Riley’s antique dress made her look like the Virgin Mary. Mine was a navy-issued, double-breasted felt wool suit, authentic from the 50’s. We’ve joked that we should have done it real old-fashioned and gotten married in our own graves.

What’s romantic about a wedding is not the passing promise to pretend we’ll feel puppy-love for each other for the rest of our lives (e.g. “You’re my person”). Or else the even-sadder and more common promise to always watch TV together, as if we know all adventure is over and we have firmly settled for less than we once dreamed of. What’s romantic about a wedding are the parts modern weddings cut out or downplay: the “til’ death” part. That’s not to be morbid. The opposite. Given that we both have the choice to stay on the proverbial island with Calypso—forever looking for something new and better—we both look each other in the eyes and choose our eventual decay. We’re going home. As a result of this sacrifice there are no immediate riches; storms will rage and probably a cyclops will try to eat us, but we are going home to be with each other, come hell or high water.

People love romantic love, especially when it breaks rules, because it has no “why.” The moment you put a “why” on love—economic reasons, reasons of convenience, or because you’ve finally accepted that you just can’t do any better—it dies. So people yearn for the reckless and reasonless love they think can only be found outside the bounds of marriage. They have associated marriage with necessity, and cannot conceive of any other way it could be. [...]

The number one reason young people give for not getting married is money. It seems likely to me that this is a convenient substitute for the real reason. If you have enough money, after all, it can make commitments go away when they become inconvenient. Money makes kids go away when they annoy you. It can even get you a younger wife down the line, which is to say that money makes for a false sacrifice. At the same time, people damn well know they shouldn’t stay in Calypso’s cave forever. They sense they will wake up one day as an old child and with either no children or estranged ones, but they lack the courage to choose Penelope outright. So they try to have it both ways: to keep the island as a backup plan. We can all guess what half-measures avail us.

Speaking of money, it shocked Riley and I how much people wanted to help us once we announced we were getting married. Dozens of people worked for free to make our wedding happen in less than three weeks. There is an old Italian saying that married couples always have bread under their arm, which, you could argue (cynically), is just a way to encourage poor people to get married. It has proved to be incredibly true for us.

As a man, it has also been incredibly humbling. Had I continued searching for more and more ways to win friends and accumulate resources before I got married, it may have never taught me that provision is better gained as a gift received than something to be wrestled from a hostile world. Marrying a woman taught me what women know intuitively: that the world wants to help you. When I was still a single man, the sentiment was more like that it hated me. And it did, in the sense that young men, unlike young women, have to prove their worth. Joining flesh with a woman means that my personal war against the Trojans is over. That courage is not wasted, it has just outlived its usefulness and it’s time for me to develop a new kind of courage. The kind that takes me home. [...]

Unconsciously, also, Riley and I originally moved to LA looking for a king to serve: a big Hollywood king who could bestow power and fame on us if we pushed the correct sycophantic buttons. From that high place, we dreamed, perhaps, our king would die (or something equally fortuitous) and then maybe we would be king. This is the unspoken language of the American dream. We, of course, unlike every other person who has ever existed before us, would use our power for good, our world uncorrupted by our slobbering pursuit of pleasing those corrupt kings we claim to despise. Articulating it like this makes it plain to me now that this plan doesn’t even work in theory, much less in practice. It is also plain to me that we were on a pathway of likely-forever frustrated mediocrity because our spirits were at odds—we wanted what we also hated. And a house divided cannot stand. If we had managed to fully abandon ourselves to our ambitions (which some do manage with the help of some mixture of new age sorcery and hard drugs) we would have been so spiritually mangled that our fates would be something worse than death. What does a man gain if he gets the whole world but sacrifices his soul?

I can forgive myself (a little) because patterns like these usually can’t be apprehended from within. Perspective is required. Waking perception can’t see the forest for the trees, so we sometimes have visions or dreams. These are vague, counterintuitive, and don’t play by the rules of the game you are currently fixated on. So, most people ignore them, most of the time. We also have lost most of our sophisticated language to understand visions or dreams, seeing it all as arbitrary or unscientific. The language didn’t go completely away (it can’t), so it just became unhelpfully simplistic. We’ve settled for, “Follow your dreams,” which now means something like, “Get what you already think you want at any cost and ignore any subconscious warnings against that, especially in the form of other people (aka ‘haters’)” when it probably ought to indicate something more like, “Do that thing you have a strange sense you should do, where people also seem to want you around, even if you lose whatever you once thought was important to you.”

Riley and I found each other in LA as the former type of dream follower. Funnily, though, we met each other as a direct result of a small act of the latter type of dreaming. For in the midst of all our big dreams in LA, we had both followed a still small voice to go to that little church down the street. It was uncomfortable to keep going, I now realize, because it was at odds with the larger part of our spirit that was looking for a good earthly king to serve. But we just kept showing up and volunteering at the food pantry. Right outside of that church was where I first broke the news: “I think we like each other.” And with that, old dreams began to lose their power and new, strange, and humble dreams started to crowd in.

I have to remind myself, that although what I’m trying to do here is make some sense out of all this, there are aspects that go plainly beyond sense. I doubt I will ever recover them with language. One example would be the dream that led me here in the first place, another would be my wife’s exceptional character in the face of these circumstances. For context, she is not just some aspiring actress from LA who, on some level, wanted an excuse to leave the thankless grind behind. She filmed a movie this year and was part of a Disney project last year. She had every concrete reason to stay in Hollywood. She left only because of my weird dream. Now that we’re here and living in the old house, I am the one who is much more likely to forget the dream and fret over some concern of status. Or worry that she doesn’t want to be here because there are too many blighted and abandoned homes on our street. She is usually the one to remind me why we are here: to be involved with people and to do what we are told. This is a special place. There is real history here, and that’s part of it, but what I find remarkable about the town is its aliveness and relative beauty in spite of its total lack of economics. Once you dig a bit, you realize that this town is kept alive only by the good will of a few wealthy families who care about the community. [...]

It also keeps us attuned to how our broader environment may be shaping our inner environment. We notice, for example, that to the extent there is unexplored territory in the house—places filled with dust and cobwebs—there is also unexplored territory in the mind. It is important, then, to intentionally clean every corner of the house, slowly and consciously, literally getting your fingers in every nook and cranny. While you do that, your psychology changes. You master the domain and your nervous system regulates to a more calm, resting state. Until the motions are embodied physically and dramatically, the cobwebs remain also in the marriage. This is not to say dust and cobwebs should be eradicated. Just that the opportunity of their maintenance should be perceived as a privilege rather than the terrifying indication of inevitable decay they are usually seen as. In fact, the modern compulsion to eschew all signs of rust incur an ever-increasing debt that I, at least in this phase of my life, am no longer willing to subsidize my time to afford. I’m thinking of clean, glassy, modern architecture; I once heard someone joke about that sort of place—I can’t remember who said it or where I read it—that those places would be perfect if it wasn’t for all the people in them. The cost is not just in the anti-people aesthetic (which brings a psychic cost probably higher than anyone reckons), but the literal salaries of uncountable maintenance, janitorial, and security people, all built into the ever-increasing hours demanded of the email workers inside. And all that for what? To avoid looking at some dirt, to avoid the realization that you were once that dirt and are quickly becoming it again. And by avoiding those realizations, our resilience to them gets lower, and so we erect even more walls and glass to keep it more securely away, and the cost of it all rises and rises and so we are forced to work our email jobs for longer and longer hours while someone else, also paid for with more and more working hours, makes life-long memories with our children in our stead. You start to think that a little dirt is a small price to pay for freedom. [...]

By choosing Riley, I have made the decision to leave the island of Calypso forever. I went home, in my case both figuratively and literally. That means we have both sacrificed the illusion of eternal youth and have intentionally chosen to have kids, make a home, get old and ugly together, and then eventually die. By making the choice in full consciousness, I feel that I have received a better kind of eternity in exchange.

by James Taylor Foreman, The Metaphor |  Read more:
Image: Anthony Frederick Augustus Sandys (1829-1904), Penelope

We Were Promised Sex Robots

Neil McArthur was sure we'd have sex robots by now. The University of Manitoba philosophy professor has spent over a decade studying sex tech. In 2019, when he went to the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo, the industry's largest annual conference, he saw robots with tough, tire-like skin that couldn't walk and spoke more jaggedly than early versions of Siri. When he returned in 2024, well into the LLM boom, he thought, "Things have to have come a long way."

They hadn't. The robots' skin and speech were still unrealistic, and they couldn't move around the conference floor. What was new, though, were several Chinese companies had arrived. (Their founders were invariably young men; one was so young his mom was there, hovering in the background, McArthur says.) As with AI, electric vehicles, and several other tech sectors, China's entrance into the sex robots market had knocked down the price point. Whereas American-made sex robots from the 2010s hype cycle typically started at around $7,000 and quickly exceeded $10,000, some Chinese manufacturers sell sex robots at around $3,000. "The technology had gotten cheaper, but not better," McArthur says.

Several of the Chinese sex doll producers I reached out to did not respond to emails, including VMDoll and IronTech. Others seemed to have AI bots operating their WhatsApp messages. Eventually, I reached Stella Lau, a sales director for Jiggly Joy, a doll manufacturer based in Guangdong province with 160 employees. Lau, 32, has worked for Jiggly Joy for seven years, long before the company released its first AI robot in February.

Jiggly Joy's new model has all the classic features of a sex robot — Lau is one of many merchants who hyped up the "sucking vagina," a suction-and-release pump system — plus it could smile, talk, and wave. It also has a blonde bombshell haircut and can turn its neck like M3GAN. The robot still cannot walk, but that's mostly for safety reasons, Lau says; she's too heavy. The company has been selling about 21 AI dolls a month at $3,000, Lau says. Most of the buyers are American; they're either former sex doll users or lonely and wanted someone to talk to, Lau says.

I also reached a representative for Formosa Doll, a 5-person Hong Kong-based distributor that works exclusively with Chinese sex doll companies. (He asked for anonymity to protect his privacy.) He says AI sex robots are "underdeveloped" and not ready for sale. For one, some doll head prototypes removed the oral sucking motors from the mouth to make space for the AI voice. Trading sucking for talking, he says, is a "big downside."

Voice AI can also be unpredictable and unruly, and sex doll users may be used to making up role-play scenarios in their heads — scenarios they have full control over. That makes him skeptical that AI robots would sell well. "People want an experience, they want to satisfy a fantasy," he says. "People don't want something at home that talks."

The Western market, meanwhile, has mostly flattened out. I tried to contact four of the sex doll makers featured in articles in the 2010s hype cycle. My emails bounced, and my calls went to disconnected numbers.

The only company remaining from the late 2010s appears to be RealDoll, which is now spinning off from the publicly traded Realbotix. The independent RealDoll will be led by Sue Ennis, who started as president of Realbotix the day before our chat. She has big plans, repeating four times that the company would be the "Apple store of intimacy technology."

The robots are built and selling; RealDoll was shipping out 12 as we speak, Ennis tells me. (It's generally a low-revenue business: Realbotix, whose humanoids are also used in healthcare and corporate training settings, reported $353,037 in Q1 earnings.) They have AI voices, AI vaginas, and proprietary skin technology that's also sold to burn victims. Still, the dolls remain very heavy and lack mobility. Some customers take their dolls out on dates. "The dolls are definitely not walking into the theater," Ennis says. "They're being wheeled in."

If the sex robot revolution does happen, it may spread through specialization.

Most of the current AI robots look the same: blonde, skinny, hourglass-shaped. The sex doll underclass is growing more diverse, though. Elves were popular at Formosa Doll, as was Judy Hopps from the "Zootopia" movies. "Goblin dolls are a really hot trend now," Formosa's rep tells me. Consumers don't want generic sexbots; they want their sexbot.

Porn stars are an easy way in. Fans spend thousands in tips to their favorite OnlyFans models. Some are finding that they're willing to spend even more to see them in the (artificial) flesh. Cliff Jensen, a 37-year-old award-winning porn star and OnlyFans model, says his fans want to date him, to prank their friends with him, and to make him take it up the bum. "They've always wanted me to bottom, and I never have," he says.

I meet Jensen at his rep's apartment in Silver Lake, California. We sit side-by-side on the couch, a clutter-filled table with joints and doughnuts in front of us. The big chair is reserved for his sex doll doppelgänger, which he heaved in from his trunk. Jensen is upset; the previous owner, it seemed, had stuffed the sex doll in a closet and piled things on top. The doll retained some head scratches and a mild case of pink eye.

Jensen has worked with the Chinese company IronTech for over 3 years, during which the doll has undergone many evolutions. He performed a 3D body scan for the first iteration, but they couldn't scan his penis. When he saw the doll in-person, he ripped its too-small penis off clean. "It's bad for my brand," he says. He keeps that early, poorly sized phallus as a keepsake.

Yes, Jensen has had sex with himself. It was in an orgy scene, and he found it hilarious. After that scene, Jensen accidentally dropped the doll down a flight of stairs, damaging it beyond repair. He threw the doll in the dumpster, but a hairy elbow peeked out of the trash bag. A neighbor called the cops, thinking it was a corpse. The cops were delighted, he says. "They've seen sex dolls before, but they're those cheap, smaller ones that are washed up on the shore," he says. "They're like, 'Dude, this is gold.'"

Indeed, Jensen's doll didn't look cheap at all. I feel the skin and the hair, which are hauntingly realistic. I hold the breathtakingly large penis in my hand, and it feels like a breathtakingly large penis. Jensen has dozens of ideas to keep improving it: an opening in the lips so you could kiss it, a kit of different penis sizes for those who cannot take his full member, and an AI voice. His primary goal, though, is weight reduction: the current model is at least 140 pounds. He has to haul it over his shoulder to move it.

Jensen has sold around 100 dolls at about $3,800. His customers seem price-sensitive; sales have dropped since the tariffs went into effect. Some fans have considered a doll-sharing model.

by Henry Chandonnet, Business Insider | Read more:
Images: Simon Simard; Cliff Jensen
[ed. See also Lars and the Real Girl (with Ryan Gosling). Now streaming on Tubi for free (with ads). Also, Are Humanoid Robots Ready to Be Deployed? (New Yorker).]

Pharmaceutical Freedom: Why Patients Have a Right to Self-Medicate

If Patients Can Refuse Care, Why Can't They Access It?
A Psychiatrist’s Read of Jessica Flanigan's "Pharmaceutical Freedom"

V. The Third Person in the Room

The clinical encounter is not a two-party relationship. There is a third presence in the room, composed of malpractice precedent, DEA scrutiny, prior-authorization architecture, board-of-medicine expectations, and institutional risk management. It does not speak. It shapes what can be offered, what can be discussed openly, and what stays outside the bounds of the conversation. The patient senses it. The prescriber feels it more acutely.

Flanigan directs her critique at the state, as if the state were a discrete actor whose policies could be evaluated on their merits and replaced with better ones. The state is not in the room. Individual prescribers are in the room, and the policies of the state arrive there refracted through professional liability, employer policy, payer requirements, and the residue of every malpractice case any of us has read about. What looks like medical paternalism is, in many cases, professional survival adapting to a system in which the visible costs of one kind of error are concentrated and the visible costs of the other are dispersed.

The cost of error is asymmetrically distributed. A patient who refuses care and deteriorates is generally respected as having exercised autonomy; the death is sad, but it is hers. A prescriber who provides risky access and watches harm follow is scrutinized, second-guessed, sometimes sued, occasionally disciplined by their state medical board. These outcomes are not philosophically symmetric, and prescribers have absorbed that asymmetry into their reflexes. Daniel Carpenter, in his analysis of the FDA in Reputation and Power, names the same pattern at the regulatory scale: visible harms are minimized, dispersed harms are tolerated, and the institution's incentive structure runs in one direction. The clinic operates on the same logic as the agency, scaled to a single examination room.

There is something genuinely appealing to me about Flanigan's proposal from inside this structure. If physicians are not the gatekeepers, they are not the bearers of the consequences. The consultant role, in which I inform rather than authorize, is the more honest description of what I am actually competent to do. It removes a distortion in the encounter that the current regulatory structure quietly imposes. I would, in some moods, sign on tomorrow.

The cost of removing it is that gatekeeping organizes responsibility in ways that are not always coercive. The patient who can be conditionally offered a risky medication, contingent on a safety plan and a follow-up visit, is in a different conversation than the patient who can simply buy it at retail. Whether that difference is therapeutic or merely bureaucratic depends on the case, the patient, and the medication; the honest answer is that it is both, in proportions that vary.

Quong's distinction returns here in a form Flanigan does not fully address. Removing physician gatekeeping does not eliminate the coercive structure around pharmaceutical decisions. It relocates it. Insurers, employers, licensing bodies, fitness-for-duty examiners, family courts, child-welfare agencies: these are the secondary gatekeepers waiting to absorb the function. A pilot whose airline learns he has been self-medicating does not become more autonomous because his prescriber is no longer the bottleneck. Flanigan's payment proposals, which include collective insurance bargaining, conditional reimbursement, and vouchers, are sensible on their own terms, but they describe a system in which insurers retain decisive control over which drugs are practically affordable, and that control is itself a form of gatekeeping.

Her reform of the prescription system would not abolish gatekeeping. It would migrate it from a clinical relationship, where there is at least some individual accountability and some possibility of negotiation, into administrative structures with less of either.

VI. What the Book Gets Uncomfortably Right

This is where Flanigan's abstraction becomes clinically useful. There is a version of her argument that sounds exaggerated until you follow it through the structure described above. Delay accumulates in individual patients. In aggregate it looks like a policy. In the clinic it looks like a pattern.

Four things in the book survive clinical scrutiny better than I would like them to.

The first is that delay is a body count, and the count is not zero. Flanigan's most provocative line, the one about prescription requirements killing people, lands harder here than in the section that introduced it, because by now the reader has the structure to see what she means. The sequence is familiar to anyone who has watched a patient cycle through the standard-of-care options for a treatment-resistant condition. An early-phase signal is not strong enough to meet the chosen endpoint. The endpoint was chosen to withstand regulatory scrutiny rather than to register clinical benefit. The trial extends. Approval waits. The patient cycles through partial responses, accumulates side effects, loses jobs and relationships, and eventually either stabilizes on something inadequate or does not stabilize at all. The drug arrives later, with narrower labeling and higher evidentiary confidence. Some patients benefit. Others have already moved on, in one direction or another. No one counts the ones who did not wait.

This is the asymmetry Carpenter describes at institutional scale. The cost of being wrong in one direction is concentrated, identifiable, traceable to a decision; the cost of being wrong in the other direction is dispersed across a population that never appears in the same frame as the decision that produced it. That asymmetry constrains what I can offer the person sitting in front of me. The menu of available treatments at any given visit is a function of what is approved, what is labeled, what is defensible, and what is reimbursable. I am choosing among the survivors of a filtration process that selected for evidentiary confidence at the cost of timeliness, and for legal defensibility at the cost of clinical range. Flanigan is right that delay carries a cost. Carpenter explains why that cost is tolerated. The clinic is where the two positions meet and refuse to resolve.

The second is regulatory inconsistency. Alcohol is sold at gas stations. Tobacco is regulated at point of sale rather than at access. The supplement industry sells substances with measurable pharmacological effects under almost no oversight, some of which overlap meaningfully with prescription pharmacology. Meanwhile, drugs with established mechanisms, known dosing, decades of safety data, and clear therapeutic niches remain tightly controlled. The boundary does not track risk. It tracks regulatory history, which is to say it tracks the order in which different industries developed, captured their respective agencies, and stabilized their privileges.

The third is that restriction redistributes harm rather than eliminating it, and the redistribution is stratified by resources. The patients who already operate in a world of pharmaceutical freedom are overwhelmingly wealthy, educated, well-connected, and white. They have the time, language, money, and confidence to use international pharmacies, online vendors, supplement markets, ketamine-clinic networks, and direct-to-consumer telehealth. They self-experiment with peptides, pay cash for novel neuromodulation protocols, and design off-label regimens with help from physicians willing to advise them and from AI tools that explain pharmacokinetics on demand. One patient with bipolar disorder, able to afford a nonstandard neuromodulation course out of pocket, designed a variant protocol after reading the literature; it seems to have helped him, and the clinical work was free to proceed because he could bypass the insurance pathway entirely. Another patient, after years of severe fibromyalgia, researched a newly approved neurosteroid obsessively and had two weeks of striking relief on samples left at an office; her right-to-try appeal failed and she could not afford the cash price. What separated those two patients was resources rather than biology. Patients without those resources remain inside the formal system, where access is slower, narrower, and subject to authorization workflows designed by people who do not have to use them. Psychedelic therapy is the cleanest contemporary example: psilocybin retreats in legal jurisdictions, ketamine clinics, and underground guides are available to people who can afford them, while the same compounds remain federally inaccessible to the patients most likely to benefit and least likely to find a way around the prohibition.

The fourth is that restriction shapes honesty. This is essentially Anomaly's learned-helplessness point, and it deserves the most attention. When access depends on prescriber approval, the patient has a strong incentive to present in whatever way maximizes the likelihood of getting what they want. Symptoms are emphasized or hidden. Histories are edited. Substance use gets reframed as something else, or omitted. This is not lying in the sense that anyone would prosecute. It is adaptation to a system where the prescriber's authority over access creates a corresponding pressure on the information that prescribers receive. Anomaly's framing draws on Mill: state restrictions, by promising to manage risks on the citizen's behalf, can permanently stunt the development of the very faculties that would have allowed the citizen to manage them. The clinical version is more local. The frame that promises to protect the patient from bad decisions also produces the patient who cannot tell his doctor what he is actually doing.

A system that restricts access does not eliminate risk. It redistributes it: toward patients who cannot find their way around the workarounds, into clinical encounters where honesty has been priced out, and onto the timelines of patients waiting for permission that may never arrive. The conversation in which the options run out happens more often than the policy debate suggests.

VII. Toward a Capacity-Based Hybrid

The book's great virtue is that it forces clinicians to defend the gatekeeping role rather than assume it. Most pharmaceutical regulation is implicitly risk-based. The higher the perceived risk of a drug, the tighter the controls on access. Flanigan's most useful contribution, after the symmetry argument, is to demonstrate that risk on its own is a poor foundation for coercion; many activities of comparable or greater risk go entirely unrestricted, and the threshold at which paternalism becomes legitimate is not derived from any consistent principle.

A capacity-based framework offers a different organizing principle. The threshold for restricting access is not the level of risk involved, but the integrity of the decision-making process about that risk. [...]

The right analogy is not the prescriber as gatekeeper but the prescriber as fiduciary advisor. Financial advisors do not authorize their clients' trades; they cannot prevent a client from making a foolish investment. What they offer is a relationship across time, a track record of trust long enough to make persuasion possible, and the authority that comes from being someone the client has chosen to listen to. The advisor's job is to deepen the conditions under which the client can exercise autonomy well, not to override it. Having no coercive authority is what makes the advisor freer to be honest about what the client is doing wrong. That structural freedom is precisely what the prescriber's role currently lacks.

by Anonymous, Astral Codex Ten |  Read more:
[ed. From the 2026 ACT annual book review contest (here). This is a recurring frustration - patient requests for various drug prescriptions versus what doctors will actually prescribe (for a variety of reasons articulated in this review, none of them transparent). Since a patient generally has more intimate insight into how their body functions and feels than a physician does you'd think they'd have more influence in the decision-making process, but no. And it's hard to discern what's driving those decisions - see the list at the top of this post. (As an aside, I've never understood why there are so many drug commercials on nightly news, and who they're directed at. Do you know of anyone going to a doctor and saying "hey, I saw a new drug for my condition on tv last night, and how about we give it a try". Try it, see what kind of response you get.]

Sunday, June 28, 2026

Kitaoka Fumio - Pond in autumn, Moss Garden, 1970
via:

 

[Haori] (Kabuki costume) Target and arrow design on light green satin ground. Edo period, 19th century.

What's Elon Worth?


[ed. Let's see, by my watch $103,000 every minute. He could own every major league sports team 2.5 times over; buy all the gold in Ft. Knox (with billions to spare)... (more).]


The Shape of the Thing

Meta Culpa

Early last year, Meta's chief technology officer, Andrew Bosworth, had a clear message for his staff. "You should quit if you feel that way," he told one employee who said workers were being treated poorly. "You should consider working elsewhere," he told another person who questioned controversial changes at the business. He was reinforcing the company Meta had spent the last few years trying to become: a lean, fast, high-pressure organization that no longer had the patience for internal debate. "You can leave," Bosworth said, "or disagree and commit."

But this month, in a memo and a meeting with employees, Bosworth sounded like a different person. Morale is "probably one of the worst it's ever been," he said, adding that the business had done "an atrocious job" with its recent restructuring. "We've undermined the trust you have that your specific expertise and contribution will be valued."

Since 2022, Meta has remade itself around a ruthless management playbook that helped define a new era in Silicon Valley. Through relentless layoffs and many other unpopular decisions, executives charged ahead, emboldened by record profits and apparently immune to the building discontent. Bosworth's comments last week were different — an acknowledgement that Meta's leadership may finally be confronting the costs of its actions.

Meta's workforce is at a breaking point. Employees in the UK are trying to form a labor union, decrying executives' "cruel and shortsighted behaviors." More than 1,600 workers have signed a petition demanding that Meta stop tracking employees' keystrokes to improve its AI models. As Wired reported this month, things have gotten so bad that one frustrated employee hijacked a livestreamed meeting with a profanity-laced outburst directed at an executive. Another compared working in a new AI-training unit to the gulag. Others are so dejected they're actually praying to get laid off so they can leave with at least some severance.

Against this backdrop, Bosworth was one of several executives in recent weeks scrambling to do damage control. Chief Product Officer Chris Cox acknowledged the "insanity of this company" that created a "difficult" and "brutal" environment. CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted "we've made mistakes."

"It's a classic example of chickens coming home to roost," says Sandra Sucher, a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School. "They have almost systematically destroyed trust. They are trying to figure out how to dig themselves out of the hole that they dug."

The digging started with a mass layoff of 11,000 people in late 2022, which Zuckerberg was at least apologetic about. The company then slashed another 10,000 jobs the next spring in what Zuckerberg hailed as a "year of efficiency," and then another 3,600 in 2025 that he said was to get rid of "low performers," effectively torpedoing some workers' job searches (many of them, it turned out, had received good performance reviews). In March this year, news leaked that the company was about to ax even more jobs, but it didn't confirm the cuts for weeks and didn't notify those affected until May, sending everyone into a nauseating, two-month purgatory. In April, amid the limbo, Meta announced it would start tracking employees' keystrokes, stoking fears that the company wanted to automate their work. And in May, as it laid off 8,000 employees, it reassigned another 7,000, many of them to menial jobs that involve training AI. Meta declined to comment on this story. [...]

For employees caught in the hailstorm, it must have felt validating for an executive to empathize with their situation. But surely he and the rest of Meta's leadership knew all these things would make employees unhappy, and yet they did them anyway. So why the sudden mea culpa?

Perhaps all the anger, dissatisfaction, and open rebellion was harming productivity. Or the particularly public nature of Meta's dysfunction, with the crescendo of news reports, had become a liability for its reputation with investors. Or maybe executives finally realized what had become patently obvious to everyone else — that whatever Meta was doing just wasn't working. The whole point of adopting this hard-charging management style was to get employees to innovate faster and catch up to competitors like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google in the all-consuming battle over AI. Instead, Meta has been falling farther and farther behind.

by Aki Ito, Business Insider |  Read more:
Image: Wally Skalij/Getty; Getty Images; Tyler Le/BI
[ed. Why anyone would want Facebook/Meta on their business resume is beyond me. The money might be good, but working for a company like that would just be burning life years. See also: The Internet Has Become Too American to Trust (The Walrus).]

Seniors in Medicare to Get Obesity Drug Coverage

Millions of older Americans in Medicare are about to gain access to obesity drugs for the first time — but that landmark shift may be flying under the radar for many of them.

Starting Wednesday, eligible beneficiaries can get obesity drugs through Medicare’s new Bridge demonstration program for a monthly copay of just $50. The coverage marks a long-sought victory for patients, physicians and obesity advocates who have pushed for broader access to the blockbuster treatments from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, which have remained out of reach for many Americans.

But a staggering 82% of all older Americans — including 79% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats — say they are unaware that Medicare is about to begin covering obesity drugs, according to a survey released in early June by the Obesity Care Advocacy Network. The survey, conducted in late March among more than 2,100 adults ages 65 and older, was completed weeks before the government announced it would extend the Bridge program through 2027.

That data may not come as a surprise: While the government has done robust outreach to healthcare providers and pharmacists, some physicians and other experts told CNBC that they have noticed limited advertising of the new coverage to the general public from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or Novo and Lilly.

There may be good reasons for it. CMS has done limited public outreach on the program ahead of July 1 because beneficiaries are “most moved to take action” when a benefit is actually available to them, an agency official told reporters on Thursday. They added that CMS will put out more promotions after the launch, “in the interest of being good stewards of our taxpayer dollars.”

Other experts also told CNBC that it may come down to making sure providers and pharmacies are prepared and resources are in place before pursuing broad public outreach. [...]

Unlike traditional Medicare drug coverage, enrollment in the Bridge program is not automatic. Patients must meet eligibility requirements, obtain a prescription and receive prior authorization approval through CMS before coverage begins.

by Annika Kim Constantino, CNBC | Read more:
Image: Dhiraj Singh|Bloomberg|Getty Images
[ed. Feels like there's more to this story. Why is no one clamoring to get credit (or market share)?]

Saturday, June 27, 2026

Ring of Kerry, Ireland
via:

Testosterone and the Bible - the ‘New Punk Rock’

George, Wash. — At Freedom Con, there were feats of strength and CrossFit contests. There was an obstacle course and a station for practicing how to change a tire. There was prayer and music, and original verse from a pastor and tactical gear salesman known as the Warrior Poet. There were exhortations from the stage to run for office, to have more babies and to reject “woke secular gay paganism.”

“Heterosexual, sober men who marry girls and read Bibles, we’re the new punk rock!” pastor Mark Driscoll said in a fiery sermon that brought attendees to their feet.

More than 4,500 men gathered in central Washington over Father’s Day weekend for a testosterone-fueled celebration of Christianity and patriotism that culminated in a statement calling conservative Christian men “to rise as statesmen.”

Men came with their sons. They came with their pastors. They came with their brothers, their hunting buddies, their Bible study friends.

The two-day event took place just outside the small town of George, Wash., against the backdrop of America’s 250th anniversary. The amalgam of political activation, Christian worship and male bonding provided a glimpse of an emerging right-wing movement with masculinity as its unifying force.

Rick Slaughter, 44, camped overnight at the festival last Friday with a group of eight men and boys from around Orting. On Saturday afternoon, they smiled for a photo on the sloping lawn overlooking the Columbia River, with the state flag of Washington and another one reading “JESUS IS KING.”

The men meet weekly in a group affiliated with Promise Keepers, an evangelical men’s ministry that boomed in the 1990s and has recently been resurrected with a sharper political edge. The trip was an opportunity for them to spend more time together and hear from political candidates and well-known pastors about their responsibilities as Christian men, as they saw it.

“What we’re trying to do is be better men,” Slaughter said. Many of the members have become sober and started marriage counseling since joining the group. Slaughter has gotten a handle on an anger problem, he said. (Federal prosecutors accused Slaughter of attacking Capitol Police officers in the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, but the case was dismissed last year when President Donald Trump granted clemency to participants. Slaughter described the charges in an interview as “a lot of lies.”)

Driscoll, who resigned under pressure more than a decade ago from the large church he founded in Seattle, has made a roaring comeback as the evangelical mainstream has embraced his style of brash provocations in the Trump era. Accused of bullying and cultivating a culture of fear at his church in Seattle, he now leads a large congregation in Scottsdale, Ariz., and has a huge online following.

His sermon last Friday swept through the first books of Genesis and Exodus, drawing connections between ancient biblical stories and contemporary American politics. He described the Tower of Babel as an illustration of the perils of globalism, and an entity faced by Moses as “the transgender god of Egypt.”

“New days, old demons,” he said. “You men need to understand, if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.”

Many of the pastors in the program’s lineup were leaders of a growing cohort of politically aggressive churches closely allied with the Trump administration and its priorities. Some were there to promote new political and educational institutions that indicated their ambitions to extend their influence beyond the purely spiritual.

Grace City Church, a large congregation in nearby Wenatchee, spearheaded the event under the auspices of Stronger Man Nation, a men’s ministry. Both were founded by Josh McPherson, a pastor who has been invited to pray for Trump in the White House and whose empire now includes a popular podcast and a new “anti-woke” college he envisions as a “Protestant West Point.”

Issues mentioned from the main stage included social-conservative mainstays like abortion and gender identity but also housing prices and construction costs, in a state where both significantly outpace the national average.

“Even young men like me, who want to be providers, who want to start a family, who want to say no to vice and live a righteous life, are crushed by the weight of tyranny,” David Prince, a student at Grace City’s new college, said from the stage Saturday during a presentation with other Generation Z men.

Another recurring theme was how important it was for conservative men to stay in blue states rather than decamping to friendlier jurisdictions like Texas.

“What a weekend like this represents is an infusion of hope into good men who have been sidelined, by virtue of feeling like this is a David versus Goliath here in Washington,” Russell Johnson, 40, the pastor of a growing network of churches in Washington, said in an interview. “If all the good guys leave, the state doesn’t get better; it gets worse.”

It was up to pastors like him to encourage them, he said. “What in the hell is the point of having influence if you don’t use it for stuff that matters?” [...]

“Everyone shows up to vote for president, but no one shows up to vote for dogcatcher,” said Kenny Blight, 38, who is part of Slaughter’s Promise Keepers group. “I want a biblical dogcatcher.”

Almost the only women on the grounds, other than venue employees (and one journalist), were hundreds of volunteers from Grace City Church who each paid $55 to be there. (General admission for men was $199.)

“God created men for a purpose; they’re providers and protectors,” said Marcy Lyon, 55, who was volunteering with her teenage daughter. “When they get together and bond, it helps them stand up.”

A small pergola on the top of the hill was set aside as a women-only listening area for volunteers. A whiteboard read in looping script, “Ladies — please be considerate and enjoy this space quietly. We want to minimize distractions so our men can listen.”

by Ruth Graham, Seattle Times/NY Times |  Read more:
Images: Grant Hindsley/The New York Times
[ed. Jesus Christ...]

Bitcoin Winter

Why bitcoin is trading at a 2-year low

Bitcoin is in the dumps.

The apex cryptocurrency is down more than 30% in 2026, slumping to its lowest level since 2024 this week to trade around $59,200. That marks about a 53% drop from the token's all-time high above $126,000 last October. Ethereum, the second-biggest crypto, is doing even worse, down 48% this year.

So, how did the Trump-era bullishness for crypto that took bitcoin to record highs give way to a brutal crypto winter that shows little sign of thawing?

Scanning around, there's little good news to be gleaned from the headlines. Interest from institutional and retail investors alike looks tapped out. That's evidenced by record outflows from bitcoin ETFs, which Deutsche Bank says have hit $6 billion in six weeks, the longest losing streak since the funds were launched in early 2024.

"This matters because ETF demand has become central to Bitcoin's price formation: the same vehicles that supported the 2024-25 rally now amplify the decline mechanically when flows reverse," the bank wrote this week.

And then there's Strategy. The business data firm founded by Michael Saylor, the "never sell" bitcoin evangelist, has sold some bitcoin.

"On 1 June, Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) disclosed it had sold 32 bitcoin, its first sale since December 2022. The amount was negligible (0.004% of holdings) and the immediate price reaction was modest (~3%), but the signal was not," Deutsche wrote.

In the days following the sale, bitcoin dropped nearly 20%.

Selling by Strategy—which is the largest corporate holder of bitcoin—has been a looming question mark all year as the token's price has slumped below the Strategy's average cost. The difference in the firm's net asset value of its bitcoin holdings versus its market cap has driven speculation that it could sell more tokens, an event that would weigh further on sentiment.

"Bitcoin currently trades below Strategy's average cost of $75,699, and the market has begun to price the possibility of forced selling by leveraged corporate holders. We expect this question to persist," Deutsche analyst said.

Capital is also flowing away from bitcoin and into another speculative area of the market: AI. Analysts attribute much of the waning enthusiasm for crypto among retail traders directly to their relentless appetite for artificial intelligence. The rapid outflows from bitcoin ETFs in the last month have been mirrored in blistering pace of investing in many of the top AI and chip ETFs.

A final wrinkle is the surprisingly hawkish new Fed boss, Kevin Warsh. The policy meeting this month officially dashed all hope of a rate cut, with Warsh's first meeting further boosting odds of a rate hike, a bearish development for risk assets like bitcoin.

by Max Adams, Business Insider |  Read more:
Image: Yahoo Finance; Jennifer Sor/BI

Leviathan Waking

[ed. I'd suggest reading this first: The Once And Future Fable #2.]

Imagine that there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but there remained a large pharmaceutical sector, similar in size and scope to the one the United States enjoys today. In this alternate world, imagine that drugs were not licensed or otherwise formally approved by regulators; there were even officials in the executive branch who boasted that the U.S., unlike other countries, would not get into the regulatory morass of licensing drugs.

One day, a pharmaceutical developer warns that they think they have made a drug that cures a major Cancer at one dosage but is lethal at a slightly higher dosage. The company says, for this reason, that they are going to restrict release only to pre-approved patients and monitor their usage of the drug carefully—a sharp break from prior industry practice but one that the company insists, controversially, is necessary. This particular company had been advocating for years for stricter drug regulation, much to the chagrin of the government.

This causes a stir, and the government, not quite knowing what to do, announces that it will give drug developers the helpful option to show their drugs’ safety profiles to government officials before they are released. They are adamant that this is a voluntary program. The pharmaceutical company, being hopelessly literal nerds, and if we are being honest, more than a little bit obstinate, decides to release their drug without going through the voluntary program. “We already paused general availability of the drug while we did our own safety study, so we don’t need the government’s testing, and besides it is voluntary, isn’t it?” the company seems to be saying.

But then a handful of patients get side effects severe enough to hospitalize them, but not severe enough to be lethal. The government gets understandably upset, particularly considering their lack of experience in regulating drugs. “You talked up your own safety practices so much, and now we have people in the hospital. You are telling us that you are comfortable releasing chemicals that can put people into the hospital?,” the government argues to the company.

The company’s literal and obstinate nerds say, “well, we’ve thought about drug safety regulation quite a bit, and given how common hospitalization of a small number of patients is with a new drug, compared to the lifesaving benefits of our drug for millions, yes, we think the benefits outweigh the risks in this case.” But trust has already broken down, and this abstract, technocratic defense falls on deaf ears. “People are being hospitalized,” the government says.

And so the government bans the drug, indefinitely. It is not clear what the government wants more: a remedy for this specific side effect, a solution to all side effects from drugs, or, really, an apology from the company, as well as the sensation of domination over these disobedient, obstinate, and literal nerds.

In a matter of weeks, in our alternative world, the United States went from a system that was implausibly laissez-faire for the level of risk involved in this industry, to a system that was, in the eyes of essentially all expert onlookers, incomprehensibly strict and risk averse.

Fable, Jailbreaks, and Export Controls: What Happened

This, of course, is my read of what happened in the Trump Administration’s latest dispute with the AI company Anthropic. For those not following the blow-by-blow, what happened, in a few sentences, is:
1. Anthropic released Fable, a commercial version of their very-powerful Mythos model with severe guardrails to prevent misuse.

2. People liked it, though broadly speaking thought the guardrails were far too strict.

3. A few days later, officials in the Trump Administration (it is not clear who) became aware of a jailbreak that got around some of Fable’s safeguards (it is not clear how severely), and demanded that Anthropic de-deploy the model (it is not clear with how much specificity the government expressed the concern).

4. Anthropic did not de-deploy the model (it is not clear why), so the government imposed worldwide export controls against all non-U.S. persons on Fable and Mythos.

5. Because Anthropic lacks the ability to validate U.S. personhood for end users, this meant they had to pull down the models globally, for everyone. In fact, by some accounts, Anthropic has had to suspend internal usage of their model because of the risk that their own non-U.S. person employees might use the model.
You’ll notice the clause “it is not clear” repeated frequently above. The sheer opacity of everything that is unfolding makes it hard to analyze. There is no text for me to draw on, and no actual policy to criticize. There is simply a game of he-said, she-said played between two actors whose animosity toward one another is only growing and who both, if we are honest, seem to be making things worse for themselves and for the whole industry. [ed. Iran, anybody?]

by Dean Ball, Hyperdimensional |  Read more:
Image: via
[ed. Why does this same chaos script keep repeating with everything this administration touches. Rhetorical question. See also: White House Will Ad Hoc Decide Who Can Individually Access GPT-5.6 (DWAtV).] 

[ed. Update: Sorry, this has nothing to do with AI frontier models, but everything to do with decision-making in this administration. Can't help but laugh (or cry)... Promises Made, Promises Kept (Defector):]
***
"If everyone in the United States weren't living downstream from its consequences, it would be a pretty good tragic flaw that Donald Trump wants more than anything to be seen as a brilliant man who has always been right about everything when he is transparently a butterfingered dunce whose professional expertise more or less begins and ends at making cutting remarks from a safe distance and directing other people to file nuisance lawsuits on his behalf. If assessed from a sufficient remove, the spread between the opening proposition—the man who knows more about every subject than any expert without even having to study or even pay attention to any of it, because he is just that much of a natural talent—and the relentlessly oafish output is a great bit, if admittedly also a bit one-note.

Lots of awful people are like this, and a great percentage of the degenerate gentry that is Trump's truest and most durable base is extremely like this: Dumb old bullies all grandiose and soft from golf and infidelity; illiterate real-estate types with detailed opinions on The Differences Between The Races; the luridly unemployable adult children of car-dealership guys; anhedonic beneficiaries of a good investment or two who have, through sheer restless indolence and various dull biases, backed into some truly berserk and totally bespoke authoritarian worldviews. Aging phone addicts who think the country "needs a pharaoh." Ruddy tax evaders who fear cities and are insecure about their boats. None of these people really do things especially well, and all of them are visibly getting worse, but they are all far enough from experiencing any kind of consequences that they can't really imagine failing at anything they try.

This mindset scales all the way up to some of the most powerful people in human history, but it is the same all the way down. It amounts to the belief that only these particular wimpy pink goofs, each one the protagonist of reality, can be entrusted to run things, and that any problem can be solved by telling some underling to handle it, and also to the idea that such an order becomes a glorious and vindicating solution immediately after it is issued. Nothing that follows will ever be their fault. Provided you do not care about or pay attention to the world, this worldview absolutely rocks."

Friday, June 26, 2026

What If It All Came Out?

The nightmare began with an annoyance as benign and commonplace as a housefly. “Hi there Matt,” the July 11, 2024, email read. “We received a message from you earlier today through our support page related to a changed password on your account … If you didn’t make a support request,” the sender asked politely, “please let us know.”

Matthew Van Andel, 44, who goes by the nickname Dutch, had never heard of “nullbulge.se,” the domain name that sent the message. It appeared to be a classic phishing attempt, a prompt to get him to reply to the email with personal information. So he marked it as spam, swatting it away with a near-automatic series of clicks. Van Andel worked in technology at Disney corporate in Burbank. He loved his job at “the Happiest Place on Earth”; over his seven years at the company, he and his wife, Nicole, had become Disney adults, taking advantage of discounted park tickets with their two kids. Their house in La Crescenta, where Van Andel was working remotely when he got the email, was filled with Mickey and Star Wars and Marvel memorabilia.

Fifteen minutes later, another message arrived from the same sender. This one took a different tack. “Hi Matt. We regret to inform you we have gained access to certain sensitive information related to your personal life.” Van Andel would have deleted this, too, but he had received exactly the same message on Discord, a platform he used to chat about gaming. And it contained specific information that only a few people could, or should, know. “We noticed you had a conversation with Aadya and Shawn about being at Granville for ‘$veg && $keto,’” it read. That was strange. Aadya and Shawn were Van Andel’s co-workers; “$veg && $keto” was a joke about lunch that Van Andel had made while chatting to them on Slack, the internal-messaging system Disney used, a few days earlier.

Seeing his own private words on the screen, Van Andel messaged Disney’s information-security department. The emails had been sent to his personal account, which he was reading on his personal gaming PC in his home office. Info-sec told him his Slack account and work laptop appeared to be operating normally. Still disturbed, Van Andel deleted the second email. Immediately a third arrived: “You think we didn’t see you mark our first test as spam? Then our actual attempt [at] contact went right in the trash.” Van Andel felt his stomach drop. Someone had live access to his account and was watching him use it.

As an engineer, Van Andel thought he had above-average personal op-sec. He ran anti-virus software on his computer. He used Proton Mail, which encrypts messages between users. He turned on multifactor authentication for serious stuff like iCloud. For the past decade, he depended on a password manager called 1Password, which generates random, long, and complex passwords; stores them; and automatically remembers them whenever a user needs to sign in. For Van Andel, 1Password even managed his multifactor-authentication codes. But his diligent, longtime use of his password manager turned out to be Van Andel’s vulnerability. Having all that information in one handy place meant that once someone else was inside, they had a master key to every aspect of his life: his iCloud, iMessage, emails, photos, PayPal, financial information, medical records, social media, his parents’ financials. Over 1,000 accounts. The only way someone could have gotten into his email was if they had cracked his 1Password; when Van Andel realized they must have access to everything, the room began to spin.

He had no idea why the hackers had targeted him or what their plan was, whether they would drain his family’s finances or stalk his home. Eventually, after running another anti-virus program, he found a piece of malware hidden in a plug-in he had downloaded from GitHub, the open-source coding site, one day in February when he was messing around with an AI image generator. He had checked the code himself, it had looked legitimate, and others had reviewed it positively. But it seems it contained a Trojan-horse virus that gave the hackers free rein of his PC. Once inside, they just had to wait for Van Andel to log in to 1Password. From there, they were able to steal all his credentials, plus many of his multifactor-authentication codes, so every time Van Andel logged in to an app, a website, or an account, they could follow behind him. They’d had access for months.

By morning, Van Andel had received a call from Disney info-sec: The intruders had revealed themselves on a blog post celebrating the hack as NullBulge, an activist collective “protecting artists’ rights and ensuring fair compensation for their work,” according to their website. It was later reported that they were Russian furries. They had dumped the contents of Van Andel’s 1Password onto BitTorrent along with his full name — every personal log-in credential, his messages, his bank information, his medical diagnoses, his Amazon account. They’d also managed to access more of Disney’s data than just Van Andel’s Slack messages and published that too: employee Social Security numbers and Slack messages, budget spreadsheets and passport information for the company’s cruise-line workers. It was a massive breach. As people around the world tried to use the information NullBulge had posted, Van Andel’s iPhone began pinging every few seconds with attempts to get into his accounts. Someone logged in to his children’s Roblox profiles and began defacing them with Nazi screeds. Unknown callers left voice-mails. “Dude, your life is over, haha,” one said. “Just leave the country; that’s my advice. Good luck, have fun, and I hope your type 2 diabetes doesn’t get the best of you.” Van Andel raced around the house unplugging Ring cameras and Amazon Echos. Discovering every new potential violation was like learning he was bleeding from a limb he didn’t remember he had. Viscerally, painfully, he could feel the overwhelming breadth and permanence of everything he had ever recorded online, ephemeral and vital and intimate and stupid. Somehow it was only the first wave of exposure he would endure.

by Bridget Read, Intelligencer |  Read more:
Image: Tracy Ma
[ed. Privacy is dead. Edward Snowden is still exiled in Russia.]

Cyn Barrera

What It Means to Be a Democratic Socialist

“To me, what socialism means is to guarantee a basic level of dignity. It’s asserting the value of saying that the America we want and the America that we are proud of is one in which all children can access a dignified education. It’s one in which no person is too poor to have the medicines they need to live.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Vogue, 2018
Democratic socialists’ decisive congressional victories on Tuesday night in New York’s primary elections solidified the far-left movement as an ascendant power center in blue states.

Now, as the progressive coalition prepares to expand its footprint in Washington, many Americans are turning their attention to the movement for the first time — and wondering, perhaps, what it actually stands for.

The definition often depends on whom you talk to. But the movement’s standard-bearers are united by their belief that direct government action — not the free market — is a better tool to solve problems for everyday Americans, such as the rising cost of health care and housing.

“Economic stress is something I lived with as a kid, and I feel it in my guts,” Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont and an architect of the movement’s modern resurgence, said in an interview with The New York Times. “That’s what makes me a democratic socialist.”

In the United States, democratic socialists’ policies tend to support working within the capitalist system rather than abolishing it outright. Critics typically decry the likely high costs to taxpayers of some of these policies.

Ashik Siddique, a co-chairman of the organization, said the group surpassed 100,000 members earlier this year. About 1,000 more joined after the sweep of victories in New York on Tuesday night, he said.

Here is a closer look at the pillars of democratic socialism.

End Military Aid to Israel

The defining feature of primary races in New York on Tuesday was a litmus test on American support for Israel. Democratic socialists won that ideological battle handily, since staunch opposition to continued military aid is a key part of their campaigns.

The Democratic Socialists of America, a political organization in which members pay dues and are organized around a wide-reaching policy platform, says it “stands for the full freedoms and self determination of the Palestinian people, including the end of Israel’s colonization and occupation of all Arab lands, equality, and the right of all refugees to return to their homes and properties.”

Mr. Sanders said every time he has talked about Gaza at rallies across the country, he has received a standing ovation.

Expand the Social Safety Net

Democratic socialists want the government to lower the cost of living for Americans. Under their platform, child care, pre-K and public higher education amount to a collective good and should be completely free and funded by the government. They also support universal rent control, and want every worker to receive paid family leave.

In New York City, it was the political machine of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, that helped carry three progressive House candidates to victory on Tuesday.

Mr. Mamdani plans to open a free preschool center on the Upper East Side. Although directed at working families, the move has ignited a fierce debate over whether a city facing a major budget deficit should use taxpayer money to fund a free service in affluent neighborhoods.

Guarantee Free Health Care

The D.S.A. wants to create a single, government-run national program providing essential health care for everyone.

Right now, individuals and employers pay insurance premiums. People pay cash co-payments for drugs. And state governments pay a share of Medicaid costs. The system is expensive, but it allows individuals some choice in their care.
In a democratic socialist system, like one long trumpeted by Mr. Sanders, nearly all of that would be replaced by federal spending.

Many democratic socialists want to see private insurance entirely eliminated. Others are open to giving people the option to keep their private insurance plans.

Tax the Rich

There is no consensus about how much such a system would cost the federal government, nor exactly how it would be funded.

Proponents of democratic socialism say that higher income taxes on wealthy Americans and decreases in military spending would cover the costs.

by Emily Davies, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: Graham Dickie for The New York Times
[ed. An over-simplified and somewhat dismissive description of DSA policies, but at least this political philosophy is finally getting some attention. See also: ‘American Democratic Socialism’ Has a Proud, Diverse, and Inspiring History; and, The Left is Rising (Currrent Affairs); and Why the DSA and socialists are on the rise now in US cities (Vox); also Wikipedia's definition: Democratic Socialism.]
***
I'm going to hold off on any 'irrational exuberance' for now, but if there's one slogan I'd suggest any DSA campaign use, it's: "You own government. Make it work for you." That, after all, is basically the central theme of democratic socialism. DS isn't some monolithic political philosophy, with entrenched political policies. It's not Russia or China. It's an adaptable model, flexible enough to respond to shifting problems and priorities within the dicates of the US Constitution. It doesn't seek to wipe out corporations or any other businesses large or small, but it does want to make sure that there's a level playing field for everyone so that opportunity exists on all levels. The economic benefits produced from this capitalist system not only flow to shareholders, but also back into government programs and public improvements that everybody can benefit from and enjoy (like infrastructure). The worst thing (which opponents always glom onto) would be to focus too much on cultural issues or granular details (eg. appropriate levels of policing and incarceration; gender issues, etc.) and letting the big picture get lost in the weeds. Let those things play out in courts, not political platforms. It's time for change. New generations are crying out for it, and one benefit of the Trump years is that there's now a new understanding of what's possible in terms of shifting boundaries (and what tactics can be used). We need a new direction and DSA is the best option I've seen.]

[ed. Update: Again, establishment Democrats continue to shoot themselves in the foot, and provide more ammunition to Republicans by allowing themselves to be defined by what they're afraid of rather than what they stand for... See: Centrist Democrats Rebuke Party’s Left Wing: ‘We Are Capitalist, Not Socialist’(NYT):]
***
“The bottom line is that you have to give the D.S.A. and you have to give MAGA credit, because they’re organized,” Mr. Suozzi said, referring to the Democratic Socialists of America, the country’s largest socialist organization. “And the people that don’t agree with their philosophies wring their hands at cocktail parties, but they’re not organized. So we have to get organized.” [ed. 'Cocktail party' democrats, a winning message.]

Mr. Suozzi said democratic socialists were tapping into “real economic anxiety” and were “right in their diagnosis of the problem.” But he argued that Democrats should pursue policies grounded not in socialism but in a pro-union form of capitalism. [ed. with unions looking soon to be roadkill on the way to AI.]

A spokeswoman for Mr. Mamdani, Dora Pekec, pushed back on the letter, saying in a statement that the “only thing extreme is defending a status quo where working families can’t afford to live.”

And a representative for the Democratic Socialists of America, Priscilla Yeverino, said in a statement that the group was gaining popularity because it was pursuing policies that Americans support, and that “Red Scare tactics are no longer working.”

“Ending wars, passing Medicare for All, forgiving student loan debt, abolishing ICE and taxing the rich — those are all popular policies” said the statement. [...]

Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, said the outcomes in New York were “dangerous” for Democrats nationally.

“What we’ve seen Republicans do very successfully before is weaponize the craziest ideas of the activist left,” he said. “And now the ammunition they’ve got is much, much more powerful.”
***
[ed. Update 2: Fortunately, Republicans are even more disorganized and demoralized than democrats, and their "ammunition" mostly blanks. See: Behind the Curtain: The cost of blind loyalty (Axios).]

Thursday, June 25, 2026

Reflecting Pool Fiasco: 'Crazy Pro-Algae Protestors' Arrested


Most people don’t seem to be buying Trump’s excuses about the Reflecting Pool... Social media is flooded with jokes about “Sealant Team 6” and images of the reflecting pool as the Dead Marshes from the Lord of the Rings films or with the Creature from the Black Lagoon emerging from it. Upon hearing of the arrest of former Olympian David Hearn for destruction of government property after he touched the detached liner of the pool “but didn’t destroy or break or peel anything,” conservative commentator David Frum wrote: “If destruction of government property is a crime, I wonder what they’ll do to the man who tore down the East Wing without a permit.” [...]

Tonight Trump posted a picture of a person dressed in a pink inflatable frog costume with the word “AMPHIFA” written across the belly, carrying a sign that reads: “FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE ALGAE.” Trump called the activist “a crazy pro-algae (likely paid) protestor.”

“Who’s paying team algae?” social media poster The Volatile Mermaid retorted. “George Sporos?” [...]

Illustrating the degree to which Trump’s botched renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has come to represent his botched war on Iran, as well as the degree to which Americans have turned against both, social media users have taken to calling the algae-choked reflecting pool the “Strait of Warm Ooze.” (The strait the Iranians have taken control of is called the Strait of Hormuz.) Yesterday the administration put fencing up around it to keep people away. [...]

Trump continues frantically to insist that the problems with the Reflecting Pool are the acts of vandals. As Rachel Kahn of The New Republic reported, Trump insisted on Saturday that the pool had “worked perfectly” before vandals attacked, putting “a 250 foot long gash into the beautiful facade of what took so much work.” By Monday, the “gash” was 300 feet. By Tuesday it was 350 feet, according to Trump. There is, of course, no evidence of any such sabotage, and there are cameras on the Reflecting Pool.

Trump’s stories have gotten more and more elaborate, about how vandals used “a very sharp knife or razors,” “probably in the dark of night,” then added “chemicals.” He warned there could be a “10-year prison sentence for the destruction, or even the attempted destruction, of such things.” Asked for evidence, he claimed “we have pictures.” He told reporter Ed O’Keefe of CBS News: “[A]t the right time you’ll see it. You’ll see it in court. You’ll see it in court, but all you have to do is call the Parks Department, call the Department of Interior.” Tonight the Interior Department began to place fencing around the Reflecting Pool. [...]

Meanwhile, Trump has doubled down on the idea that the problems with the Reflecting Pool are the product of vandalism by “SICK, DERANGED PEOPLE,” and administration officials have stationed National Guard personnel around the Reflecting Pool. They appear to be handing out citations to individuals who touch the water.

A friendly media figure at the White House today noted that in April Trump said he was going to fix the Reflecting Pool “in a week for about a million dollars,” and wanted to know what was going on two months and sixteen and a half million dollars later. Trump answered: “Ok, ready? Barack Hussein Obama, have you ever heard of him?” Trump went on to lambaste what he said were Obama’s botched repairs to the pool.

by Heather Cox Richardson, Letters From an Amerian | Read more: here, here and here
Image: Reuters/Reflecting pool May 2 and June 18
[ed. The jokes almost write themselves... ; ) See also: President Narcissus and the Fetid Reflecting Pool (NYT):]
***
Bungling the $14 million-plus redo of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, concocting batty stories about what really happened — Knife-wielding vandals? Corrosive chemicals “illegally” dumped in the water? — and harassing innocent bystanders to distract from his own incompetence: These are not the most outrageous things the president has done since his return to office. But that is part of what makes this saga so irresistible and resonant. It is Trumpism made laughable — farce rather than horror or tragedy. [...]

Trumpian moves such as going to war with Iran and slashing Medicaid upend more lives, but those policy failures take a lot of intellectual and emotional bandwidth to process. And learning about the American military accidentally bombing an elementary school in southern Iran will make plenty of people want to turn away.

Some guy wasting a pile of money on a shoddy remodel? Everyone gets how pathetic and hilarious that is. [...]

With any screw-up, Mr. Trump ducks accountability by blaming nefarious enemies plotting against him. Only people mainlining the MAGA Kool-Aid will buy the idea that terrorist-vandals wielding magic blades (because please recall that Mr. Trump assured us last month that the pool’s fancy new coating was impervious to knives) sneaked past the surveillance cameras and security patrols around the National Mall to carve a 250-foot — Oops, make that 300-foot! No, better still, 350-foot! — gash in said coating. “WOW, who would do such a thing?” he raved in a Sunday social media post. “SICK, DERANGED PEOPLE.” [...]

Finally — and I cannot stress this element enough — this whole sorry episode is blessedly clownish. I don’t mean clownish like that bloody spectacle of a cage match birthday party Mr. Trump threw himself on the White House lawn this month. I count that among the legion of things this president celebrates that appall his critics but appeal to key chunks of his base.

Mr. Trump’s reflecting pool face plant, by contrast, is more Three-Stooges-meet-Bozo-the-Clown-ish. Getting bested by an algae bloom then throwing a finger-pointing tantrum about it doesn’t make Mr. Trump seem scary or threatening so much as petulant and inept. People are laughing at him, and that laughter undermines his image as a take-charge master of the universe.

This is the true gift of the reflecting pool meltdown. Mr. Trump looks foolish, with relatively minimal damage done to the nation. The economy will not crater. The global order will not be upended. No one will be deported to a foreign gulag. No one is likely to die. Aside from, perhaps, some poor little ducklings.