via:
Monday, July 20, 2026
The ACA Death Spiral Is No Longer Just a Theory
Insurers are now quantifying what experts long warned would happen: healthier consumers are leaving the marketplace, premiums are rising, and affordability is deteriorating.
I’ve long warned that letting the enhanced ACA subsidies expire could set off a classic insurance death spiral: healthier people priced out first, a sicker risk pool left behind, higher premiums as a result, more healthy people priced out — rinse and repeat. Reports this week from KFF News and other media outlets about 2027 rate filings is the first time I’ve seen that mechanism actually measured rather than predicted.
Insurers filing preliminary 2027 rates in 16 states and D.C. are asking for a median 14% increase, according to a Peterson-KFF analysis. If the rates are approved by state regulators, that would be the second-highest jump since 2018. What makes this year’s filings different from a routine “medical costs went up” story is that insurers are saying that about four percentage points of that increase is the direct result of the enhanced subsidies expiring because of Congressional inaction – and healthier people leaving the pool as a consequence. Another chunk — UnitedHealthcare put it at 12.7% in its New York filing — is attributed to new Trump administration enrollment rules that make it harder to sign up and stay signed up.
In other words, what we’re now seeing is insurance companies telling regulators that the failure of Congress to extend the subsidies, along with the Trump administration’s new enrollment rules — not just rising medical costs — are a measurable share of what ACA marketplace premiums will be next year.
I want to be careful here because its too early to suggest that a death spiral is definitely underway. A full death spiral means an insurance market becomes non-viable — premiums rise, enrollment collapses, insurers exit the market, and coverage disappears entirely for a region or population. That is not what’s happening in the ACA marketplace right now. Enrollment is down about 3 million from last year, which is not a collapse. Federal risk-adjustment programs are still functioning. Most subsidized, low-income enrollees — the bulk of the marketplace — are still price-protected because their subsidies rise automatically as premiums rise. Some insurers are leaving this market – including big ones like Aetna and Cigna, where I used to work – but most insurers are still filing to participate in 2027 in most states, not fleeing the market (not yet, anyway).
What we’re seeing so far seems to be a self-reinforcing cost spiral concentrated among the roughly 5% of enrollees earning above 400% of the federal poverty line who lost all subsidy protection when the enhanced tax credits expired at the end of 2025. For them, the mechanism KFF describes is real and is compounding. And this is the second consecutive year of double-digit marketplace rate increases, on top of last year’s subsidy cliff. While that’’s a genuine affordability crisis for a specific population, it’s not evidence the whole system is on the verge of collapse. But, going forward, as more people continue to drop coverage because of premium increases, the affordability crisis will encompass more enrollees, and more of them will join the ranks of the uninsured.
I’ve long warned that letting the enhanced ACA subsidies expire could set off a classic insurance death spiral: healthier people priced out first, a sicker risk pool left behind, higher premiums as a result, more healthy people priced out — rinse and repeat. Reports this week from KFF News and other media outlets about 2027 rate filings is the first time I’ve seen that mechanism actually measured rather than predicted.
In other words, what we’re now seeing is insurance companies telling regulators that the failure of Congress to extend the subsidies, along with the Trump administration’s new enrollment rules — not just rising medical costs — are a measurable share of what ACA marketplace premiums will be next year.
I want to be careful here because its too early to suggest that a death spiral is definitely underway. A full death spiral means an insurance market becomes non-viable — premiums rise, enrollment collapses, insurers exit the market, and coverage disappears entirely for a region or population. That is not what’s happening in the ACA marketplace right now. Enrollment is down about 3 million from last year, which is not a collapse. Federal risk-adjustment programs are still functioning. Most subsidized, low-income enrollees — the bulk of the marketplace — are still price-protected because their subsidies rise automatically as premiums rise. Some insurers are leaving this market – including big ones like Aetna and Cigna, where I used to work – but most insurers are still filing to participate in 2027 in most states, not fleeing the market (not yet, anyway).
What we’re seeing so far seems to be a self-reinforcing cost spiral concentrated among the roughly 5% of enrollees earning above 400% of the federal poverty line who lost all subsidy protection when the enhanced tax credits expired at the end of 2025. For them, the mechanism KFF describes is real and is compounding. And this is the second consecutive year of double-digit marketplace rate increases, on top of last year’s subsidy cliff. While that’’s a genuine affordability crisis for a specific population, it’s not evidence the whole system is on the verge of collapse. But, going forward, as more people continue to drop coverage because of premium increases, the affordability crisis will encompass more enrollees, and more of them will join the ranks of the uninsured.
by Wendell Potter, Healthcare Un-Covered | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Thanks to the Big, Beautiful, Backstab Bill passed by Republicans, which means more emergency room visits by uninsured people, passed along to the rest of us as higher insurance premiums (and exacerbated by cuts to Medicaid). Also, more people will be pushed into bankruptcy. See also: The Other Health Care Cliff Americans Are About to Fall Off (high deductibles); and, In Preliminary Rate Filings, ACA Marketplace Insurers Largely Propose Double-Digit Premium Increase For 2027, Following a Steep Climb This Year (KFF); and, despite all this, Republican voters continue to internalize waste, fraud and abuse messaging as being the most important issue (KFF).]
We're Headed for a Depression Worse Than 2008; and Military Spending Isn't Helping
[ed. Which sounds like the good news if AI doesn't kill us all first.]
Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai examine the gap between Trump's promised economic boom and the reality of an economy sustained by asset bubbles rather than production. They show that the stock market's rise reflects cheap credit, buybacks, and speculation rather than profit, a Ponzi-scheme dynamic that cannot survive the oil shock triggered by Trump's war on Iran. His tariffs have not reversed deindustrialization, and his refusal to end that war guarantees the inflation he promised to kill. The result is a starkly K-shaped economy, in which the wealthiest 1% have seen their assets grow from $10 trillion to over $50 trillion in twenty-five years while the bottom half of Americans have gone from nothing to nothing, pushing the US toward a depression as serious as the 1930s and eroding even his own base's faith in him.
00:00 – Highlights
01:12 – Channel introduction
02:02 – Iran war escalation and the coming global oil/energy shock
06:56 – The dollar's shift from treasury-based to stock market speculation (Ponzi bubble) 13:56 – China's stabilizing role vs. the Fed's inflation-vs-interest-rate gap
25:06 – Inflation, GDP growth, and why "growth" numbers are largely fake (rents, fees) 34:00 – De-industrialization, manufacturing job losses, and shrinking labor force participation
42:06 – The K-shaped economy: stock market boom vs. wealth inequality, and Trump's collapsing approval ratings [...]
Radhika Desai:
Today we have decided to talk about the US economy under Trump. Now, of course, Trump is doing everything in his power to suck the oxygen out of the story about the economy. That includes continuing to escalate wars and all sorts of diplomatic and other shenanigans that he is constantly involved in, berating leaders of other countries and generally trying to make a big spectacle of himself... Anyway, all of these shenanigans are designed to distract attention from the biggest story, the condition of the US economy. Notwithstanding his unhinged and genocidal antics, the topic of the US economy simply will not go away. The world is settling down to summer before the midterm elections, and assessments of the US economy are proliferating. That is what we are going to talk about today, because the US voter votes on her economic condition, and her economic condition is not looking good at all. Michael, what are the headlines from your point of view?
Michael Hudson:
Well, the headline is really that the US economy is all about Donald Trump right now. The main thing, as you have just pointed out, is the war with Iran that he is escalating. Instead of rolling things back, he is bombing Iran. Iran has taken a response that is irreversible. It has closed down trade not only in the Strait of Hormuz but also in the Red Sea, with the Yemenis’ support, and it is bombing Bahrain’s port. It is absolutely certain that there is going to be a shutdown in the oil trade, and that is going to affect the entire world economy and push it into what I think is going to be as serious a depression as the 1930s. That is the US economy... It has been a huge expansion of financial wealth without any real expansion in living standards, real wages, or prosperity for most of the population. All of this financial wealth has been based on credit. Companies are not making more profits. The whole leadership of the stock market has been the seven AI companies linked to computers. AI is not making a profit; it is all speculation that we are going to expand and that there is going to be a huge market because everybody is going to use AI. But all of this market is dependent on computer chips that run on energy. We are going to see energy prices go way up, and that means electricity prices are going to go up. I want to briefly explain why the oil war is so important when we talk about the economy. [...]
Michael Hudson:
I want to explain just how that works. My whole premise in Super Imperialism is that after the United States went off the gold standard in 1971, all of this military spending, which is the major cause of the balance of payments deficit, ended up in foreign countries. The recipients took the dollars, turned them over to the central banks, and the central banks bought Treasury bonds and Treasury securities. What has happened in the last few years is that banks have stopped buying Treasury securities. The growth in international reserves has taken the form primarily of buying gold, not Treasury securities, and yet the US dollar remains strong. What has happened is that the private sector that has been receiving these dollars has not been turning them over to the government to recycle to the US as Treasuries, as you and I have been talking about. They have spent them into the US stock market. What has that done? It has inflated prices and ridden on the wave of the Federal Reserve supporting the banking system and creating huge asset price inflation, starting with the zero-interest-rate policy that Obama began. What has been creating all this financial wealth, making trillions of dollars for financial investors, has not been profits. It has been the ability to borrow at a low interest rate, including low interest rates in Japan, to buy US securities, bid up the prices of stocks, and create a huge credit overhead. So it is not a profit bubble; it is a Ponzi-scheme capital-gains bubble. It is a credit-creation bubble.
The problem is what happens when there aren’t the profits to support the stock buyback programs and the dividend payouts that have enabled borrowers to carry the debts they have taken on to bid up the stocks. If the credit begins to be rolled back here, and two weeks ago we talked about how Warsh and Bessent want to roll back the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, they want to begin selling the Federal Reserve bonds that they have been buying in recent years to help liquefy the economy. The economy is going to be made much less liquid, and all of a sudden it is like a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme requires more and more people buying into it to provide the revenue to pay off investors. If interest rates go up, there is no more recycling of all this money into the stock market to help support things, and there is going to be a huge write-down. When that happens, stocks begin to fall. With higher energy prices, higher food prices, and higher costs of doing business, companies will go out of business. The Financial Times and main business sites have been saying the real problem is private equity. They have borrowed money from the banking system to buy companies, and now some of these companies are going to be running losses and closing down operations because it is not profitable to operate with high oil prices, high energy prices, and high electricity prices. Once they close down operations, they will not be able to pay the debts they have taken on, creating the same snowball effect that people expected in 2008–2009, when Obama decided on a bailout of the banks and decades of asset-price inflation to keep the bubble going and save the banking system. We are talking about the dynamics set in motion by the oil war, the rise in energy prices, and the AI demands for electricity that cannot be met because there is no electricity supply. All of this hopium has evaporated, and the result is going to be the serious depression we have been talking about all along. Yet the stock market idles along as if everything is all right. Our point is that these changes are irreversible. You cannot reverse a debt-inflated economy without wiping out the debts. How does that happen? Companies go bankrupt. There is not going to be a Brady Plan for the American economy. It is going to be companies going broke, and there will be a capital flight out of the dollar, not into the dollar. The whole world balance is being thrown out of kilter in a way that, unlike 2009, there is no monetary solution to a problem of actual physical supply of energy, electricity, oil, and chemicals not being available. This is the grand interruption that we are going to be talking about.
Michael Hudson:
Well, the headline is really that the US economy is all about Donald Trump right now. The main thing, as you have just pointed out, is the war with Iran that he is escalating. Instead of rolling things back, he is bombing Iran. Iran has taken a response that is irreversible. It has closed down trade not only in the Strait of Hormuz but also in the Red Sea, with the Yemenis’ support, and it is bombing Bahrain’s port. It is absolutely certain that there is going to be a shutdown in the oil trade, and that is going to affect the entire world economy and push it into what I think is going to be as serious a depression as the 1930s. That is the US economy... It has been a huge expansion of financial wealth without any real expansion in living standards, real wages, or prosperity for most of the population. All of this financial wealth has been based on credit. Companies are not making more profits. The whole leadership of the stock market has been the seven AI companies linked to computers. AI is not making a profit; it is all speculation that we are going to expand and that there is going to be a huge market because everybody is going to use AI. But all of this market is dependent on computer chips that run on energy. We are going to see energy prices go way up, and that means electricity prices are going to go up. I want to briefly explain why the oil war is so important when we talk about the economy. [...]
Michael Hudson:
I want to explain just how that works. My whole premise in Super Imperialism is that after the United States went off the gold standard in 1971, all of this military spending, which is the major cause of the balance of payments deficit, ended up in foreign countries. The recipients took the dollars, turned them over to the central banks, and the central banks bought Treasury bonds and Treasury securities. What has happened in the last few years is that banks have stopped buying Treasury securities. The growth in international reserves has taken the form primarily of buying gold, not Treasury securities, and yet the US dollar remains strong. What has happened is that the private sector that has been receiving these dollars has not been turning them over to the government to recycle to the US as Treasuries, as you and I have been talking about. They have spent them into the US stock market. What has that done? It has inflated prices and ridden on the wave of the Federal Reserve supporting the banking system and creating huge asset price inflation, starting with the zero-interest-rate policy that Obama began. What has been creating all this financial wealth, making trillions of dollars for financial investors, has not been profits. It has been the ability to borrow at a low interest rate, including low interest rates in Japan, to buy US securities, bid up the prices of stocks, and create a huge credit overhead. So it is not a profit bubble; it is a Ponzi-scheme capital-gains bubble. It is a credit-creation bubble.
The problem is what happens when there aren’t the profits to support the stock buyback programs and the dividend payouts that have enabled borrowers to carry the debts they have taken on to bid up the stocks. If the credit begins to be rolled back here, and two weeks ago we talked about how Warsh and Bessent want to roll back the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, they want to begin selling the Federal Reserve bonds that they have been buying in recent years to help liquefy the economy. The economy is going to be made much less liquid, and all of a sudden it is like a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme requires more and more people buying into it to provide the revenue to pay off investors. If interest rates go up, there is no more recycling of all this money into the stock market to help support things, and there is going to be a huge write-down. When that happens, stocks begin to fall. With higher energy prices, higher food prices, and higher costs of doing business, companies will go out of business. The Financial Times and main business sites have been saying the real problem is private equity. They have borrowed money from the banking system to buy companies, and now some of these companies are going to be running losses and closing down operations because it is not profitable to operate with high oil prices, high energy prices, and high electricity prices. Once they close down operations, they will not be able to pay the debts they have taken on, creating the same snowball effect that people expected in 2008–2009, when Obama decided on a bailout of the banks and decades of asset-price inflation to keep the bubble going and save the banking system. We are talking about the dynamics set in motion by the oil war, the rise in energy prices, and the AI demands for electricity that cannot be met because there is no electricity supply. All of this hopium has evaporated, and the result is going to be the serious depression we have been talking about all along. Yet the stock market idles along as if everything is all right. Our point is that these changes are irreversible. You cannot reverse a debt-inflated economy without wiping out the debts. How does that happen? Companies go bankrupt. There is not going to be a Brady Plan for the American economy. It is going to be companies going broke, and there will be a capital flight out of the dollar, not into the dollar. The whole world balance is being thrown out of kilter in a way that, unlike 2009, there is no monetary solution to a problem of actual physical supply of energy, electricity, oil, and chemicals not being available. This is the grand interruption that we are going to be talking about.
by Radhika Desai with Michael Hudson, Naked Capitalism | Read more:
Image: YouTube
***
From Larry Johnson in The US Faces a Strategic Crisis with Iran…The Rapid Depletion of US Battlefield Missiles: [...]
These are not just the numbers currently in the hands of US CENTCOM (i.e., the US military command in charge of the war against Iran), these are the total numbers available to all of the US military commands. If these missiles are allocated evenly to the other two critical commands — i.e., EUCOM (European Command) and PACOM (Pacific Command) — then you begin to understand the gravity of this deficit.
Let’s take the case of the Tomahawk missile. Let’s assume there are 3,000 left (I believe that is a generous over estimate) and the remaining number are divided evenly among CENTCOM, EUCOM and PACOM… That means each command gets 1,000. Does anyone want to argue that in the event of a hot war with Russia or China that EUCOM and PACOM respectively would be able to sustain combat operations for more than four weeks? Hell, CENTCOM fired 850 of them during the first four weeks of EPIC FURY.
Here’s another major problem: All eight missile systems rely on rare earth elements — there are no exceptions among modern US precision-guided weapons. The dependence is nearly universal because rare earth permanent magnets are irreplaceable for the high-performance actuators, guidance motors, and seeker gimbals that make these weapons accurate. And who controls the supply chain of these rare earth minerals? China!…
The supply chain isn’t just about mining — it’s about processing, separation, and magnet manufacturing, which China controls:
Mining: China ~60% of global rare earth oxide production
Refining/Separation: China ~91%
Sintered NdFeB Magnet Manufacturing: China **~94%**
Refining/Separation: China ~91%
Sintered NdFeB Magnet Manufacturing: China **~94%**
11,700 Free Photos from John Margolies’ Archive of Americana Architecture: Download, Use & Re-Mix
Your children may not be able to visit an orange juice stand shaped like an orange or the Leaning Tower of Pizza, but thanks to the Library of Congress, these locales can be pitstops on any virtual family vacation you might undertake.
In July 2017, the library selected the John Margolies Roadside America Photograph Archive as its “free to use and reuse” collection. So linger as long as you’d like and do with these 11,700+ images as you will–make postcards, t‑shirts, souvenir placemats.
Whatever you decide to do with them, the archive’s homepage has tips for how to best search the 11,710 color slides contained therein. Library staffers have supplemented Margolies’ notes on each image with subject and geographical headings.
Begin your journey through the Library of Congress’ John Margolies Roadside America Photograph Archive here.
by Ayun Halliday, Open Culture | Read more:
Images: John Margolies/Library of Congress
Regrets, Maybe a Few
How Biden Enabled Israel’s Aggression Toward Gaza—and Iran (New Yorker)
Image: Saher Algohrra/NYT/Redux
[ed. Another blame shifting mea culpa, usually issued after some self-inflicted disaster that everyone warned against and finally can't be denied - "Who could have known?" and "If only we knew then what we know now". Etc. etc. Iraq, Iran, Climate Change, DOGE, Trump...]
The New Coming Age
Google CEO Demis Hassabis offered us a first rate second rate essay, A Framework for Frontier AI and the Dawning of a New Age. I’ll go over that essay and various responses to it in Part 1.
Part 2 of this post then covers Alex Turner’s resignation, and his story about how he tried and failed to prevent Google from signing up to allow the Department of War to use its models for essentially whatever the government wants, including autonomous weapons.
Demis Hassabis sold DeepMind to Google on condition that something like this would not happen. Yet here it is, happening. A cautionary tale. [...]
His ask is a Frontier AI Standards Body within the US Government, similar to FINRA, that would govern ‘frontier labs,’ defined as any company that produces a frontier model based on various technical benchmarks. Evaluations would be updated regularly, and vulnerabilities would be addressed, both before and after release.
He is excellent about stating that this is big, really big, no bigger than that, it be big.
There is definitely a ‘don’t say the thing’ aspect of this, where he won’t name what the downside risks actually are. When Demis says ‘experts disagree’ he is rather avoidant about the way in which they disagree here.
The Proposal
“Z is is all a big plot to control ze workers, no?” a French reporter said.
At that point, though, I was still learning to see Google through Google’s eyes. I learned to deflect these kinds of questions and pitied the askers, a little bit, for their cynicism.
Part 2 of this post then covers Alex Turner’s resignation, and his story about how he tried and failed to prevent Google from signing up to allow the Department of War to use its models for essentially whatever the government wants, including autonomous weapons.
Demis Hassabis sold DeepMind to Google on condition that something like this would not happen. Yet here it is, happening. A cautionary tale. [...]
***
The Core Statement and RequestHe saying we are standing in the foothills of the singularity.
He is excellent about stating that this is big, really big, no bigger than that, it be big.
Demis Hassabis: I’ve spent my whole life working on AGI because I’ve always had a deep conviction that, if built and deployed responsibly, it would prove to be one of the most beneficial and transformative technologies ever invented. AGI cannot be compared to standard technological breakthroughs, not even ones as consequential as the internet or mobile - it is much more akin to the discovery of electricity or fire. If you stop to think about it, we’ve essentially found a way to make sand think. It’s miraculous.Things Left Unsaid
The magnitude of this technology’s impact will be unprecedented, perhaps 10x of the Industrial Revolution at 10x the speed. It will help us solve some of the biggest problems society faces from accelerating drug discovery to developing new clean energy sources to creating novel advanced materials. We could even reach a point where resources are no longer the limiting factor for human progress, leading to an amazing new era of abundance.
There is definitely a ‘don’t say the thing’ aspect of this, where he won’t name what the downside risks actually are. When Demis says ‘experts disagree’ he is rather avoidant about the way in which they disagree here.
Nate Soares (MIRI): I’m glad Demis acknowledges that this is a “pivotal moment in human history” during an “extremely intense” race. I’m disappointed that his proposed solution is a “standards body” to evaluate whether models are dangerous, with no plan for what to do once they are.Clearly this is strategic, but if you don’t already know, or are looking to not realize, it is very easy to come away thinking that Demis does mean the effect on jobs, even though when he says ‘safely’ he very much does not (primarily) mean that.
I’m glad he acknowledges that “experts disagree.” I’m annoyed that he glosses past how the disagreement is about whether there’s a ~5% or ≥50% chance of total catastrophe. We’ve gotta do better.
Aaron Scher: Glad to see AI CEOs speaking publicly about their views on AGI. I think Demis is wrong about his policy prescription: it’s far too little too late. When he says the experts disagree, he means that some think 5% this tech kills literally everybody, some at 40%, some at 90%.
The Proposal
Demis Hassabis: … On the horizon, we will need robust safeguards to maintain control of increasingly agentic, recursively self-improving systems - and tackle unknown issues that will only become clearer over time.He makes clear part of this is about giving us options, including for a slowdown.
… I’ve always believed in the power of human ingenuity and creativity to solve any problem. I’m confident that mitigating the technical risks related to AI is a challenge we can collectively address, but only if we give ourselves the time and space to get this next crucial step right. Currently, as a field and as a wider society, we aren’t doing that.
The strength of this approach is it would be technically focused, while at the same time supporting innovation and incentivising responsible behaviour. It is designed to keep up with the field’s acceleration and adapt to the biggest risks as they are identified, and could be ratcheted up if the seriousness of the situation demands, including coordinating a slowdown in development among the Frontier Labs if deemed necessary.Demis keeps it short, not offering many details. To the extent that he has laid out a proposal, it seems to be a good one. It is definitely an improvement on the margin.
Jack Clark (Anthropic): At this point, everyone at the frontier of AI agrees that third-parties should test out AI systems and use these to develop standards to feed into policy - excellent to see @demishassabis laying out a framework to do this!Thus I file this post and its ask, as high praise, under ‘the least you could do.’
Samuel Hammond: It is striking to see leadership at Google, Anthropic, OpenAI and Microsoft all fairly independently sounding warning alarms about an imminent technological acceleration.
A Good Start But Insufficient
I agree with Peter Wildeford that while better than nothing FINRA is not a great model here, with heightened risk of regulatory capture, and not a substitute for full government action. You need an SEC to your FINRA. That doesn’t mean don’t make the FINRA. It does mean you still need the SEC.
Would such a (at least partly) voluntary regime, only for models intended for release, and without a related binding intentional agreement, be sufficient to solve the problem? No, again it’s just way better than doing nothing, as Peter Wildeford and many others noted.
You do not need to believe, as Aaron Scher and Connor Leahy do below, that only a full halt would be sufficient here, to know we have a long way to go. Demis’s statements here, if you know what they actually mean, imply a level of danger and urgency that is not reflected in the proposal.
I agree with Peter Wildeford that while better than nothing FINRA is not a great model here, with heightened risk of regulatory capture, and not a substitute for full government action. You need an SEC to your FINRA. That doesn’t mean don’t make the FINRA. It does mean you still need the SEC.
Would such a (at least partly) voluntary regime, only for models intended for release, and without a related binding intentional agreement, be sufficient to solve the problem? No, again it’s just way better than doing nothing, as Peter Wildeford and many others noted.
You do not need to believe, as Aaron Scher and Connor Leahy do below, that only a full halt would be sufficient here, to know we have a long way to go. Demis’s statements here, if you know what they actually mean, imply a level of danger and urgency that is not reflected in the proposal.
Eli Tyre: > Initially, Frontier Labs would voluntarily share models with the Standards Body for review up to 30 days before release.
Is this proposal only intended to address risks from models that companies plan to release? If a company develops a frontier model and never releases it, only deploying it internally to develop even more powerful AI capabilities, are they thereby exempt from this oversight scheme?
Connor Leahy: While @demishassabis is right that we need urgent action to address risks as we approach AGI (and superintelligence, I’d add), the correct response to the threats is not a ‘self-regulatory organization’.
We need to prohibit superintelligence, not give industry regulatory power.
Aaron Scher: … The extinction threat, the “only a few short years”, the “10x the Industrial Revolution”—these aren’t indicators that point to “let’s evaluate models to understand their capabilities and have voluntary safety standards”. We need to back off, we need to halt the creation of ASI.
Point 2: I agree with the attached quote that we need more time. But I think Demis’s optimism is a vibe, not a trustworthy basis for predictions. Rob Miles says it best in this video, if an asteroid we’re headed earth’s way 200 years ago, we’d just die 🤷
Point 3: As others have pointed out, it’s not clear that this proposal would reduce risks from internal deployment (it seems to focus on public deployment and pre-deployment testing), but internal deployment is where much of the risk is.
Point 4: I don’t think the proposed body could actually enact, verify, and enforce a slowdown; there’s ambiguity about what’s voluntary. Again, I think we need a long-term international treaty and to actually back off, not just to slow down a little.
by Zvi Mowshowitz, DWV | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. See also: The Voice of Google (New Yorker):]
Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, were bona-fide public figures by then, and self-made billionaires multiple times over, but in Charlie’s they were idols. They would often ascend the stage together, practically matching in sweat-wicking athletic clothes and Crocs. Larry had a dopey perma-smile, and seemed delighted by everything, especially Sergey. Sergey was the straight man, with a faint lilt, a product of his childhood in Russia, and an acrobatic build that made him look like he might launch into a handspring at any moment. Their charisma was unconventional, contextual; you had to be there. The audience of employees lapped up every word, giggled at every dad joke. During a Q. & A. portion of the proceedings, even adversarial questions were absorbed into the Google spirit—it all melted into laughs, love. Merriam-Webster had added “google” to the dictionary the year before. Fortune had crowned it the “Best Company to Work For” in America. Profits were, as the execs loved to boast, “up and to the right,” fuelled by an online-advertising machine that minted cash beyond Wall Street’s wildest dreams. But the company’s financial success felt almost incidental. What mattered, we told ourselves, was the mission—a conviction that technology could improve the world and that we were helping to build the future. The air in Charlie’s buzzed with collective belief.
That first meeting was the only one I’d ever attend as a pure spectator. By week two, I was working the event—cordoning off the Noogler section, handing out extra caps—and I soon began helping to draft bits of Larry and Sergey’s script. A portion of my time was spent supporting the P.R. team, and I started to pick up my first press requests, providing office tours to journalists eager to see the “Google experience” firsthand. I studied a “master workplace talking points” document, which was maintained with input from PeopleOps, which was Google-speak for human resources. This was the era of “bringing your whole self to work,” of shiny, smiling H.R. people doing press hits about the importance of valuing employees’ authentic personhood (always with a telling corollary: “Because that’s how people do their best work!”). I was required to attend a training on “conscious business” with a guy named Fred Kofman, an executive coach whom Sheryl Sandberg credited with shaping her “lean-in” ethos. The course was, theoretically, about living one’s courageous values, but its most salient lesson was that employees should take “unconditional accountability”—which, in practice, sounded a lot like never questioning the higher-ups. The message reiterated over and over was that there were two kinds of people in the world: victims and players. You wanted to be a player at all times.
Despite the lore, Google’s offices didn’t make a big first impression. The bulk of the campus had been quickly converted after its previous occupant went down in the fallout from the dot-com bust. The result was a complex of squat, one- or two-level buildings with metal and glass siding, surrounded by a moat of parking spaces, with Google signs plunked into the dirt out front. But there were plenty of amenities to point out—the massage rooms and nap pods, the dinosaur fossil, the wacky sensory-break touches like ball pits, swings, and yoga balls (even if no one actually seemed to use them). Foreign journalists seemed more skeptical than their American counterparts of perks such as lunch-break haircuts or on-site laundry rooms, which I’d heard described as letting Google be your “housewife.”
***
I started working at Google in the summer of 2007, straight out of college, as a “new-grad associate” in the communications department. My first week, I sat with more than a hundred other “Nooglers” (new Googlers) at the company’s weekly staff meeting, T.G.I.F., wearing matching company-issued propeller caps as a kind of ritual hazing. The venue was Charlie’s Cafe, a multilevel auditorium in the heart of the “Googleplex,” the company’s sprawling campus in Mountain View, California. The event felt less like a corporate meeting than like a weekly revival—part standup set, part science fair, part sermon, all of it fuelled by keg beer.Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, were bona-fide public figures by then, and self-made billionaires multiple times over, but in Charlie’s they were idols. They would often ascend the stage together, practically matching in sweat-wicking athletic clothes and Crocs. Larry had a dopey perma-smile, and seemed delighted by everything, especially Sergey. Sergey was the straight man, with a faint lilt, a product of his childhood in Russia, and an acrobatic build that made him look like he might launch into a handspring at any moment. Their charisma was unconventional, contextual; you had to be there. The audience of employees lapped up every word, giggled at every dad joke. During a Q. & A. portion of the proceedings, even adversarial questions were absorbed into the Google spirit—it all melted into laughs, love. Merriam-Webster had added “google” to the dictionary the year before. Fortune had crowned it the “Best Company to Work For” in America. Profits were, as the execs loved to boast, “up and to the right,” fuelled by an online-advertising machine that minted cash beyond Wall Street’s wildest dreams. But the company’s financial success felt almost incidental. What mattered, we told ourselves, was the mission—a conviction that technology could improve the world and that we were helping to build the future. The air in Charlie’s buzzed with collective belief.
That first meeting was the only one I’d ever attend as a pure spectator. By week two, I was working the event—cordoning off the Noogler section, handing out extra caps—and I soon began helping to draft bits of Larry and Sergey’s script. A portion of my time was spent supporting the P.R. team, and I started to pick up my first press requests, providing office tours to journalists eager to see the “Google experience” firsthand. I studied a “master workplace talking points” document, which was maintained with input from PeopleOps, which was Google-speak for human resources. This was the era of “bringing your whole self to work,” of shiny, smiling H.R. people doing press hits about the importance of valuing employees’ authentic personhood (always with a telling corollary: “Because that’s how people do their best work!”). I was required to attend a training on “conscious business” with a guy named Fred Kofman, an executive coach whom Sheryl Sandberg credited with shaping her “lean-in” ethos. The course was, theoretically, about living one’s courageous values, but its most salient lesson was that employees should take “unconditional accountability”—which, in practice, sounded a lot like never questioning the higher-ups. The message reiterated over and over was that there were two kinds of people in the world: victims and players. You wanted to be a player at all times.
Despite the lore, Google’s offices didn’t make a big first impression. The bulk of the campus had been quickly converted after its previous occupant went down in the fallout from the dot-com bust. The result was a complex of squat, one- or two-level buildings with metal and glass siding, surrounded by a moat of parking spaces, with Google signs plunked into the dirt out front. But there were plenty of amenities to point out—the massage rooms and nap pods, the dinosaur fossil, the wacky sensory-break touches like ball pits, swings, and yoga balls (even if no one actually seemed to use them). Foreign journalists seemed more skeptical than their American counterparts of perks such as lunch-break haircuts or on-site laundry rooms, which I’d heard described as letting Google be your “housewife.”
“Z is is all a big plot to control ze workers, no?” a French reporter said.
At that point, though, I was still learning to see Google through Google’s eyes. I learned to deflect these kinds of questions and pitied the askers, a little bit, for their cynicism.
Moist Towelette Museum
Image: OtefukiTe is "hand" Fuki is "wipe." the O is the Japanese honorific, so you could call it "Honorable Hand Wipe" if you like.
[ed. Yep, it's real. Love the "old internet" vibe.]
[ed. Yep, it's real. Love the "old internet" vibe.]
Sunday, July 19, 2026
Saturday, July 18, 2026
More Bad Behavior in Prediction Markets
Trump teleprompter aide made $100,000 betting on what Trump would say, reports say.
Kalshi is a high-tech prediction market that allows people to “forecast the future” (their term). It is about contracts and information, the company says, making its offerings more like a soybean futures contract than a round of blackjack or a pull on the one-armed bandit.
Still, prediction markets look a lot like betting if you squint, which is why states like New York have tried to regulate them under gambling laws. To head this off, Kalshi has sought federal protection under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Yes, this means regulation for Kalshi, but it also means the CFTC will sue states like Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island, trying to pre-empt their laws in favor of a single national standard that the CFTC controls.
While this battle plays out, government insiders continue to generate insider trading stories after using their work knowledge to place bets “forecast the future” and make huge sums of money. The classic example, of course, was Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier who participated in planning the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and then made $410,000 from that knowledge on the prediction site Polymarket. Van Dyke was arrested in April.
But there are also more ridiculous stories, such as disgraced former Congressman George Santos, who allegedly talked up his upcoming appearance at the State of the Union, secretly bet on whether he would attend, and then didn’t go at the last minute to score a payout.
This activity raises questions, like: How many people are gambling forecasting the future based on government secrets or insider knowledge? How many are actively manipulating results they have bet on? Even the Trump White House was concerned enough to issue a memo in March telling employees not to “use nonpublic information to buy or sell these contracts.”
But concerns have lingered, especially after major wins on contracts involving US government policy or actions. Such suspicions will not be helped by new allegations today from multiple outlets that insider trading on Kalshi has extended even to President Trump’s teleprompter operator, who allegedly made $100,000 “forecasting” specific words and phrases that might appear in Trump speeches.
The mention market
According to sources speaking to NPR, Trump aide Gabriel Perez bet on something called a “mention market.” This is a section of Kalshi where you can sink money into contracts on crucial questions such as “What will Domino’s say during their next earnings call?” (Currently, $26,000 has been invested in this question; the smart money thinks that “Parmesan” and “DomOS” are more likely to be mentioned than not.)
In the case of Perez, his “forecasting” allegedly took place over several months at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, and his contracts were sometimes adjusted in the middle of Trump speeches. According to ABC:
Sources say Perez typically has the final eyes on nearly all of the president’s prepared remarks—and is often known to take last-minute edits from Trump himself… In certain instances, investigators uncovered times when Perez would back out of certain bets mid-speech when Trump skipped over a portion of the speech that included a word he had previously bet would be mentioned, the sources said.
This conjures up an amazing mental image: The teleprompter operator for one of the world’s most powerful people tapping away at his phone during a Trump speech to ensure he made more money for himself. [...]
Whatever you want to call it, “predicting the future with money at stake” has become huge business in America. A recent (and terrific) long article by McKay Coppins in The Atlantic showed people what a year of online sports gambling looks like, and it raised serious questions about the negative issues that widespread, legal, bet-from-your-phone gambling might cause in a country where “roughly half of men ages 18 to 49 have an active account with an online sportsbook.”
Still, prediction markets look a lot like betting if you squint, which is why states like New York have tried to regulate them under gambling laws. To head this off, Kalshi has sought federal protection under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Yes, this means regulation for Kalshi, but it also means the CFTC will sue states like Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island, trying to pre-empt their laws in favor of a single national standard that the CFTC controls.
But there are also more ridiculous stories, such as disgraced former Congressman George Santos, who allegedly talked up his upcoming appearance at the State of the Union, secretly bet on whether he would attend, and then didn’t go at the last minute to score a payout.
This activity raises questions, like: How many people are gambling forecasting the future based on government secrets or insider knowledge? How many are actively manipulating results they have bet on? Even the Trump White House was concerned enough to issue a memo in March telling employees not to “use nonpublic information to buy or sell these contracts.”
But concerns have lingered, especially after major wins on contracts involving US government policy or actions. Such suspicions will not be helped by new allegations today from multiple outlets that insider trading on Kalshi has extended even to President Trump’s teleprompter operator, who allegedly made $100,000 “forecasting” specific words and phrases that might appear in Trump speeches.
The mention market
According to sources speaking to NPR, Trump aide Gabriel Perez bet on something called a “mention market.” This is a section of Kalshi where you can sink money into contracts on crucial questions such as “What will Domino’s say during their next earnings call?” (Currently, $26,000 has been invested in this question; the smart money thinks that “Parmesan” and “DomOS” are more likely to be mentioned than not.)
In the case of Perez, his “forecasting” allegedly took place over several months at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, and his contracts were sometimes adjusted in the middle of Trump speeches. According to ABC:
Sources say Perez typically has the final eyes on nearly all of the president’s prepared remarks—and is often known to take last-minute edits from Trump himself… In certain instances, investigators uncovered times when Perez would back out of certain bets mid-speech when Trump skipped over a portion of the speech that included a word he had previously bet would be mentioned, the sources said.
This conjures up an amazing mental image: The teleprompter operator for one of the world’s most powerful people tapping away at his phone during a Trump speech to ensure he made more money for himself. [...]
Whatever you want to call it, “predicting the future with money at stake” has become huge business in America. A recent (and terrific) long article by McKay Coppins in The Atlantic showed people what a year of online sports gambling looks like, and it raised serious questions about the negative issues that widespread, legal, bet-from-your-phone gambling might cause in a country where “roughly half of men ages 18 to 49 have an active account with an online sportsbook.”
by Nate Anderson, Ars Technica | Read more:
Image: Getty
[ed. See also: Sucker (The Atlantic article) mentioned. And: Truth Social to sell trading firms 'fastest' access to Trump's posts (Reuters).]
Anyone Can Be a Millionaire; Not Everyone Has Enough Testosterone
[ed. Beavis and Butt-Head have opinions.]
In America, Almost Anyone Can Be a Millionaire
This week, I ignited a small controversy on social media by claiming that “the rich are rich because they work, while the poor are poor because they don’t.” My critics were offended that I would, in their eyes, demean the poor this way. But it’s just simple reality: the top 10 percent of Americans income earners work more than 7 hours per week more than earners in the bottom 10 percent. Less-educated Americans are less likely to work at all than those with more education.
Not looking for work or working too little is indeed the main cause of poverty in America. This may seem unkind, but my critics are missing the wonderful upside: in America, anyone can become wealthy if they work full time and save reasonably over their careers.
This is one of the first things that wowed me about America. I still vividly remember the time I visited Florida from Venezuela in the early 2010s and met a Cuban-American cashier at a local Publix. While she was scanning our items, she told us she was taking a vacation with her husband the following week, a cruise to the Caribbean.
I was amazed. How could a cashier afford to go on a cruise vacation? Cashiers live in deep poverty in Venezuela; in America they get to live like the Venezuelan upper class.
That story is not unusual. The Wall Street Journal recently profiled a Costco worker named Tony Barzar from Arizona. Barzar never went to college, only taking some community college classes without finishing. Nonetheless, working his entire life in grocery stores and Costco, he has amassed over $1 million in his 401(k) account. He also owns a home with a pool and has traveled to Europe twice in the last decade—all while making just shy of $33 per hour.
He got there not by some great feat, but by slow and steady saving.
Hegseth wants a “High-T” military; doctors call it a clinical minefield
On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made the startling announcement that the US military would begin requiring all active duty and reserve personnel aged 30 and older to undergo mandatory screening for testosterone deficiency. The screenings will take place during yearly health assessments. Those under age 30 can also get screened on request.
In a short video posted on social media, Hegseth explained to the military community that the screenings and possible subsequent treatments are intended to “optimize your performance, your resilience, and your long-term health.” While saying that the initiative wasn’t about “artificial enhancement” and that members could decline treatment, Hegseth claimed that the testing and potential treatment was for “restoring and optimizing” capabilities, protecting “longevity,” and “ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.”
But will testosterone screening and treatment actually “optimize” our “warfighters”? Will it help most of them live longer? Should everyone else get screened and treated, too?
“A big fat ‘Oh, no'”
Screening people widely for medical conditions and then treating those who need it may sound like a huge social positive. But issues around male hypogonadism—the condition in which the body doesn’t produce enough testosterone—can be complex.
That’s why the Endocrine Society—made up of experts in the complex systems that release hormones in the body—posted a statement on the topic in the wake of Hegseth’s announcement. The document notes that “there is insufficient evidence to support a general recommendation to perform population-level screening for hypogonadism in asymptomatic men with measurement of blood testosterone level.”
To find out why, Ars Technica spoke with Professor Bradley Anawalt, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center. He specializes in endocrinology and men’s health.
“This is a great big fat ‘Oh, no,’” Anawalt said in reaction to Hegseth’s announcement. “We’re turning the clock back on rational healthcare. … I’m worried about the ethics. I’m worried about the health consequences. I’m worried about unnecessary evaluations, incorrect assessments, and incorrect diagnoses that lead to inappropriate prescriptions of testosterone.”
To understand why, let’s start with the basic question: Why might someone have low testosterone?
[ed. Definitely read the Comments Section on this one. It's like a salve for dementia. As one person noted, why does everything from this administration sound like it just came out of The Onion? See also: Bony Soldier Diving On Top Of Grenade Only Makes It Deadlier.]
Not looking for work or working too little is indeed the main cause of poverty in America. This may seem unkind, but my critics are missing the wonderful upside: in America, anyone can become wealthy if they work full time and save reasonably over their careers.
I was amazed. How could a cashier afford to go on a cruise vacation? Cashiers live in deep poverty in Venezuela; in America they get to live like the Venezuelan upper class.
That story is not unusual. The Wall Street Journal recently profiled a Costco worker named Tony Barzar from Arizona. Barzar never went to college, only taking some community college classes without finishing. Nonetheless, working his entire life in grocery stores and Costco, he has amassed over $1 million in his 401(k) account. He also owns a home with a pool and has traveled to Europe twice in the last decade—all while making just shy of $33 per hour.
He got there not by some great feat, but by slow and steady saving.
by Daniel Di Martino, City Journal | Read more:
Image: Getty
[ed. Hope his job is one that gets taken out by AI sooner rather than later.]
******
But will testosterone screening and treatment actually “optimize” our “warfighters”? Will it help most of them live longer? Should everyone else get screened and treated, too?
“A big fat ‘Oh, no'”
Screening people widely for medical conditions and then treating those who need it may sound like a huge social positive. But issues around male hypogonadism—the condition in which the body doesn’t produce enough testosterone—can be complex.
That’s why the Endocrine Society—made up of experts in the complex systems that release hormones in the body—posted a statement on the topic in the wake of Hegseth’s announcement. The document notes that “there is insufficient evidence to support a general recommendation to perform population-level screening for hypogonadism in asymptomatic men with measurement of blood testosterone level.”
To find out why, Ars Technica spoke with Professor Bradley Anawalt, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center. He specializes in endocrinology and men’s health.
“This is a great big fat ‘Oh, no,’” Anawalt said in reaction to Hegseth’s announcement. “We’re turning the clock back on rational healthcare. … I’m worried about the ethics. I’m worried about the health consequences. I’m worried about unnecessary evaluations, incorrect assessments, and incorrect diagnoses that lead to inappropriate prescriptions of testosterone.”
To understand why, let’s start with the basic question: Why might someone have low testosterone?
by Beth Mole, Ars Technica | Read more:
Image: Getty|Stefani Reynolds[ed. Definitely read the Comments Section on this one. It's like a salve for dementia. As one person noted, why does everything from this administration sound like it just came out of The Onion? See also: Bony Soldier Diving On Top Of Grenade Only Makes It Deadlier.]
Grocery Store Tourism
Grocery tourism is the hot trend of 2026 according to Condé Nast Traveler. This is all well and good, but also a bit late to the trolley because I have been practicing this trend since my twenties, although without the benefit of a name or a hashtag.
My two worlds met in the supermarket aisle. Before I was a travel writer and sent to places with hotel beds that appeared to have been prepared for minor royalty or a very clean corpse, I was a checkout chick at supermarket chain Coles. This was when prices were typed in by hand, making me feel like I was conducting a low-level NASA launch procedure.
A tin of pineapple rings would trundle towards me, and I would punch in its code. Behind it would come shampoo, fish fingers, instant pudding, 24 cans of Diet Coke, and a packet of aspirin. From these items, I could deduce entire family systems. Marriage trouble. School excursions. Flu. A birthday party. A woman about to murder everyone in her house unless she got a Mint Slice into herself immediately.
I loved the products. Not necessarily the customers who could turn feral over a five-cent discrepancy in canned tomatoes. The conveyor belt was a pageant of human need. It was anthropology in a polyester apron.
When people now declare that they have discovered grocery store tourism, I feel like saying, “We know. We’ve had those for years.”
My first trip to America should have been my grand supermarket awakening. I was a PR manager for Malaysia Airlines in the late ’90s, and we were launching a very long flight to New York from Sydney via KL and Dubai. I arrived bristling with ambition. I wanted to see the cereal aisle. Long had we heard rumors of American supermarkets. They were great glittering cathedrals of corn syrup with aisles devoted just to cereal and marshmallows in the shapes of everything from the moon and stars to presidents. I wanted to stand before them all in awe, like Moses, if Moses had come down from the mountain carrying Pop-Tarts.
But the group itinerary was against me. We went to Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s and Saks. We went to FAO Schwarz. We went to Woodbury Common in New Jersey. But we did not go to a grocery store. We stayed at The Mark, and while it’s a beautiful hotel, it’s a hopeless base for a woman hoping to loiter near canned soup. Five days in New York and not a single trolley. I still consider this one of the great failures of my professional life.
Japan was different because come hell or highwater, I was finding a supermarket, and I did. Japan has KitKats in flavors that sound like haiku composed during a fever. There are soft drinks made of melon and sandwiches so neat they seem to have been assembled by watchmakers.
I once stood in a Japanese aisle looking at 15 varieties of bottled tea and felt the kind of reverence other people reserve for stained glass. This is the point of grocery tourism. It’s anthropology with a basket.
Every country gives itself away eventually. This is usually somewhere between the biscuits and the cleaning products. Finland offers Moomins in places no Australian supermarket would dare put a cartoon hippo. Singapore understands the spiritual importance of salted fish skin. Sweden puts things in tubes that should never be in tubes and then offers fermented herring.
And then the Netherlands has licorice. The Dutch have built an entire moral philosophy out of licorice. Sweet, salty, double-salty, hard, soft, shaped like coins, cars, and warnings from your dentist. I’ve always admired the Dutch, but this commitment to black chewy punishment is heroic. Sweden is not to be outdone and has thus flirted with licorice-flavored chips.
Then there are the products that cause the traveler to stop dead and reconsider the whole Enlightenment. In Vietnam, I couldn’t walk past snake wine without dancing an involuntary flamenco of horror. There was a snake in a bottle suspended in alcohol. Sometimes there were scorpions.
South Korea has canned silkworm pupae. Peru has coca tea. Colombia has arequipe. America has cheese in a spray can, which I respect as both a product and a cry for help.
And now, social media has turned all of this into content. Travelers narrate the experience into their phones. A German soccer fan can wander into an American Waffle House at one in the morning and emerge as a folk hero. Erewhon in Los Angeles has become a celebrity shrine where a smoothie can cost more than a small household appliance and one strawberry comes packaged like an engagement ring and with a similar price.
Grocery stores offer the rarest thing in modern travel, the uncurated ordinary. The supermarket is the one place travel cannot fully manicure itself. Hotels can lie. Brochures can lie. Restaurants, especially the ones with menus printed on thick paper, can lie beautifully. But supermarkets are hopeless at lying. They’re too busy. ...
Museums tell you what a country wants to remember. Restaurants tell you what it wants photographed. Supermarkets tell you what it eats at 6:14 PM when everyone is tired and dinner has become a hostage negotiation. They tell you whether a nation believes in breakfast or whether its citizens require 12 flavors of mayonnaise or 87 yogurts. They disclose the private life of a destination complete with its anxieties and emergency snacks. They reveal the daily economic choices of consumers.
My two worlds met in the supermarket aisle. Before I was a travel writer and sent to places with hotel beds that appeared to have been prepared for minor royalty or a very clean corpse, I was a checkout chick at supermarket chain Coles. This was when prices were typed in by hand, making me feel like I was conducting a low-level NASA launch procedure.
I loved the products. Not necessarily the customers who could turn feral over a five-cent discrepancy in canned tomatoes. The conveyor belt was a pageant of human need. It was anthropology in a polyester apron.
When people now declare that they have discovered grocery store tourism, I feel like saying, “We know. We’ve had those for years.”
My first trip to America should have been my grand supermarket awakening. I was a PR manager for Malaysia Airlines in the late ’90s, and we were launching a very long flight to New York from Sydney via KL and Dubai. I arrived bristling with ambition. I wanted to see the cereal aisle. Long had we heard rumors of American supermarkets. They were great glittering cathedrals of corn syrup with aisles devoted just to cereal and marshmallows in the shapes of everything from the moon and stars to presidents. I wanted to stand before them all in awe, like Moses, if Moses had come down from the mountain carrying Pop-Tarts.
But the group itinerary was against me. We went to Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s and Saks. We went to FAO Schwarz. We went to Woodbury Common in New Jersey. But we did not go to a grocery store. We stayed at The Mark, and while it’s a beautiful hotel, it’s a hopeless base for a woman hoping to loiter near canned soup. Five days in New York and not a single trolley. I still consider this one of the great failures of my professional life.
Japan was different because come hell or highwater, I was finding a supermarket, and I did. Japan has KitKats in flavors that sound like haiku composed during a fever. There are soft drinks made of melon and sandwiches so neat they seem to have been assembled by watchmakers.
I once stood in a Japanese aisle looking at 15 varieties of bottled tea and felt the kind of reverence other people reserve for stained glass. This is the point of grocery tourism. It’s anthropology with a basket.
Every country gives itself away eventually. This is usually somewhere between the biscuits and the cleaning products. Finland offers Moomins in places no Australian supermarket would dare put a cartoon hippo. Singapore understands the spiritual importance of salted fish skin. Sweden puts things in tubes that should never be in tubes and then offers fermented herring.
And then the Netherlands has licorice. The Dutch have built an entire moral philosophy out of licorice. Sweet, salty, double-salty, hard, soft, shaped like coins, cars, and warnings from your dentist. I’ve always admired the Dutch, but this commitment to black chewy punishment is heroic. Sweden is not to be outdone and has thus flirted with licorice-flavored chips.
Then there are the products that cause the traveler to stop dead and reconsider the whole Enlightenment. In Vietnam, I couldn’t walk past snake wine without dancing an involuntary flamenco of horror. There was a snake in a bottle suspended in alcohol. Sometimes there were scorpions.
South Korea has canned silkworm pupae. Peru has coca tea. Colombia has arequipe. America has cheese in a spray can, which I respect as both a product and a cry for help.
And now, social media has turned all of this into content. Travelers narrate the experience into their phones. A German soccer fan can wander into an American Waffle House at one in the morning and emerge as a folk hero. Erewhon in Los Angeles has become a celebrity shrine where a smoothie can cost more than a small household appliance and one strawberry comes packaged like an engagement ring and with a similar price.
Grocery stores offer the rarest thing in modern travel, the uncurated ordinary. The supermarket is the one place travel cannot fully manicure itself. Hotels can lie. Brochures can lie. Restaurants, especially the ones with menus printed on thick paper, can lie beautifully. But supermarkets are hopeless at lying. They’re too busy. ...
Museums tell you what a country wants to remember. Restaurants tell you what it wants photographed. Supermarkets tell you what it eats at 6:14 PM when everyone is tired and dinner has become a hostage negotiation. They tell you whether a nation believes in breakfast or whether its citizens require 12 flavors of mayonnaise or 87 yogurts. They disclose the private life of a destination complete with its anxieties and emergency snacks. They reveal the daily economic choices of consumers.
Friday, July 17, 2026
Catching Up With Keanu
I'm sure that’s one of the reasons you guys are doing press today, to raise awareness. Before I run out of time, Keanu, I'm a big fan of Tim Miller. And I know you're getting ready to film something with him in the Dominican Republic.
REEVES: Yeah.
What can you tease about this project, and what made you say, “I need to do this?”
REEVES: Sharks. Time machine. Groundhog Day.
Everything you just said sounds fucking amazing.
REEVES: Yeah, man!
Does that mean you're spending a lot of time in the water? Is that something that you're looking forward to?
REEVES: Yes. And getting eaten by sharks.
by Tamera Jones & Steven Weintraub, Collider | Read more:
Image: Lionsgate
[ed. All in. Maybe they're Russian sharks and he'll be blasting them left and right for eating his groundhog.]
Xi Gives A Good Speech on AI
It is a good speech. Video is here.
We start with the opening section, which frames the situation.
Xi Jinping: Distinguished colleagues and guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends,
70 years ago, a group of young scholars proposed the concept of artificial intelligence for the first time at the Dartmouth workshop in New Hampshire of the United States. In the subsequent 70 years, AI scientists and researchers from around the world ventured into this unknown territory, forged ahead through twists and turns, and made breakthroughs with persistent hard work.Next Xi lays out the challenges. Note what is here and what is missing.
Seven decades later today, amid the new wave of AI development, we are gathering by the Huangpu River to discuss how to promote AI globally for the positive, for good, and for humanity. All this makes our meeting highly important. On behalf of the Chinese government and people, I would like to extend a warm welcome to you all.
In the course of history, the invention of the steam engine heralded the industrial civilization. The widespread access to electricity brightened up modern society and the birth of the internet brought the entire world together. Each of these technological revolutions has profoundly reshaped our way of work and life and enabled a giant leap in economic and social development.
Today, major changes unseen in a century are accelerating across the world. The new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation is advancing at a faster pace. And the world has entered an unprecedented period of active innovation on AI technologies. Intelligent connectivity, human machine collaboration, cross-sector integration, joint creation and sharing and other intelligent technologies are unleashing enormous power.
All this carries within it great opportunities as well as challenges to governance. We human beings must answer the questions posed by our times. How to get along with thinking machines? How to ensure security when algorithms are part of decision making? How to tackle ethical challenges by technologies through adaptive governance. How to realize AI for all when the divide keeps widening? These questions demand serious consideration and real answers from the whole international community.‘How to get along with thinking machines’ is quite the line to include here. A lot of this seems directionally serious but confused in its details.
Existential or catastrophic risk does not get a name check, but the related issues are clearly not being ignored.
So, what to do about it?
What are the proposals?
It makes sense that the CCP’s ultimate need and answer is control. For now open weights is compatible with their control, so they continue this strategy. For now. [...]
Malicious use is also a threat, but Xi realizes this is secondary, whereas the United States government is stuck at thinking misuse is the primary threat.
The call to not focus on national security over world security also makes sense. Yes, of course some of this is ‘when I am behind I call for equality’ but also we are all in this together and need to act like it.
It is also possible Xi is engaging in cheap talk. Why not propose such things and aura farm, whether or not you intend to follow through on reasonable terms?
The way you find out and do your best with this opportunity is: You get started now.
So, what to do about it?
In China's view, all countries should take a people-centered approach and develop AI for the positive and for good. We should ensure that AI is an important driver for shared prosperity and common security. We should join hands to build a just and equitable system for global AI governance. To this end, I wish to share four observations.A system for global AI governance. Sounds like deals could be made, on various fronts.
What are the proposals?
First, we should adhere to the principle of openness and win-win and boost innovation-driven development as a new engine of world economic growth and an accelerator for the shift of growth drivers. AI is moving from the digital world into the physical world. We should seize this rare historic opportunity to encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing. We should facilitate technological innovation, industrial development and scenario-based application of AI. We should make coordinated advances in the transformation and upgrade of traditional industries, the cultivation and growth of emerging industries, and forward-looking planning for future industries so that all sectors and businesses can benefit from AI.There are two things here.
1. When we are behind, we encourage everyone to share, so that we might catch up and score the aura points of being the ones who claim openness and sharing.
2. We should diffuse AI technology, including via openness.
Second, we should strengthen risk awareness and ensure that AI is secure and controllable. AI should be a trusted tool for humanity. We should take seriously the various types of inherent and secondary risks that AI may trigger.Strong emphasis on the need to ensure AI remains secure and under human control. Not party or national control, but human control. This is how he understands the existential risk and other big problems.
We should put in place laws and regulations, technological monitoring, early warning and emergency response systems in order to strengthen the line of security, prevent abuses and malicious use and ensure that AI is always under human control.
In the meantime, we should jointly oppose overstretching the national security concept in the field of AI or placing one country's security over that of others.
It makes sense that the CCP’s ultimate need and answer is control. For now open weights is compatible with their control, so they continue this strategy. For now. [...]
Malicious use is also a threat, but Xi realizes this is secondary, whereas the United States government is stuck at thinking misuse is the primary threat.
The call to not focus on national security over world security also makes sense. Yes, of course some of this is ‘when I am behind I call for equality’ but also we are all in this together and need to act like it.
Third, we should encourage inclusiveness and promote mutual learning between civilizations. AI development and its application should not erode or undermine the diversity of world civilizations or the uniqueness of cultures of different countries. We must shape the values of AI with humanity's common values and make good use of AI technologies to increase understanding, tolerance, exchanges, and sharing among all civilizations. We should tend to the garden of civilizations with great care to ensure that the beauty of each civilization is appreciated and shared.General call for cooperation and good relations. Good. Pick up the phone.
Fourth, we should advocate solidarity and improve global governance. AI is an invaluable asset that encapsulates humanity's collective wisdom. We should practice true multilateralism and recognize the important role of the United Nations.The primary ask is an explicit request for a global governance framework and international cooperation. Excellent. Let’s get to work on that.
We should enhance alignment and coordination on AI development strategies, governance rules and technical standards so as to form a consensus based global governance framework at an early date to make this frontier technology better benefit humanity.
We must carry out extensive international cooperation and help global south countries with capacity building to bridge the AI and digital divides, promote sustainable development and prevent creating new historical injustice in AI.
Nate Soares (MIRI): Xi Jinping: "With AI advancing at a staggering speed, we must [...] constantly refine measures to forestall loss-of-control." Can we stop pretending there's no hope of international coordination now?No doubt they have in mind something that would favor their position, and their initial asks will look outrageous and unacceptable to us. That is how this works. You do not accept their first offer, and things take time, and sometimes it turns out there is no deal to be made.
Jack: Lots to chew on in here. The US may have the best labs, but it's pretty clear that, on the government/policy level, China is approaching AI much more seriously than the US is – and in a way more likely to be viewed favorably around the globe. Worth a close read.
It is also possible Xi is engaging in cheap talk. Why not propose such things and aura farm, whether or not you intend to follow through on reasonable terms?
The way you find out and do your best with this opportunity is: You get started now.
Xi Jinping: Ladies and gentlemen, friends,I found this to be a strong speech, and a good one to give in China’s position, both on the importance of diffusion and the need for international cooperation to prevent loss of control. Yes, there was talk about openness and potential new ‘injustice’ and such but this talk is to be expected from their position. It is now on America to make the next move.
This year marks the start of China's 15th 5-year plan. It maps out China's economic and social development for the next five years and provides immense opportunities for the international community.
In recent years, China has embraced AI with open arms. We have promoted interplay between an efficient market and a well functioning government, strengthened AI innovation, actively advanced the AI plus initiative and built a healthy ecosystem for all entities to thrive in together. The core smart economy industries are worth at least 1 trillion RMB yuan. Smart devices in countless homes truly improve people's livelihood. Intelligent manufacturing in China has become another shining hallmark of Chinese modernization.
At the same time, China lays great emphasis on safety and security in AI development with a deep understanding of the trends and logic of AI development. We are continuously improving laws, regulations, policies, mechanisms, application norms as well as ethical principles to make sure that AI is safe, secure, and controllable, and that this fine steed of AI gallops with both speed and stability.
As a responsible major country, China is always committed to providing international public goods relating to AI. Since I proposed the global AI governance initiative, China has promoted the adoption of the UN General Assembly resolution on enhancing international cooperation on capacity building of artificial intelligence by consensus. Published the AI capacity building action plan for good and for all. Announced the AI plus international cooperation initiative and advocated for establishing the world artificial intelligence cooperation organization, or WAICO. China has been contributing steadily to the global AI governance.
We often say in China, a single string cannot make music and a single tree does not make a forest. AI development should not be a solo performance by a single country but a symphony of international cooperation.
Thanks to our joint efforts, WAICO has come into being in Shanghai. Our vision from one year ago is now a reality. This is a major move by China to answer the call of the global south and unite the international community together to promote vigorously AI development and governance. It will be an important milestone in the history of AI development to further support global AI development and to advance global AI capacity building.
I hereby announce that in the next five years, China will provide developing countries with 5,000 opportunities in AI training and seminar programs. China will develop international AI application cooperation centers with ASEAN, the League of Arab States, the African Union, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. And we will enable 30 countries to use the AI-powered meteorological warning system, Mazu, to safeguard homes around the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, friends,
As ancient Chinese observed, a man of wisdom adapts to changes. A man of knowledge acts by circumstances. With AI advancing at a staggering speed, we must ensure its development is for the positive, for good, and for humanity. We must make its oversight and governance precise and effective and constantly refine measures to forestall loss of control. We should always guide AI development with human wisdom and international consensus so that AI can truly become a mighty force that increases the well-being of humanity and advances human civilization.
China is ready to be more open, take more practical actions and assume a more visionary perspective. We are ready to work with all parties to seize the opportunities of AI development and meet the challenges and join hands to create a brighter future for humanity.
Thank you.
by Zvi Mowshowitz, DWV | Read more:
Image: Elena Kadvany/S.F. Chronicle
[ed. "It is now on America to make the next move". Which is precisely what should have happened months/years ago when the pace of model development began to accelerate with no significant oversight or regulatory constraints ie., treating AI with the importance you'd give to any new technology that represents an existential threat. Unfortunately, with our dysfunctional Congress and the current bozos in the White House whatever action they take (if any) has a strong likelihood of doing more harm than good. Still it's imperative we get started somewhere soon and there are already good proposals out there (see Plan A), so authorize someone to start doing something.]
[ed. "It is now on America to make the next move". Which is precisely what should have happened months/years ago when the pace of model development began to accelerate with no significant oversight or regulatory constraints ie., treating AI with the importance you'd give to any new technology that represents an existential threat. Unfortunately, with our dysfunctional Congress and the current bozos in the White House whatever action they take (if any) has a strong likelihood of doing more harm than good. Still it's imperative we get started somewhere soon and there are already good proposals out there (see Plan A), so authorize someone to start doing something.]
Today’s Cystoscopy
It knocked the sh*t out of me. Literally.
As you might remember, after taking the steroid dosepak, I was supposed to return to UCLA hospital for a follow-up cystoscopy three months later.
Today was the day.
I haven’t pissed blood since. So I was optimistic there would be no problem, but you never know. The body is made to deteriorate, no one here gets out alive, something’s gonna get you.
Now no matter how calm you feel, you never get a good night’s sleep before procedures like this. Actually, I had a wild dream where this waiter in Vail sold me a jacket. It was $495. Really pretty cool. I was supposed to be having dinner with friends and family downstairs at Russell’s, which doesn’t even have a downstairs, but after sitting at the table silently I excused myself to go to the bathroom and when I was done, I took a seat at a two-top and this waiter came along and after sizing me up he left and returned with this jacket. Kinda hard to describe, it was fabric, not leather, something you’d wear at night, it had a lining, which was removable and…thinking about it afterward it reminded me of this Guess jacket I had back in the eighties.
Anyway… I find it nearly impossible to shop for clothes. I question my taste and the ultimate fit but this guy sized me up perfectly! So I was excited when he said we should go downstairs for jeans, but they didn’t have my size, and this guy wasn’t going to sell me anything that wasn’t exactly right. Turns out his name is Fred and really he runs a bookstore and he’s not going to be back at the restaurant until Tuesday, when new threads are delivered, so I’m making a mental note to dream about him a week from now.
The dream was a good diversion, you never know where this stuff comes from, what it means, and it kept me distracted while I showered and ate and then… I had to skedaddle for the hospital.
I’ve learned to check the map app first, you never know where the traffic might be, and I was routed on Sepulveda instead of the 405, and it was crowded at first but I got there in time and after checking in, I had to provide a urine sample.
I wondered if I had enough in me. This had occurred to me just before I left the house, and I tried to imbibe, but I just wasn’t thirsty. Really, I was standing in the bathroom with the plastic cup and I felt that I would be unable to deliver, wondering if I eked out a few drops whether it would be enough, but eventually I got a flow going and returned to the waiting room.
Where I didn’t have to wait long until I was called inside by the football expert.
I guess I always feel obligated to service people. I’m trying to work on this with my shrink. But I was stunned that this woman didn’t remember our prior conversation, unlike the guy I ran into the hall after I peed, who had sent his Tudor watch in for repair, I wanted to ask him how it was doing.
And after taking off my clothes, donning the robe but leaving it open in the back, the NFL expert came back in with another woman, and she told me how great this replacement was, and I casually said that I guess we’d talk about football another time.
This stopped her in her tracks. She lamented handing me off. Rather than leaving, she wanted to get into it. Who was my team and..? I read enough news to fake it, but I was just trying to make her feel comfortable, so I let her go for her replacement who told me she had four jobs.
You see I asked her what she did when she didn’t work. She told me she loved to work! I asked if this was for the money, but no…it was the work itself. As for the four jobs… The two in the middle had to do with working at a charitable organization and the fourth was being a mother, she said she had four kids. I immediately wondered about supervision and behavior. But when I asked her about this she said there was no problem, you could tell she ran her household with an iron fist.
And then she raised my gown, scrubbed my dick, placed it in a hole of fabric so it was akin to SNLs Dick in a Box, and I’m thinking how this is de rigueur, an unknown woman manhandling my penis. Well, she was gentle, and it wasn’t sexy and it wasn’t weird emotionally, but intellectually… You’d think they’d have a guy do this, but no…
And then another woman came in! To inject me with the lidocaine!
Yup, they fill up this big syringe and shoot it right up your dick. And if you think that’s painful… Well, let’s just say it’s somewhere between uncomfortable and painful.
Meanwhile, we’re b.s.’ing…
And I’m thinking how this is my socialization. I don’t go to an office, I’m hearing from people all day long in e-mail and iMessage, but face to face?
That has fallen off since Covid, for everybody.
As you might remember, after taking the steroid dosepak, I was supposed to return to UCLA hospital for a follow-up cystoscopy three months later.
Today was the day.
I haven’t pissed blood since. So I was optimistic there would be no problem, but you never know. The body is made to deteriorate, no one here gets out alive, something’s gonna get you.
Anyway… I find it nearly impossible to shop for clothes. I question my taste and the ultimate fit but this guy sized me up perfectly! So I was excited when he said we should go downstairs for jeans, but they didn’t have my size, and this guy wasn’t going to sell me anything that wasn’t exactly right. Turns out his name is Fred and really he runs a bookstore and he’s not going to be back at the restaurant until Tuesday, when new threads are delivered, so I’m making a mental note to dream about him a week from now.
The dream was a good diversion, you never know where this stuff comes from, what it means, and it kept me distracted while I showered and ate and then… I had to skedaddle for the hospital.
I’ve learned to check the map app first, you never know where the traffic might be, and I was routed on Sepulveda instead of the 405, and it was crowded at first but I got there in time and after checking in, I had to provide a urine sample.
I wondered if I had enough in me. This had occurred to me just before I left the house, and I tried to imbibe, but I just wasn’t thirsty. Really, I was standing in the bathroom with the plastic cup and I felt that I would be unable to deliver, wondering if I eked out a few drops whether it would be enough, but eventually I got a flow going and returned to the waiting room.
Where I didn’t have to wait long until I was called inside by the football expert.
I guess I always feel obligated to service people. I’m trying to work on this with my shrink. But I was stunned that this woman didn’t remember our prior conversation, unlike the guy I ran into the hall after I peed, who had sent his Tudor watch in for repair, I wanted to ask him how it was doing.
And after taking off my clothes, donning the robe but leaving it open in the back, the NFL expert came back in with another woman, and she told me how great this replacement was, and I casually said that I guess we’d talk about football another time.
This stopped her in her tracks. She lamented handing me off. Rather than leaving, she wanted to get into it. Who was my team and..? I read enough news to fake it, but I was just trying to make her feel comfortable, so I let her go for her replacement who told me she had four jobs.
You see I asked her what she did when she didn’t work. She told me she loved to work! I asked if this was for the money, but no…it was the work itself. As for the four jobs… The two in the middle had to do with working at a charitable organization and the fourth was being a mother, she said she had four kids. I immediately wondered about supervision and behavior. But when I asked her about this she said there was no problem, you could tell she ran her household with an iron fist.
And then she raised my gown, scrubbed my dick, placed it in a hole of fabric so it was akin to SNLs Dick in a Box, and I’m thinking how this is de rigueur, an unknown woman manhandling my penis. Well, she was gentle, and it wasn’t sexy and it wasn’t weird emotionally, but intellectually… You’d think they’d have a guy do this, but no…
And then another woman came in! To inject me with the lidocaine!
Yup, they fill up this big syringe and shoot it right up your dick. And if you think that’s painful… Well, let’s just say it’s somewhere between uncomfortable and painful.
Meanwhile, we’re b.s.’ing…
And I’m thinking how this is my socialization. I don’t go to an office, I’m hearing from people all day long in e-mail and iMessage, but face to face?
That has fallen off since Covid, for everybody.
by Bob Lefsetsz, Lefsetz Letter | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. I had a cystoscopy back in my 30s to check for bladder cancer (negative). Uncomfortable to painful is a good description. That last little turn is a kicker.]
Thursday, July 16, 2026
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
All Good Sex Is Body Horror
Regenerations as radical as the ones Cronenberg envisions involve what the philosopher L. A. Paul has termed “transformative experiences,” ruptures that change “your own point of view so much and so deeply that, before you’ve had that experience, you can’t know what it is going to be like to be you after the experience.” Not only do we lack access to information that we can acquire only by plunging into the scalding water of a new life, but we cannot foresee how such a jolt will overhaul the very predilections and values that define who we are. [...]
It is a commonplace in the literature of romance that love wreaks legible changes on the body, a development that is typically painted in a positive light. As the poet Octavio Paz so tenderly puts it, “My hands / Invent another body for your body.” He is echoed by E. E. Cummings in a similar poem, which opens, “i like my body when it is with your / body. It is so quite new a thing. / Muscles better and nerves more.” Cummings is not the only one to undergo a shift during the act of love, and the full extent of his metamorphosis is explicable only in terms of his partner’s reciprocal mutation: his poem begins with the ways in which his lover renews his body and ends with the ways in which his body renews his lover’s body in turn. “i like the thrill / of under me you so quite new,” he concludes. The poet’s body changes in response to his lover’s body, his lover’s body changes in response to the changes in his body, his changed body changes in response to the changes in his lover’s body, and so on and on, twining into an ouroboros of mutual reconstruction. [...]
Most people would give anything to be turned into anything else, because most sex is mediocre, and the measure of its mediocrity is that it leaves us unaffected. No one falls ill; no one transforms into a fly or a cockroach; nothing changes. As the narrator of Norman Rush’s novel “Mating” sagely observes, “Sex can be various things, but in my experience the usual thing it is is considerate work on the part of both parties,” accompanied by the exchange of careful courtesies: “after you, no, after you, mais non.” No one has transformative sex all the time, and there is nothing wrong with sex that is merely pleasant. Indeed, a polite volley of pleasantries is probably the best thing that unecstatic sex can be.
Of course, many mediocre sexual encounters are rote in a more pernicious way. Heterosexual sex that follows the standard scripts, with its spankings and its schoolgirls, is not always devastating or traumatic, but its tiresomeness is nonetheless not innocuous. Women are the most obvious losers when the scenarios faithfully reënacted in the bedroom so consistently favor male predilections, but men who inherit their desires from the prevailing sexual culture—or, worse, men who feel they must satisfy a virile masculine ideal whether it appeals or not—lack the opportunity or the means to develop sexual agency. For both parties, the resultant comedy of errors is not satisfying. What nefariously underwhelming sex has in common with respectfully underwhelming sex is that neither brand is especially surprising or especially erotic.
To have sex erotically—and ethically—is to have it with someone else, and a person demonstrates her difference from the self by being impossible to predict, domesticate, or assimilate to preëxistent fantasy. It is not erotic to impose a ready-made desire onto someone pliant, or to slot her into a fetish that has little to do with her. Eroticism occurs only when someone rewrites us so completely that she rewrites even the quality and content of our appetites, and only when this radical rewriting is reciprocal.
Eroticism does not arise every time there is sexual activity, no matter how plodding, but it is also not the exclusive concomitant of love, marriage, or conventional commitment. Most sexual pairings are no more dishevelling than a game of tennis, but it is constitutive of sex that it has the potential to thrust us into metamorphosis that may be sweet, may be sinister, and may be both concurrently. When at last we grow wings, who can say exactly where we will want to fly?
Can a person consent to dying? Can she consent to a complete renewal, which amounts to the same thing?
Surely she cannot consent in the normal way. To consent in the normal way is not merely to grant permission but to grant permission on a particular basis—perhaps a reasonable expectation of pleasure, security, or safety. In any case, there is some positive inner state to which the outward utterance of license is supposed to correspond. A woman, almost always the presumed consenter in a heterosexual exchange, is exhorted to have sex with someone only when she has good reason to believe that she will have a generally happy time with him. Over and over, she is told: you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do; you don’t have to do anything that makes you uncomfortable. Because she is assumed to know exactly what makes her comfortable, and because comfort is assumed to be a necessary condition of good sex, the procedure the consenter is instructed to follow is not unlike the operation favored by decision theorists. First, she is to imagine what sex with the partner under consideration will be like; second, she is to assign a value to the experience that she has conjured; third, she is to assign a probability of accuracy to her prediction. Having done all this, she finds herself in a position to make a rational decision, consenting if and only if she foresees that an exchange will turn out to be unimpeachably agreeable. Should she prove wrong in her predictions, should she ever feel the slightest scintilla of unease, she should withdraw her consent and beat a hasty retreat.
Three faulty assumptions are baked into this model. The first is that people in general, thus women in particular, can predict, if roughly, what a prospective partner will be like during sex; the second is that people in general, thus women in particular, can predict what they will be like during sex with a prospective partner; the third is that sex can and should be comfortable.
In fact, we are not impermeable packages of preformed desires, importing our likes and dislikes around with us from one encounter to the next like papers in a briefcase. An erotic craving is inextricable from the ferment that foams up when oneself is sluiced into another. Not only is it impossible for us to know whether an encounter will be deflating or transformative but we cannot know what sort of metamorphosis will ensue if the sex is as jarring as we can only hope it will be. We can have no more success when it comes to divining how we will change our partners than we can have when it comes to divining how they will change us—or, following Cummings, how their changes will change us, and how our changes will change them, iteratively and indefinitely. Maybe we will grow the wings of cherubs, but maybe we will find ourselves meshed with the coarse bristles of gigantic flies. All we can say with certainty is that sometimes, when it is working, sex carves out new bodies for our bodies, and these bodies can be both better and more brutal than the ones we could invent alone.
From Cronenberg’s fever dreams, we can surmise that there is a further reason to reject the decision-theoretic model of consent: not only is it impossible for us to know what we will become if an erotic encounter is transformative but we should not want to. To determine in advance what a transformative experience will churn into existence is to sap its power, for the very essence of transformative experience is that we cannot predict how it will transform us. To be sure, it is uncomfortable to stand on the precipice of metamorphosis, but unless we are willing to assume genuine risk we cannot be undone and remade.
Writing of the conservative fear of sexual deviance, the feminist cultural anthropologist Gayle Rubin notes that we are bent on drawing a line between “sexual order and chaos.” The line in question “expresses the fear that if anything is permitted to cross this erotic DMZ, the barrier against scary sex will crumble and something unspeakable will skitter across.” Conservatives are right. If the gender binary melts away, if heterosexuality is no longer the default assumption, if parasites enter the building and dismantle the tenants, something unspeakable will skitter across—and that is the point of any erotic effusion worth pursuing.
by Becca Rothfeld, New Yorker | Read more:
Image: SillDA
It is a commonplace in the literature of romance that love wreaks legible changes on the body, a development that is typically painted in a positive light. As the poet Octavio Paz so tenderly puts it, “My hands / Invent another body for your body.” He is echoed by E. E. Cummings in a similar poem, which opens, “i like my body when it is with your / body. It is so quite new a thing. / Muscles better and nerves more.” Cummings is not the only one to undergo a shift during the act of love, and the full extent of his metamorphosis is explicable only in terms of his partner’s reciprocal mutation: his poem begins with the ways in which his lover renews his body and ends with the ways in which his body renews his lover’s body in turn. “i like the thrill / of under me you so quite new,” he concludes. The poet’s body changes in response to his lover’s body, his lover’s body changes in response to the changes in his body, his changed body changes in response to the changes in his lover’s body, and so on and on, twining into an ouroboros of mutual reconstruction. [...]
Of course, many mediocre sexual encounters are rote in a more pernicious way. Heterosexual sex that follows the standard scripts, with its spankings and its schoolgirls, is not always devastating or traumatic, but its tiresomeness is nonetheless not innocuous. Women are the most obvious losers when the scenarios faithfully reënacted in the bedroom so consistently favor male predilections, but men who inherit their desires from the prevailing sexual culture—or, worse, men who feel they must satisfy a virile masculine ideal whether it appeals or not—lack the opportunity or the means to develop sexual agency. For both parties, the resultant comedy of errors is not satisfying. What nefariously underwhelming sex has in common with respectfully underwhelming sex is that neither brand is especially surprising or especially erotic.
To have sex erotically—and ethically—is to have it with someone else, and a person demonstrates her difference from the self by being impossible to predict, domesticate, or assimilate to preëxistent fantasy. It is not erotic to impose a ready-made desire onto someone pliant, or to slot her into a fetish that has little to do with her. Eroticism occurs only when someone rewrites us so completely that she rewrites even the quality and content of our appetites, and only when this radical rewriting is reciprocal.
Eroticism does not arise every time there is sexual activity, no matter how plodding, but it is also not the exclusive concomitant of love, marriage, or conventional commitment. Most sexual pairings are no more dishevelling than a game of tennis, but it is constitutive of sex that it has the potential to thrust us into metamorphosis that may be sweet, may be sinister, and may be both concurrently. When at last we grow wings, who can say exactly where we will want to fly?
Can a person consent to dying? Can she consent to a complete renewal, which amounts to the same thing?
Surely she cannot consent in the normal way. To consent in the normal way is not merely to grant permission but to grant permission on a particular basis—perhaps a reasonable expectation of pleasure, security, or safety. In any case, there is some positive inner state to which the outward utterance of license is supposed to correspond. A woman, almost always the presumed consenter in a heterosexual exchange, is exhorted to have sex with someone only when she has good reason to believe that she will have a generally happy time with him. Over and over, she is told: you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do; you don’t have to do anything that makes you uncomfortable. Because she is assumed to know exactly what makes her comfortable, and because comfort is assumed to be a necessary condition of good sex, the procedure the consenter is instructed to follow is not unlike the operation favored by decision theorists. First, she is to imagine what sex with the partner under consideration will be like; second, she is to assign a value to the experience that she has conjured; third, she is to assign a probability of accuracy to her prediction. Having done all this, she finds herself in a position to make a rational decision, consenting if and only if she foresees that an exchange will turn out to be unimpeachably agreeable. Should she prove wrong in her predictions, should she ever feel the slightest scintilla of unease, she should withdraw her consent and beat a hasty retreat.
Three faulty assumptions are baked into this model. The first is that people in general, thus women in particular, can predict, if roughly, what a prospective partner will be like during sex; the second is that people in general, thus women in particular, can predict what they will be like during sex with a prospective partner; the third is that sex can and should be comfortable.
In fact, we are not impermeable packages of preformed desires, importing our likes and dislikes around with us from one encounter to the next like papers in a briefcase. An erotic craving is inextricable from the ferment that foams up when oneself is sluiced into another. Not only is it impossible for us to know whether an encounter will be deflating or transformative but we cannot know what sort of metamorphosis will ensue if the sex is as jarring as we can only hope it will be. We can have no more success when it comes to divining how we will change our partners than we can have when it comes to divining how they will change us—or, following Cummings, how their changes will change us, and how our changes will change them, iteratively and indefinitely. Maybe we will grow the wings of cherubs, but maybe we will find ourselves meshed with the coarse bristles of gigantic flies. All we can say with certainty is that sometimes, when it is working, sex carves out new bodies for our bodies, and these bodies can be both better and more brutal than the ones we could invent alone.
From Cronenberg’s fever dreams, we can surmise that there is a further reason to reject the decision-theoretic model of consent: not only is it impossible for us to know what we will become if an erotic encounter is transformative but we should not want to. To determine in advance what a transformative experience will churn into existence is to sap its power, for the very essence of transformative experience is that we cannot predict how it will transform us. To be sure, it is uncomfortable to stand on the precipice of metamorphosis, but unless we are willing to assume genuine risk we cannot be undone and remade.
Writing of the conservative fear of sexual deviance, the feminist cultural anthropologist Gayle Rubin notes that we are bent on drawing a line between “sexual order and chaos.” The line in question “expresses the fear that if anything is permitted to cross this erotic DMZ, the barrier against scary sex will crumble and something unspeakable will skitter across.” Conservatives are right. If the gender binary melts away, if heterosexuality is no longer the default assumption, if parasites enter the building and dismantle the tenants, something unspeakable will skitter across—and that is the point of any erotic effusion worth pursuing.
by Becca Rothfeld, New Yorker | Read more:
Image: SillDA
[ed. On the movies of David Cronenberg; body horror and eroticism.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)