Tuesday, April 15, 2025
What’s More Vacuous Than An Endless Vacuum?
Well, I watched every second of the buildup, flight and aftermath of the first Blue Origin all-female space trip. You’ve heard of one small step for man? This was one giant leap backwards for womankind. I’m kidding, I’m kidding! What could be more empowering or something than watching Lauren Sánchez make going to space sound like brunch with the girrrrrls. Sally Ride could never.
Anyway, if you missed this, Jeff Bezos’s fiancee took an 11-minute trip to the edge of space on one of his Blue Origin craft on Monday, alongside some all-female passengers – sorry, “crew” – who included CBS anchor Gayle King and pop star Katy Perry. So yes: the Woman’s World video is no longer the most plastic feminist thing Katy’s done.Given the mixture of freebie rides and seats sold to the super-rich, the thing people always say about Blue Origin tickets is that prices range from zero to $28m dollars. A bit like a seat on a RyanAir flight to Tallinn. But these spots were all personally gifted by Bezos and Sánchez because this was an Important Mission. Which also meant the whole thing was exclusively documented by Blue Origin’s Pravda-like web channel. Here, the anchors and reporters kept explaining that – unlike when men went to space in the past – this mission was all about emotions. But look, it’s great that we’re valorising emotions above all things, because it gives me permission to say how very much I hated this entire, hilariously vacuous spectacle.
Lauren already bills herself as a children’s author, helicopter pilot, journalist and philanthropist, and kept being told she was adding “astronaut” to the world’s longest multi-hyphenate. How did she find the trip? “I don’t really have the words for this, like … ?” OK but can you at least try? “I can’t put it into words but I looked out the window and we got to see the moon.”
Back at the viewing platform in the West Texas desert, commentary was provided by, among others, Kris Jenner and a bottom-tier Kardashian (Khloé). Khloé glossed the moment of landing with the words: “it’s literally so hard to explain right now”. Other insights? “There’s one woman whose grandfather is back there and he is 92 and they didn’t even have transportation back then.” I mean, the guy was literally pre-horse. Historic scenes.
Amid extremely stiff competition, the most hardcore gibberish emanated from Perry, who served up an entire word salad bar involving the “feminine divine” and being “super-connected to love”. “It’s about making space for future woman,” she explained. “It’s about taking up space.” Imagine going to actual space and talking instead about therapy-speak “space”. When Buzz Aldrin beheld the surface of the moon, he described it as “magnificent desolation”. Honestly, if he wanted to feel desolation he could have just tuned into this corner of West Texas on Monday afternoon. When a Stem advocate came for her post-flight interview, we got to see the apparently lobotomised reporter shriek: “How do you look perfect after just going to space?!”
In truth, how the women looked had been an overwhelming part of the buildup, and by their own design. In an Elle magazine joint interview with the passengers, Lauren showed off the hot space suits she’d personally commissioned, inquiring rhetorically: “Who would not get glam before the flight?” “Space is going to finally be glam,” agreed Perry. “Let me tell you something. If I could take glam up with me, I would do that. We are going to put the ‘ass’ in astronaut.” A former Nasa rocket scientist said: “I also wanted to test out my hair and make sure that it was OK. So I skydived in Dubai with similar hair to make sure I would be good – took it for a dry run.” Still want more? Because there was SO much of it. “We’re going to have lash extensions flying in the capsule!” explained Lauren. “I think it’s so important for people to see us like that,” explained a civil rights activist. “This dichotomy of engineer and scientist, and then beauty and fashion. We contain multitudes. Women are multitudes. I’m going to be wearing lipstick.”
Ooof. I always thought space travel was futuristic, but this was the first time it came off as travelling back in time, in this case using their little capsule to take us back to the most ludicrous inanities of 2010s girlboss feminism.
by Marina Hyde, The Guardian | Read more:
Image: YouTube
[ed. Can't even generate the energy to cringe. Everything is so sad.]
Monday, April 14, 2025
Normalcy Bias
Normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a cognitive bias which leads people to disbelieve or minimize threat warnings. Consequently, individuals underestimate the likelihood of a disaster, when it might affect them, and its potential adverse effects. The normalcy bias causes many people to prepare inadequately for natural disasters, market crashes, and calamities caused by human error. About 80% of people reportedly display normalcy bias during a disaster.
The normalcy bias can manifest in response to warnings about disasters and actual catastrophes. Such events can range in scale from incidents such as traffic collisions to global catastrophic risk. The event may involve social constructionism phenomena such as loss of money in market crashes, or direct threats to continuity of life: as in natural disasters like a tsunami or violence in war.
Normalcy bias has also been called analysis paralysis, the ostrich effect, and by first responders, the negative panic. The opposite of normalcy bias is overreaction, or worst-case scenario bias, in which small deviations from normality are dealt with as signals of an impending catastrophe.
Phases
Amanda Ripley, author of The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes – and Why, identifies common response patterns of people in disasters and explains that there are three phases of response: "denial, deliberation, and the decisive moment". With regard to the first phase, described as "denial", Ripley found that people were likely to deny that a disaster was happening. It takes time for the brain to process information and recognize that a disaster is a threat. In the "deliberation" phase, people have to decide what to do. If a person does not have a plan in place, this causes a serious problem because the effects of life-threatening stress on the body (e.g. tunnel vision, audio exclusion, time dilations, out-of-body experiences, or reduced motor skills) limit an individual's ability to perceive information and make plans. Ripley asserts that in the third and final phase, described as the "decisive moment", a person must act quickly and decisively. Failure to do so can result in injury or death. She explains that the faster someone can get through the denial and deliberation phases, the quicker they will reach the decisive moment and begin to take action.
The normalcy bias can manifest in response to warnings about disasters and actual catastrophes. Such events can range in scale from incidents such as traffic collisions to global catastrophic risk. The event may involve social constructionism phenomena such as loss of money in market crashes, or direct threats to continuity of life: as in natural disasters like a tsunami or violence in war.
Normalcy bias has also been called analysis paralysis, the ostrich effect, and by first responders, the negative panic. The opposite of normalcy bias is overreaction, or worst-case scenario bias, in which small deviations from normality are dealt with as signals of an impending catastrophe.
Phases
Amanda Ripley, author of The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes – and Why, identifies common response patterns of people in disasters and explains that there are three phases of response: "denial, deliberation, and the decisive moment". With regard to the first phase, described as "denial", Ripley found that people were likely to deny that a disaster was happening. It takes time for the brain to process information and recognize that a disaster is a threat. In the "deliberation" phase, people have to decide what to do. If a person does not have a plan in place, this causes a serious problem because the effects of life-threatening stress on the body (e.g. tunnel vision, audio exclusion, time dilations, out-of-body experiences, or reduced motor skills) limit an individual's ability to perceive information and make plans. Ripley asserts that in the third and final phase, described as the "decisive moment", a person must act quickly and decisively. Failure to do so can result in injury or death. She explains that the faster someone can get through the denial and deliberation phases, the quicker they will reach the decisive moment and begin to take action.
by Wikipedia | Read more:
Welcome to Nightmarica
I still remember back in 2002, when the Bush administration declared Jose Padilla an “enemy combatant” and deprived him of his legal right to trial. It was a national outrage, and rightly so. But now, 23 years later, the Trump administration is committing even worse violations of basic American civil liberties. Trump has rounded up and deported a number of Venezuelan citizens to brutal El Salvadoran prisons, accusing them of being in the gang Tren de Aragua based on nothing more than the fact that they have tattoos. In one case, makeup artist Andry Romero was deported based solely on the fact that he had a tattoo of crowns (which the administration thought was a gang symbol) on top of the names of his mom and dad.
But that’s hardly the worst case! The Trump administration also deported a man named Abrego Garcia to El Salvador completely by accident, then claimed they didn’t have the ability to bring him back:
The error in real life isn’t quite the same as the typo in the movie. But what the Trump administration is trying to do — to seize a hard-working peaceful family man, who has not been accused of any crime, and to throw him into a hellish torture dungeon for the rest of his life — is very similar. Imagine, for a moment, that this was you, or your father. Now see if you can come up with a convincing argument as to why it never will be.
The Supreme Court, presented with the case, ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” Garcia’s return to America, but gave no deadline. The administration is arguing that there’s nothing it can do — that Garcia has to spend the rest of his life in that dungeon because of their mistake.
Is this the America you grew up in? Maybe if your awareness of current events started with Padilla and Guantanamo and the War on Terror, it might feel like the arrests of Garcia and Romero are simply a minor evolution in the saga of American authoritarianism. But I remember a time when this kind of thing felt unthinkable, and was the merely the plot of dystopian fantasies.
But that’s hardly the worst case! The Trump administration also deported a man named Abrego Garcia to El Salvador completely by accident, then claimed they didn’t have the ability to bring him back:
The Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing Monday that it had grabbed a Maryland father with protected legal status and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador, but said that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to order his return from the megaprison where he’s now locked up…This sounds pretty similar to the beginning of the dystopian 1985 movie Brazil, in which an innocent man named Buttle is randomly arrested and killed in prison because of a typo on an arrest warrant for a man named Tuttle:
Abrego Garcia, who is married to a U.S. citizen and has a 5-year-old disabled child who is also a U.S. citizen, has no criminal record in the United States, according to his attorney. The Trump administration does not claim he has a criminal record, but called him a “danger to the community”…
He works full time as a union sheet-metal apprentice, has complied with requirements to check in annually with ICE, and cares for his 5-year-old son, who has autism and a hearing defect, and is unable to communicate verbally.
On March 12, Abrego Garcia had picked up his son after work from the boy’s grandmother’s house when ICE officers stopped the car…Within two days, he had been transferred to an ICE staging facility in Texas…Abrego Garcia’s family has had no contact with him since he was sent to the megaprison in El Salvador, known as CECOT…
“Oopsie,” [Salvadoran President Nayib] Bukele wrote on social media, taunting the judge [who had ordered the Trump administration to stop the deportation flights].
The error in real life isn’t quite the same as the typo in the movie. But what the Trump administration is trying to do — to seize a hard-working peaceful family man, who has not been accused of any crime, and to throw him into a hellish torture dungeon for the rest of his life — is very similar. Imagine, for a moment, that this was you, or your father. Now see if you can come up with a convincing argument as to why it never will be.
The Supreme Court, presented with the case, ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” Garcia’s return to America, but gave no deadline. The administration is arguing that there’s nothing it can do — that Garcia has to spend the rest of his life in that dungeon because of their mistake.
Is this the America you grew up in? Maybe if your awareness of current events started with Padilla and Guantanamo and the War on Terror, it might feel like the arrests of Garcia and Romero are simply a minor evolution in the saga of American authoritarianism. But I remember a time when this kind of thing felt unthinkable, and was the merely the plot of dystopian fantasies.
by Noah Smith, Noahpinion | Read more:
Image: YouTube/Brazil
[ed. Not trying to turn this into an economics or political blog, but there's so much of both to wade through lately. I expect "doomscrolling' will be the word of the year in 2025.]
What Would a Real Anti-China Trade Strategy Look Like?
Trump’s current trade strategy will diminish American power and American technological capability, divide the U.S. from allies and partners, and give China an opening to become the world’s preeminent nation. I still think it’s unlikely that this is intentional; there’s an old adage that you should “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” The haphazard, last-minute, on-again-off-again way that Trump and his team have rolled out their tariff policy, and the fact that Congress has not chosen to use its power to revoke the President’s tariff authority, suggests that stupidity is the main factor in play here.
But in any case, there are obviously some people within the Trump administration and the MAGA movement who would like Trump to produce a trade strategy that helps to contain Chinese power. CEA Chair Stephen Miran has written that “China has chosen to double down on its mercantilist, export-led model to secure marginal income, much to the rest of the world’s consternation.” And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went even further, suggesting that containment of China should be the main goal of U.S. trade policy:
But first, we should think about why we would want to economically pressure China, and what we might hope to accomplish. After all, in an ideal world, countries simply trade with each other and get rich, instead of fighting. And China has plenty of good stuff to offer the world — cool cars, cheap solar panels and batteries, and lots more. Why should we take an adversarial approach to trade with China?
The reason is geopolitics. Singing hymns to the gains from trade doesn’t change the fact that for whatever reason, the leaders of powerful countries sometimes want to dominate or even attack other nations. The world is an ungoverned place, and the balance of power is the only thing that keeps the peace.
Currently, China has become the world’s preeminent manufacturing nation. Its current leaders also think of the U.S. and many of its allies as either rivals or outright enemies. They appear determined to conquer Taiwan, carve off pieces of India, Japan, and the Philippines, and generally use Chinese power to dominate smaller countries. It makes sense to want to weaken China’s ability to do all this, while strengthening the other nations’ capacities to resist it.
The goals of trade policy with China should therefore probably include the following:
In any case, when I talk about economically “containing” China, that’s what I’m talking about. So here’s a list of things we would do if we were serious about that goal. Obviously this list is very, very far away from anything the Trump administration is doing or contemplating. But this is what I think it would take.
Zero trade barriers with any nations other than China
Manufacturers need scale to drive down costs and remain competitive. One reason China’s manufacturers are so formidable — and why American manufacturers were so formidable relative to their rivals 80 years ago — is that they have access to a huge domestic market. Chinese car companies like BYD can sell untold numbers of cars to their billion consumers; this allows those companies to scale up and drive down costs to levels no foreign competitor can match. BYD is currently building a single factory that’s bigger than the city of San Francisco.
Another key factor that makes Chinese manufacturers so powerful is domestic supply chains. Practically everything that goes into a Chinese EV, particularly the battery, the metal, and the chips, is produced in-country. That makes it very quick and easy for Chinese manufacturers to source everything they need, instead of having to struggle to import it from overseas.
It’s inherently very hard for American manufacturers can match those two advantages. The U.S. is much smaller than China — our consumption is larger in dollar terms, but we have far fewer people, and so our companies can’t ship as many units domestically. Chinese people buy about double the number of cars every year that Americans do.
Scott Bessent emerged from this week’s market ructions as a perhaps-unexpected lead trade negotiator, offering a potential scenario for the coming months: US deals with longstanding partners that put pressure on China.This is actually a very realistic goal. Every day that Trump’s tariff chaos makes the U.S. look like a chaotic clown car makes it a less realistic goal, but as of right now, I still think that it would be possible for the U.S. to radically pivot its trade and industrial policies in order to create a coalition of nations that could economically balance, compete with, and even isolate China. And it’s not too hard to imagine what that strategy would look like.
“They’ve been good military allies, not perfect economic allies,” the former hedge fund manager said Wednesday of some of these US friends. At the end of the day, the Trump administration can probably reach an agreement with them. “Then we can approach China as a group,” he said.
The nations Bessent said he’s looking to — Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and India — happen to be neighbors of China. They are countries with which the US could work to isolate China, something that’s been called a “grand encirclement” strategy.
But first, we should think about why we would want to economically pressure China, and what we might hope to accomplish. After all, in an ideal world, countries simply trade with each other and get rich, instead of fighting. And China has plenty of good stuff to offer the world — cool cars, cheap solar panels and batteries, and lots more. Why should we take an adversarial approach to trade with China?
The reason is geopolitics. Singing hymns to the gains from trade doesn’t change the fact that for whatever reason, the leaders of powerful countries sometimes want to dominate or even attack other nations. The world is an ungoverned place, and the balance of power is the only thing that keeps the peace.
Currently, China has become the world’s preeminent manufacturing nation. Its current leaders also think of the U.S. and many of its allies as either rivals or outright enemies. They appear determined to conquer Taiwan, carve off pieces of India, Japan, and the Philippines, and generally use Chinese power to dominate smaller countries. It makes sense to want to weaken China’s ability to do all this, while strengthening the other nations’ capacities to resist it.
The goals of trade policy with China should therefore probably include the following:
- Preventing China from gaining an overwhelming military advantage over other nations
- Reducing China’s ability to exert economic pressure on other nations
- Reducing supply chain vulnerability in nations threatened by China, so that any future conflict with China wouldn’t crash those countries’ economies.
In any case, when I talk about economically “containing” China, that’s what I’m talking about. So here’s a list of things we would do if we were serious about that goal. Obviously this list is very, very far away from anything the Trump administration is doing or contemplating. But this is what I think it would take.
Zero trade barriers with any nations other than China
Manufacturers need scale to drive down costs and remain competitive. One reason China’s manufacturers are so formidable — and why American manufacturers were so formidable relative to their rivals 80 years ago — is that they have access to a huge domestic market. Chinese car companies like BYD can sell untold numbers of cars to their billion consumers; this allows those companies to scale up and drive down costs to levels no foreign competitor can match. BYD is currently building a single factory that’s bigger than the city of San Francisco.
Another key factor that makes Chinese manufacturers so powerful is domestic supply chains. Practically everything that goes into a Chinese EV, particularly the battery, the metal, and the chips, is produced in-country. That makes it very quick and easy for Chinese manufacturers to source everything they need, instead of having to struggle to import it from overseas.
It’s inherently very hard for American manufacturers can match those two advantages. The U.S. is much smaller than China — our consumption is larger in dollar terms, but we have far fewer people, and so our companies can’t ship as many units domestically. Chinese people buy about double the number of cars every year that Americans do.
by Noah Smith, Noahpinion | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. See also: All the arguments for Trump's tariffs are wrong and bad.]
Sunday, April 13, 2025
[ed. Masters Sunday!]
Image: uncredited via
Image: uncredited via
[Wow. What a Rory-coaster. One for the ages. Congratulations Rory!]
What Are Bonds and Their Relationship to Tariffs?
What is a bond?
A bond is a certificate confirming that its owner has lent money to a specified borrower that will be repaid at a fixed date, typically with a fixed rate of interest. Known as fixed-income securities, they appeal to investors who want stable returns.
Corporations issue bonds to borrow money and so do governments – to pay for investments and other expenditures. The UK government’s bonds are called gilts, while US government bonds are known as treasuries, traditionally seen as a safe haven because they are guaranteed by the world’s biggest economy. They are issued with different maturity dates when they must be paid off in full, with two-year, 10-year and 30-year bonds being common.
How are they traded?
Bonds can be bought and sold like shares on a secondary market – an exchange – but, unlike shares, they offer guaranteed annual returns. The bond market is the world’s biggest securities exchange, worth almost $130tn (£99tn), with the US market accounting for about 40% of debt worldwide.
Government bonds are usually sold to financial institutions in auctions, and can then be resold on the secondary market for more or less than their face value.
What is a bond yield?
Bond yields represent the amount of money an investor receives for owning the debt as a percentage of its current price. When the price of a bond falls, yields rise. The yield is commonly referred to as an interest rate, or the cost of borrowing to an issuer.
Rising yields suggest dwindling appetite to own the debt among investors, which can be influenced by a range of factors including an issuer’s ability to repay. For governments, this centres on the prospects for the country’s economy and finances.
Inflation expectations also have a significant impact. This is because inflation undercuts the future value of money received for owning the debt. This means investors could demand a higher yield to compensate for the risk.
And because other financial products, such as mortgages, are priced off the yield, there is a spillover into the broader economy.
What have Trump’s tariffs done to bonds?
At first the US president considered his tariff plan to be working, having anticipated stock markets would react badly to tariffs and the dollar would fall.
Trump was sure the bond market would remain calm because he promised to pay for tax cuts later in the year with revenues from tariffs, meaning the US government could limit the number of bonds it issues, keeping supply and demand in sync and putting a cap on overall government debt levels.
However, the tariff war has prompted fears of a US recession, making it riskier to lend to the US. There are concerns that the US will become locked in a titanic struggle with China, which would damage both economies over a long period and drag down global growth.
In response, investors have sold US bonds in huge quantities, driving down their value and sending the yield higher, making future government debt more expensive to issue.
Where did this leave Trump?
There was a fear in the White House that paying a higher interest rate on national debt would increase the government’s annual spending deficit, adding pressure to an already stretched budget and increasing the overall debt mountain.
Worse, the $29tn market in US treasuries is the bedrock of the global financial system and heavy selling could put pressure on other parts of it, forcing banks or other institutions to default and causing a wider financial crisis.
by Phillip Inman, The Guardian | Read more:
Image: Richard Drew/AP
[ed. If you read this and the following post you'll be smarter than 90 percent of the people in the country. As for what this all means going forward, the essay on Pax Americana (below) should not be missed. See also: What is the National Debt Costing Us? (PPF:]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that interest payments will total $952 billion in fiscal year 2025 and rise rapidly throughout the next decade — climbing from $1 trillion in 2026 to $1.8 trillion in 2035. In total, net interest payments will total $13.8 trillion over the next decade. Relative to the size of the economy, interest costs in 2026 would exceed the post-World War II high of 3.2 percent from 1991. Such costs would rise to 4.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2035, if current law remains the same.
The federal government already spends more on interest than on budget areas such as:
A bond is a certificate confirming that its owner has lent money to a specified borrower that will be repaid at a fixed date, typically with a fixed rate of interest. Known as fixed-income securities, they appeal to investors who want stable returns.
Corporations issue bonds to borrow money and so do governments – to pay for investments and other expenditures. The UK government’s bonds are called gilts, while US government bonds are known as treasuries, traditionally seen as a safe haven because they are guaranteed by the world’s biggest economy. They are issued with different maturity dates when they must be paid off in full, with two-year, 10-year and 30-year bonds being common.
How are they traded?
Bonds can be bought and sold like shares on a secondary market – an exchange – but, unlike shares, they offer guaranteed annual returns. The bond market is the world’s biggest securities exchange, worth almost $130tn (£99tn), with the US market accounting for about 40% of debt worldwide.
Government bonds are usually sold to financial institutions in auctions, and can then be resold on the secondary market for more or less than their face value.
What is a bond yield?
Bond yields represent the amount of money an investor receives for owning the debt as a percentage of its current price. When the price of a bond falls, yields rise. The yield is commonly referred to as an interest rate, or the cost of borrowing to an issuer.
Rising yields suggest dwindling appetite to own the debt among investors, which can be influenced by a range of factors including an issuer’s ability to repay. For governments, this centres on the prospects for the country’s economy and finances.
Inflation expectations also have a significant impact. This is because inflation undercuts the future value of money received for owning the debt. This means investors could demand a higher yield to compensate for the risk.
And because other financial products, such as mortgages, are priced off the yield, there is a spillover into the broader economy.
What have Trump’s tariffs done to bonds?
At first the US president considered his tariff plan to be working, having anticipated stock markets would react badly to tariffs and the dollar would fall.
Trump was sure the bond market would remain calm because he promised to pay for tax cuts later in the year with revenues from tariffs, meaning the US government could limit the number of bonds it issues, keeping supply and demand in sync and putting a cap on overall government debt levels.
However, the tariff war has prompted fears of a US recession, making it riskier to lend to the US. There are concerns that the US will become locked in a titanic struggle with China, which would damage both economies over a long period and drag down global growth.
In response, investors have sold US bonds in huge quantities, driving down their value and sending the yield higher, making future government debt more expensive to issue.
Where did this leave Trump?
There was a fear in the White House that paying a higher interest rate on national debt would increase the government’s annual spending deficit, adding pressure to an already stretched budget and increasing the overall debt mountain.
Worse, the $29tn market in US treasuries is the bedrock of the global financial system and heavy selling could put pressure on other parts of it, forcing banks or other institutions to default and causing a wider financial crisis.
by Phillip Inman, The Guardian | Read more:
Image: Richard Drew/AP
[ed. If you read this and the following post you'll be smarter than 90 percent of the people in the country. As for what this all means going forward, the essay on Pax Americana (below) should not be missed. See also: What is the National Debt Costing Us? (PPF:]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that interest payments will total $952 billion in fiscal year 2025 and rise rapidly throughout the next decade — climbing from $1 trillion in 2026 to $1.8 trillion in 2035. In total, net interest payments will total $13.8 trillion over the next decade. Relative to the size of the economy, interest costs in 2026 would exceed the post-World War II high of 3.2 percent from 1991. Such costs would rise to 4.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2035, if current law remains the same.
The federal government already spends more on interest than on budget areas such as:
- Defense
- Medicaid
- Federal spending on children
- Income security programs, which include programs targeted to lower-income Americans such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; earned income, child, and other tax credits
- Veterans’ benefits
The Long Battle Over the Strength of America’s Federal Government
In July 1776, delegates from the 13 British colonies in North America unanimously declared their independence from Great Britain, asserting that each of the united colonies was “and of right ought to be free and independent states.” Within months, on the recommendation of those delegates, each of the 13 colonies established state governments. The delegates also directed a committee to formulate a plan for a national government. That committee proposed a confederation of the several states. The national government would have limited control of the foreign policy of the member states, and significant taxation would be possible only on the unanimous approval of all states. After considerable debate, all the states approved creation of that government, which we know as the Articles of Confederation.
It was a weak vessel for a national government, and it soon showed its impotence. A group of concerned leaders, fearing that the new nation would not survive rancorous competition among the several states and also the Articles of Confederation government’s inability to quell separatist movements, moved to form a new, stronger government. Among them were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson. The convention of elected delegates generated by their concern produced the U.S. Constitution of 1787, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the states, “in Order to form a more perfect Union” established a strong central government.
But ratification was by no means assured, for strong cohorts in nearly every state opposed establishing a strong, central government. These people feared a virile government with significant power. Some knew they would lose powerful positions in their states. Others worried that certain basic rights would be disregarded. For many of the others, their opposition reflected a visceral aversion to any constraint on their freedom to do as they chose. This strain of rejection of any potential limit on individual freedom would live throughout the history of American political culture right down to today.
Supporters of ratification, calling themselves Federalists, worked tirelessly to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to accept the new Constitution. Hamilton, Madison and John Jay wrote supporting essays in various newspapers explaining and justifying virtually every aspect of the document; we know these today as the Federalist Papers. But it was touch-and-go. Rhode Island was the only state to outright reject the Constitution, though eventually voters there did change direction and ratified. But in the most critical states, ones without which the new nation would not have been tenable, the vote was extremely close: in Massachusetts 187-168; in Virginia 89-79; in New York 30-27. For a good many Americans, a strong, central government was a fearful thing, and always would be.
In the 1820s, for example, Andrew Jackson won the presidency in large part by attacking the leadership of the government for having too much power, and once in office, made war against the central bank Congress had created. Later, determination that the central government should not dictate that individuals could not own slaves nearly broke the nation, leading to the secession of southern states and the Civil War of the 1860s. Industrialization in the decades after the Civil War generated extraordinary fortunes for bankers and corporate magnates who jealously guarded their right to do as they wished, including exploiting labor and endangering consumers with impure food and drugs. Most national wealth was concentrated in a small percentage of the population while many struggled to afford basic food, shelter and clothing. Reaction to such individualism led to Progressive reform at the turn of the 20th century, reforms fought by those who objected to federal power.
The 1920s saw renewed individualism as bankers and financial entrepreneurs speculated wildly with consumer deposits and borrowed capital. The Great Depression that resulted brought privation and suffering to huge numbers of Americans, leading to New Deal legislation to rescue and protect ordinary citizens.
After World War II, those fearing big government and international cooperation sought to undo the New Deal reforms. But Republican President Dwight Eisenhower mandated that those reforms would stay in place, including Social Security and protection of bank deposits, and such post-war institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Today, those determined to destroy the power of the central, national government and exercise a freedom insensitive to the chaos and suffering their freedom has imposed on others are in the ascendency. We should remember, though, that each resurgence of unfettered individualism in our history has generated confusion and disarray, and has led to a renewed effort to empower government to provide protection and services for ordinary Americans.
There is every reason to expect the same renewed empowerment again as people regather their strength and support new government safeguards that “to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
But ratification was by no means assured, for strong cohorts in nearly every state opposed establishing a strong, central government. These people feared a virile government with significant power. Some knew they would lose powerful positions in their states. Others worried that certain basic rights would be disregarded. For many of the others, their opposition reflected a visceral aversion to any constraint on their freedom to do as they chose. This strain of rejection of any potential limit on individual freedom would live throughout the history of American political culture right down to today.
Supporters of ratification, calling themselves Federalists, worked tirelessly to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to accept the new Constitution. Hamilton, Madison and John Jay wrote supporting essays in various newspapers explaining and justifying virtually every aspect of the document; we know these today as the Federalist Papers. But it was touch-and-go. Rhode Island was the only state to outright reject the Constitution, though eventually voters there did change direction and ratified. But in the most critical states, ones without which the new nation would not have been tenable, the vote was extremely close: in Massachusetts 187-168; in Virginia 89-79; in New York 30-27. For a good many Americans, a strong, central government was a fearful thing, and always would be.
In the 1820s, for example, Andrew Jackson won the presidency in large part by attacking the leadership of the government for having too much power, and once in office, made war against the central bank Congress had created. Later, determination that the central government should not dictate that individuals could not own slaves nearly broke the nation, leading to the secession of southern states and the Civil War of the 1860s. Industrialization in the decades after the Civil War generated extraordinary fortunes for bankers and corporate magnates who jealously guarded their right to do as they wished, including exploiting labor and endangering consumers with impure food and drugs. Most national wealth was concentrated in a small percentage of the population while many struggled to afford basic food, shelter and clothing. Reaction to such individualism led to Progressive reform at the turn of the 20th century, reforms fought by those who objected to federal power.
The 1920s saw renewed individualism as bankers and financial entrepreneurs speculated wildly with consumer deposits and borrowed capital. The Great Depression that resulted brought privation and suffering to huge numbers of Americans, leading to New Deal legislation to rescue and protect ordinary citizens.
After World War II, those fearing big government and international cooperation sought to undo the New Deal reforms. But Republican President Dwight Eisenhower mandated that those reforms would stay in place, including Social Security and protection of bank deposits, and such post-war institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Today, those determined to destroy the power of the central, national government and exercise a freedom insensitive to the chaos and suffering their freedom has imposed on others are in the ascendency. We should remember, though, that each resurgence of unfettered individualism in our history has generated confusion and disarray, and has led to a renewed effort to empower government to provide protection and services for ordinary Americans.
There is every reason to expect the same renewed empowerment again as people regather their strength and support new government safeguards that “to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
by Steve Haycox, Anchorage Daily News | Read more:
Image: iStock/Getty
[ed. It probably took about three minutes to read this, and there's a tsunami of history behind each link. Why aren't civics classes being taught or given more attention in schools these days?]
Friday, April 11, 2025
Crashing the Car of Pax Americana
[ed. Excellent.]
AND the truth is that the purpose of government is not efficiency for efficiency’s sake. AND the truth is that the quality of mercy is not strained and neither is due process, so that justice may be sure but never cruel. AND the truth is that spending money to curry political favor abroad through
This underlying global system has a name. It’s called Pax Americana.
- Pax Americana is the Bretton Woods monetary system and the Plaza Accords and the SWIFT banking system and the unquestioned dominance of the USD as the world’s reserve currency.
- Pax Americana is the NATO alliance and the Pacific Fleet and CENTCOM and the NSA and the unquestioned dominance of the US military as the world’s security arbiter.
- Pax Americana is the American brands, American universities, American entrepreneurialism, and most of all the American stories that have dominated the hearts and minds of everyone on Earth for the past 50 years.
- Pax Americana is the ability of the United States to set the rules for every coordination game in the world. The rules of trade, the rules of intellectual property, the rules of money, the rules of culture, the rules of war … all of those rules were made by us. Only by us! And in return we gave the rest of the world two things: global peace (pretty much) enforced by a blue-water navy with force projection capabilities anywhere in the world, and unfettered access (pretty much) to the buying power of the American consumer.
The results of Pax Americana?
- The United States has seen more than 300 million citizens lifted into the highest standard of living in the history of the world, as we have exchanged intangible things like services and the full faith and credit of the US government for tangible things like oil and semiconductors and food at an unimaginable scale.
- The world has seen more than a billion people lifted out of crushing poverty, mostly in China and India but everywhere else, too, as the capacity to make tangible things has shifted permanently (yes, permanently) from West to East.
My strong, unwavering belief is that Pax Americana is a damn good deal for the United States AND the world, especially as American leadership in AI opens up an entirely new realm of intangible things that the United States can trade for tangible things. Is it a perfect deal for the United States? No. Do other countries free ride on our provision of security and an end-market of the American consumer? Absolutely. Has the system been internally captured by oligarchs and professional politicians, so that the distribution of this great wealth flowing to the United States goes less and less to ‘average’ Americans? 100%. Should we aggressively prune and reform the Pax Americana system? Should we root out its foreign free riders and domestic leeches? Yes, please!
But that’s not what this Administration believes. Neither Donald Trump nor his key advisors believe that Pax Americana is a good deal at all, much less a damn good deal like I believe. They believe the United States is being cheated and taken advantage of without end, both internationally and domestically. They don’t want to fix the Pax Americana regime of coordination through multilateral rule-setting. They want to blow up the entire deal and replace it with an America First regime of competition through bilateral engagement.
I appreciate their frustration. I share a lot of it. But I am desperately opposed to crashing the Pax Americana car, Annie Hall style, because the America First system that this Administration wants to have as a replacement is not a stable system that is possible to have as a replacement. The end result of blowing up Pax Americana and its – yes – globalist system of rules and institutions and alliances that coordinates the flow of capital, labor, goods, services and culture without ‘winning’ any head-to-head relationship will be a system that is both worse for the United States AND the world. Here’s why:
But that’s not what this Administration believes. Neither Donald Trump nor his key advisors believe that Pax Americana is a good deal at all, much less a damn good deal like I believe. They believe the United States is being cheated and taken advantage of without end, both internationally and domestically. They don’t want to fix the Pax Americana regime of coordination through multilateral rule-setting. They want to blow up the entire deal and replace it with an America First regime of competition through bilateral engagement.
I appreciate their frustration. I share a lot of it. But I am desperately opposed to crashing the Pax Americana car, Annie Hall style, because the America First system that this Administration wants to have as a replacement is not a stable system that is possible to have as a replacement. The end result of blowing up Pax Americana and its – yes – globalist system of rules and institutions and alliances that coordinates the flow of capital, labor, goods, services and culture without ‘winning’ any head-to-head relationship will be a system that is both worse for the United States AND the world. Here’s why:
[ed. From the comments:]
***
I spent almost eight years working in the Appalachian Basin. You have no idea just how bad it is and how deep the pain runs. (You also probably don’t know just how hilariously well armed the Amish are in that part of Ohio; some of those guys could put on a gun show by doing nothing more than opening their barn doors)When the shale boom came it brought with it billions of dollars of absolutely free money that was handed out in exchange for what the residents previously believed was damn near worthless land. Tens of billions flowed from the ground and into the pockets of landowners. All the hotels and motels were full every night for years. Every restaurant was packed day and night. Energy companies paved roads, donated to every local community organization, soccer team, bought every animal from every 4H kid at every county fair. Every county courthouse was filled with landmen who spent all day making copies of deed records, at 25¢ a page. Thousands of pages, by 15-20 guys, every day. The Recorder’s office was running a machine that spat out $5,000/d, every day, for months. Companies cut checks directly to the county for expanded hours so their people could work before and after regular closing times. They paid tens of thousands for a few extra hours a day over the course of a few months. Government revenues ballooned.
Then what happened?
Hundreds of good paying jobs were created overnight…and most went to workers from Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, not Ohio or Pennsylvania. Know why? Nobody could pass a drug test. No, I’m not shitting you. I had a friend who had a wireline company and he tried to hire two locals. Both didn’t even show up for the drug test. That was the last time he bothered to even advertise his job opening in the area. He hired professionals from out of state. Less hassle.
Before a single cubic foot of gas or barrel of oil came out of the ground the local Ford dealership made news as it catapulted to the top of the list of highest volume dealers in the state. It seemed like every farm large and small had a new F-150 in the gravel driveway.
The casinos across the river had multiple record years in a row after a decade of a slow decline. Strip clubs boomed.
And nobody really built anything. The families who were rich before were simply even more rich after. One prominent local attorney—whose conduct would have gotten him disbarred in any other place—tightened his grip on the area, and after a particularly major payout bought a second home in Lake Como, Italy.
The old men dying of black lung kept on dying. The young men continued their drift into addiction, which had started to take hold years before that. Crime went up despite poverty going down.
The local wastewater treatment plants were at least smart enough to make deals with the service companies to clean the used frac water. Again, government receipts grew, but how much of that made it to the people? (Not much)
Nobody bothered to clean up the brownfields and open a new facility making drill pipe. That ended up happening an hour north instead. It took two years for the owner of a previously defunct gravel yard to open back up, despite the fact that he was sitting on a gold mine. (I know this because I tried to buy part of it from him and he not only wouldn’t sell but quite literally did not understand the magnitude of what was about to happen)
Very little changed because the people didn’t want anything to change. Many of them talked about Weirton Steel as if it was still 1981, and cursed the foreigners (ArcelorMittal) who owned what was left of it. (And in a small twist of irony the man who bought that bankrupt company off of the employees in 2002–for a hilariously low ball price—would go on to be the Secretary of Commerce under the first term of the president that they voted for in overwhelming numbers) It’s been 15 years of oil and gas money steadily flowing to the area, and nothing has changed. The complaint that “there aren’t any jobs” is old enough to drink. Some people had the good sense to leave. Everyone else was just more comfortable staying and watching everything die.
I’m not unsympathetic, but the way these folks are talked about—and talk about themselves—you’d think they had no agency of their own. They think their salvation is just around the corner, if only we’d just blew up every working institution around the globe they’d make it to the other side of this mess. It’s paternalistic horseshit that Trump is selling and they’re lining up around the block to get their wheelbarrow full of it.
Then what happened?
Hundreds of good paying jobs were created overnight…and most went to workers from Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, not Ohio or Pennsylvania. Know why? Nobody could pass a drug test. No, I’m not shitting you. I had a friend who had a wireline company and he tried to hire two locals. Both didn’t even show up for the drug test. That was the last time he bothered to even advertise his job opening in the area. He hired professionals from out of state. Less hassle.
Before a single cubic foot of gas or barrel of oil came out of the ground the local Ford dealership made news as it catapulted to the top of the list of highest volume dealers in the state. It seemed like every farm large and small had a new F-150 in the gravel driveway.
The casinos across the river had multiple record years in a row after a decade of a slow decline. Strip clubs boomed.
And nobody really built anything. The families who were rich before were simply even more rich after. One prominent local attorney—whose conduct would have gotten him disbarred in any other place—tightened his grip on the area, and after a particularly major payout bought a second home in Lake Como, Italy.
The old men dying of black lung kept on dying. The young men continued their drift into addiction, which had started to take hold years before that. Crime went up despite poverty going down.
The local wastewater treatment plants were at least smart enough to make deals with the service companies to clean the used frac water. Again, government receipts grew, but how much of that made it to the people? (Not much)
Nobody bothered to clean up the brownfields and open a new facility making drill pipe. That ended up happening an hour north instead. It took two years for the owner of a previously defunct gravel yard to open back up, despite the fact that he was sitting on a gold mine. (I know this because I tried to buy part of it from him and he not only wouldn’t sell but quite literally did not understand the magnitude of what was about to happen)
Very little changed because the people didn’t want anything to change. Many of them talked about Weirton Steel as if it was still 1981, and cursed the foreigners (ArcelorMittal) who owned what was left of it. (And in a small twist of irony the man who bought that bankrupt company off of the employees in 2002–for a hilariously low ball price—would go on to be the Secretary of Commerce under the first term of the president that they voted for in overwhelming numbers) It’s been 15 years of oil and gas money steadily flowing to the area, and nothing has changed. The complaint that “there aren’t any jobs” is old enough to drink. Some people had the good sense to leave. Everyone else was just more comfortable staying and watching everything die.
I’m not unsympathetic, but the way these folks are talked about—and talk about themselves—you’d think they had no agency of their own. They think their salvation is just around the corner, if only we’d just blew up every working institution around the globe they’d make it to the other side of this mess. It’s paternalistic horseshit that Trump is selling and they’re lining up around the block to get their wheelbarrow full of it.
Bernhard Langer Gifted One-of-a-Kind Mercedes For Final Augusta National Start
Langer's 2025 outfit (right) was inspired by the all-red look he wore in the final round of his 1985 Masters victory (left)
Perhaps the only feat more impressive than finagling a ticket to Augusta National is making it out of the Masters merchandise tent alive and with everything you want. Forbes reported a few years back that Augusta National makes around $69 million a year off merch alone, $10 million a day throughout the tournament. And yet, as hard as you look and no matter how much money you can offer, there’s one piece of Masters memorabilia that you’ll never be able to buy. Only Bernhard Langer has this, and we’re betting that he’s not giving it up anytime soon.
Yup, that’s a one-of-a-kind Mercedes-Benz S-Class, complete with a green paint job, Masters logos and Langer’s signature. If anyone deserves it (other than me), it’s the two-time Masters champ playing in his final start at Augusta National. The 67-year-old has been a Mercedes ambassador for 40 years now, hence the personalized car that normally runs between $120-190K.
Mercedes labeled it a “one-off handcrafted vehicle,” and the customization, like the 2,800 meticulously embroidered stitches, was all done in-house at the company’s prestigious MANUFAKTUR facility in Sindelfingen, Germany.
“Bernhard is a true golf icon, who has been an integral member of the Mercedes-Benz family for nearly 40 years,” said Bettina Fetzer, Vice President of Mercedes-Benz Digital & Communications. “As we celebrate his extraordinary career, we honor our deep bond with a personalized S-Class crafted especially for him. We’re excited for many more great moments with him on the road ahead."
by Greg Gottfried, Golf Digest | Read more:
Images:Stefan von Stengel, Philipp Ruprecht
[ed. Sweet! A class act all the way. See also (first round): Masters 2025: In seeking to make history, 67-year-old Bernhard Langer put on a scoring masterclass (GD).]
Yup, that’s a one-of-a-kind Mercedes-Benz S-Class, complete with a green paint job, Masters logos and Langer’s signature. If anyone deserves it (other than me), it’s the two-time Masters champ playing in his final start at Augusta National. The 67-year-old has been a Mercedes ambassador for 40 years now, hence the personalized car that normally runs between $120-190K.
Mercedes labeled it a “one-off handcrafted vehicle,” and the customization, like the 2,800 meticulously embroidered stitches, was all done in-house at the company’s prestigious MANUFAKTUR facility in Sindelfingen, Germany.
“Bernhard is a true golf icon, who has been an integral member of the Mercedes-Benz family for nearly 40 years,” said Bettina Fetzer, Vice President of Mercedes-Benz Digital & Communications. “As we celebrate his extraordinary career, we honor our deep bond with a personalized S-Class crafted especially for him. We’re excited for many more great moments with him on the road ahead."
by Greg Gottfried, Golf Digest | Read more:
Images:Stefan von Stengel, Philipp Ruprecht
[ed. Sweet! A class act all the way. See also (first round): Masters 2025: In seeking to make history, 67-year-old Bernhard Langer put on a scoring masterclass (GD).]
Thursday, April 10, 2025
AI On Tariffs
Just out of curiosity, and apropos of nothing, we asked Grok (the AI chatbot created by Elon Musk) the following question: If a president of a superpower wanted to destroy his own country, what steps would he take? Here’s what Grok had to say:
If a president of a superpower aimed to deliberately undermine their own nation, they could theoretically take steps to weaken its economic, social, military, and political foundations. Here’s a hypothetical breakdown of such actions, assuming they have enough influence and control to push them through:
- Economic Sabotage: They could tank the economy by imposing reckless fiscal policies—massive, unsustainable debt through unchecked spending or tax cuts without funding, devaluing the currency by pressuring the central bank to print money excessively, or dismantling key industries through deregulation or punitive tariffs that disrupt trade. Encouraging corruption and cronyism could further drain resources.
- Undermining National Security: Militarily, they might weaken defenses by slashing budgets, pulling out of strategic alliances, or leaking sensitive intelligence to adversaries. Ordering troops into unwinnable, morale-crushing conflicts—or abandoning critical outposts—could erode military strength and global standing.
- Social Division: They could stoke internal conflict by amplifying divisive rhetoric, targeting specific groups with policies that breed resentment, or letting infrastructure and public services crumble to fuel discontent. Misinformation campaigns, either directly or through proxies, could deepen mistrust in institutions.
- Political Erosion: To cripple governance, they might attack the rule of law—pardoning loyalists who break it, stacking courts with unqualified ideologues, or pushing legislation that centralizes power in their hands. Undermining elections through voter suppression or outright fraud could destabilize democracy further.
- International Isolation: They could alienate allies by breaking treaties, insulting partners, or cozying up to hostile regimes, leaving the country diplomatically vulnerable. Withdrawing from global organizations or climate agreements might also diminish soft power and economic leverage.
- Neglecting Crises: In the face of natural disasters, pandemics, or cyberattacks, they could deliberately botch responses—ignoring experts, withholding aid, or spreading confusion—letting chaos compound.
by Open Culture | Read more:
***
Suppose the US imposed tariffs on other countries in an effort to reduce bilateral trade deficits to zero using the formula for the tariff of (exports-imports)/imports. What do you estimate would be the consequences of such a policy?Answer (O1 Pro):
A tariff schedule keyed to bilateral deficits—imposing a rate equal to (US exports − US imports) / US imports—would be extremely disruptive and unlikely to achieve its goal. Key points:
1. Immediate Impact on Prices and Supply Chains
- If the US imports more than it exports from a given country, (exports − imports) is negative, making the tariff percentage negative unless the formula is modified (e.g., by absolute value). In practice, one would presumably set a positive tariff aimed at closing the bilateral gap.
- Such high tariffs would sharply raise import prices for both consumers and firms reliant on foreign inputs. It would encourage attempts to switch suppliers but at the cost of disrupting supply chains and increasing production expenses.
- Targeted countries would almost certainly retaliate with their own tariffs. Retaliation would damage US export sectors—especially agriculture and high-value manufacturing—and risk a broader trade war.
- Countries with a US trade surplus would apply punitive measures that shift US business to alternative suppliers, undermining the very exports the policy is meant to foster.
- Bilateral imbalances reflect global production patterns, comparative advantage, and macro factors like savings–investment imbalances and currency flows. A country that persistently imports more overall does so because it’s running a capital account surplus. Tariffs don’t fundamentally alter that global saving–investment arithmetic.
- If the US still runs an overall current account deficit, restricting imports from some countries will simply shift deficits to others. Global supply chains will rearrange, but the total US deficit will be largely unchanged.
- Such a policy almost certainly violates WTO rules, since it imposes discriminatory tariffs based on bilateral imbalances. The resulting litigation and sanctions would add more uncertainty.
- Economically, the net effect is negative. Costs rise for US consumers and US manufacturers reliant on imported inputs. Retaliatory measures reduce export opportunities. Overall trade volume shrinks. Growth slows, and no fundamental improvement in the US external balance occurs.
by Alex Tabarrok, Marginal Revolution | Read more:
[ed. Any Questions? See also: America Underestimates the Difficulty of Bringing Manufacturing Back (Molson Hart/X); and, All the arguments for Trump's tariffs are wrong and bad (Noahpion).]
ICE, ICE Barbie
Noem—who is known to always be ready for a photo-op anywhere from an El Salvador prison to the U.S. border—has worn many questionable outfits since becoming the Homeland Security Secretary earlier this year. But she drew intense ire after holding a gun barrel directly at a law enforcement official’s head for a photo. (...)
Right-wing commentators appear to be growing increasingly tired of Noem’s cosplay with many calling for her to tone it down.
Megyn Kelly called on Noem to stop with the photo-ops on her podcast this week.
“Stop trying to glamorize the mission and put yourself in the middle of it as you cosplay an ICE agent, which you’re not,” she said. “She’s out in the field, with her gun, being like ‘we’re going to go kick some a**. No one wants you there!
Noem, however, is defending her outfits—which have included a firefighter, pilot, ICE agent, cowgirl, and now law enforcement officer complete with a rifle at the ready.
by Amethyst Martinez, Daily Beast | Read more:[ed. Cat fight. Apparently these are conservative commentators or something. Are they all named Meghan/Megyn?]
An Advance in Brain Research That Was Once Considered Impossible
Scientists achieved “a milestone” by charting the activity and structure of 200,000 cells in a mouse brain and their 523 million connections.
The human brain is so complex that scientific brains have a hard time making sense of it. A piece of neural tissue the size of a grain of sand might be packed with hundreds of thousands of cells linked together by miles of wiring. In 1979, Francis Crick, the Nobel-prize-winning scientist, concluded that the anatomy and activity in just a cubic millimeter of brain matter would forever exceed our understanding.
“It is no use asking for the impossible,” Dr. Crick wrote.
Forty-six years later, a team of more than 100 scientists has achieved that impossible, by recording the cellular activity and mapping the structure in a cubic millimeter of a mouse’s brain — less than one percent of its full volume. In accomplishing this feat, they amassed 1.6 petabytes of data — the equivalent of 22 years of nonstop high-definition video. (...)
In 2016, the American government began a $100 million effort to scan a cubic millimeter of a mouse brain. The project — called Machine Intelligence from Cortical Networks, or MICrONS — was led by scientists at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, Princeton University and Baylor College of Medicine.
The researchers zeroed in on a portion of the mouse brain that receives signals from the eyes and reconstructs what the animal sees. In the first stage of the research, the team recorded the activity of neurons in that region as it showed a mouse videos of different landscapes.
The researchers then dissected the mouse brain and doused the cubic millimeter with hardening chemicals. Then they shaved off 28,000 slices from the block of tissue, capturing an image of each one. Computers were trained to recognize the outlines of cells in each slice and link the slices together into three-dimensional shapes. All told, the team charted 200,000 neurons and other types of brain cells, along with 523 million neural connections.
The human brain is so complex that scientific brains have a hard time making sense of it. A piece of neural tissue the size of a grain of sand might be packed with hundreds of thousands of cells linked together by miles of wiring. In 1979, Francis Crick, the Nobel-prize-winning scientist, concluded that the anatomy and activity in just a cubic millimeter of brain matter would forever exceed our understanding.
“It is no use asking for the impossible,” Dr. Crick wrote.
In 2016, the American government began a $100 million effort to scan a cubic millimeter of a mouse brain. The project — called Machine Intelligence from Cortical Networks, or MICrONS — was led by scientists at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, Princeton University and Baylor College of Medicine.
The researchers zeroed in on a portion of the mouse brain that receives signals from the eyes and reconstructs what the animal sees. In the first stage of the research, the team recorded the activity of neurons in that region as it showed a mouse videos of different landscapes.
The researchers then dissected the mouse brain and doused the cubic millimeter with hardening chemicals. Then they shaved off 28,000 slices from the block of tissue, capturing an image of each one. Computers were trained to recognize the outlines of cells in each slice and link the slices together into three-dimensional shapes. All told, the team charted 200,000 neurons and other types of brain cells, along with 523 million neural connections.
by Carl Zimmer, NY Times | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. So, naturally: Trump administration suspends dozens of research grants to Princeton (CNN).]
Poppy Sinks a Long One
[ed. Masters Week. McIlroy's got a good chance if his putting holds up, Poppy's been giving lessons.]
Wednesday, April 9, 2025
'Aloha Isn't Always Being Nice. Aloha Is Being Real'
Kamaka Pili is on a journey.
His lessons on Hawaiian culture are becoming ubiquitous, and his mix of academic research, gracious interviews and unguarded personal stories set him apart from most of the negativity and self-promotion of traditional and social media.
His videos don’t come off as pedantic or hectoring or staged. He makes you feel like he’s letting you in on a valuable piece of information, like he’s offering you a story of great worth. There is a lot of cultural misunderstanding and misappropriation in the world. Pili is offering an antidote.
The inciting incident that called Pili to his current path was a video a friend sent him in 2017 of a kid spray painting the Prince Kūhiō statue in Waikīkī. At first, he got angry. And then he got busy.
“I looked up every email from every television station in town and wrote to them saying ʻIf you took the position of educating people about Hawaiian culture and what Prince Kūhiō did, maybe this sort of thing wouldnʻt happen.’” He let them know he’d be willing to provide that cultural content.
KHON2 responded, and a few months later, he started appearing on the Channel 2 Morning News one day a week doing a segment about the meaning of street names around the islands. He did the gig for free, but it eventually turned into a full-time position doing the weekend weather and reporting on community stories.
Pili, 36, is a 2006 graduate of Kamehameha Schools Kapālama. He went to college at the University of Hawaiʻi Hilo, studying Hawaiian language and graduating with a degree in political science.
After that, he floundered for a while. For two years, he was a dishwasher at Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., eventually working his way up to bartender. “I was taking lomi classes during the day, learning how to heal people, and then mixing drinks, giving them poison at night,” he said.
He started a business making Hawaiian-inspired jewelry and clothing, selling the items at craft fairs. He enjoyed talking to people who came to look at his designs, and would share stories with them. One customer told him he should have his own talk show on ‘Ōlelo Public Access television, and that’s how Aloha Authentic, a brand he still owns, began in 2015.
Another incident around that time shaped how he approached educating people about Hawaiian culture.
He was taking a kapa class, learning how to make cloth from bark fibers in the traditional Hawaiian way, and went hiking into Maunawili Valley to look for a flat stone to use as the base for beating the kapa with a pounding stick. He wore a malo on the hike, his thought being that it was the most natural thing in the world for a Hawaiian to wear traditional Hawaiian clothing to do a traditional Hawaiian thing in a Hawaiian forest.
He came upon a group of hikers who were young, rowdy, and not exactly in the frame of mind to be respectful and peaceful on the trail. They started yelling, laughing and making rude comments about him. Pili stood his ground and said, “You shouldn’t be laughing at this. This is what my ancestors wore. This is Hawaiian and you’re in Hawaiʻi.”
He continued on to the stream bed in the valley. After a while, one of the hikers turned back to find him and offer an apology. “We talked and I explained to him what I was doing,” Pili said. “If I got in a fight, that would have defeated the purpose. Education has to be Step One.”
Aloha Authentic, which started at ‘Ōlelo Community Television and continues on KHON2, is his production company. He continues his jewelry and craft business under the name Naʻau Walaʻau. Up until a few months ago, he was also a hula dancer for Hawaiian Airlines, a job he held for 11 years that took him around the world. Since then, he has expanded his presence on Instagram and Facebook, offering passages from history books he’s just read or lessons from kūpuna.
“Social media is so horrible. I wanted to add more aloha and a feeling of positivity,” he said. (...)
One recent example: Pili sits on the grass beside his great-grandmother’s grave, smiling at the camera. He has a lei for his Tūtū and a story to share with his followers. It’s about how his Tūtū, who died last August at 106, loaned him $2,000 to buy a beat-up car when he was in college. He paid her back $100 a month. When he graduated, his Tūtū came with a gift.
“I opened the envelope and there was $2,000 cash inside, all the money that she lent me which I paid back to her, she gave it to me,” Pili recalled. “For someone who just graduated into the new world, $2,000 meant a lot.”
When he tells stories about himself, they’re often like this. He’s not the hero of the tale, he’s the grateful recipient or is searching for meaning in something he’s been through. He shares stories about being a gay man closeted in his youth. He talks about depression. He talks about God. He talks about not being able to pass third-year Hawaiian language.
“Hawaiians love to share,” he said. “Aloha isn’t always being nice. Aloha is being real.” (...)
His lessons on Hawaiian culture are becoming ubiquitous, and his mix of academic research, gracious interviews and unguarded personal stories set him apart from most of the negativity and self-promotion of traditional and social media.
The inciting incident that called Pili to his current path was a video a friend sent him in 2017 of a kid spray painting the Prince Kūhiō statue in Waikīkī. At first, he got angry. And then he got busy.
“I looked up every email from every television station in town and wrote to them saying ʻIf you took the position of educating people about Hawaiian culture and what Prince Kūhiō did, maybe this sort of thing wouldnʻt happen.’” He let them know he’d be willing to provide that cultural content.
KHON2 responded, and a few months later, he started appearing on the Channel 2 Morning News one day a week doing a segment about the meaning of street names around the islands. He did the gig for free, but it eventually turned into a full-time position doing the weekend weather and reporting on community stories.
Pili, 36, is a 2006 graduate of Kamehameha Schools Kapālama. He went to college at the University of Hawaiʻi Hilo, studying Hawaiian language and graduating with a degree in political science.
After that, he floundered for a while. For two years, he was a dishwasher at Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., eventually working his way up to bartender. “I was taking lomi classes during the day, learning how to heal people, and then mixing drinks, giving them poison at night,” he said.
He started a business making Hawaiian-inspired jewelry and clothing, selling the items at craft fairs. He enjoyed talking to people who came to look at his designs, and would share stories with them. One customer told him he should have his own talk show on ‘Ōlelo Public Access television, and that’s how Aloha Authentic, a brand he still owns, began in 2015.
Another incident around that time shaped how he approached educating people about Hawaiian culture.
He was taking a kapa class, learning how to make cloth from bark fibers in the traditional Hawaiian way, and went hiking into Maunawili Valley to look for a flat stone to use as the base for beating the kapa with a pounding stick. He wore a malo on the hike, his thought being that it was the most natural thing in the world for a Hawaiian to wear traditional Hawaiian clothing to do a traditional Hawaiian thing in a Hawaiian forest.
He came upon a group of hikers who were young, rowdy, and not exactly in the frame of mind to be respectful and peaceful on the trail. They started yelling, laughing and making rude comments about him. Pili stood his ground and said, “You shouldn’t be laughing at this. This is what my ancestors wore. This is Hawaiian and you’re in Hawaiʻi.”
He continued on to the stream bed in the valley. After a while, one of the hikers turned back to find him and offer an apology. “We talked and I explained to him what I was doing,” Pili said. “If I got in a fight, that would have defeated the purpose. Education has to be Step One.”
Aloha Authentic, which started at ‘Ōlelo Community Television and continues on KHON2, is his production company. He continues his jewelry and craft business under the name Naʻau Walaʻau. Up until a few months ago, he was also a hula dancer for Hawaiian Airlines, a job he held for 11 years that took him around the world. Since then, he has expanded his presence on Instagram and Facebook, offering passages from history books he’s just read or lessons from kūpuna.
“Social media is so horrible. I wanted to add more aloha and a feeling of positivity,” he said. (...)
One recent example: Pili sits on the grass beside his great-grandmother’s grave, smiling at the camera. He has a lei for his Tūtū and a story to share with his followers. It’s about how his Tūtū, who died last August at 106, loaned him $2,000 to buy a beat-up car when he was in college. He paid her back $100 a month. When he graduated, his Tūtū came with a gift.
“I opened the envelope and there was $2,000 cash inside, all the money that she lent me which I paid back to her, she gave it to me,” Pili recalled. “For someone who just graduated into the new world, $2,000 meant a lot.”
When he tells stories about himself, they’re often like this. He’s not the hero of the tale, he’s the grateful recipient or is searching for meaning in something he’s been through. He shares stories about being a gay man closeted in his youth. He talks about depression. He talks about God. He talks about not being able to pass third-year Hawaiian language.
“Hawaiians love to share,” he said. “Aloha isn’t always being nice. Aloha is being real.” (...)
“If you look up kuleana in the dictionary, Pukui mentions privilege first and responsibility second. It is my privilege to have this responsibility to share Hawaiian stories.”
by Lee Cataluna, Hononlulu Civil Beat | Read more:
Images: Lee Cataluna/YouTube
[ed. Aloha Authentic home page can be found here.]
[ed. Grew up playing at Queen Emma's summer palace, just up the road.]
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
9 Rules for New Technology
What do you want from new technology? (...)
Wendell Berry provided a list of nine reasonable requirements for new tech back in 1987, and they’re still appropriate today.
Berry’s list is actually more relevant than ever before. And the failure of tech companies to meet his modest demands is now painfully evident to everybody.
It wasn’t always this bad.
Wendell Berry provided a list of nine reasonable requirements for new tech back in 1987, and they’re still appropriate today.
It wasn’t always this bad.
A few years ago, most new technology lived up to many of Berry’s requirements. But not anymore. And the pace of decline gives us a useful way of measuring how poorly we are served by the current generation of technocrats.
Let’s go back to 1987.
Wendell Berry was living on a farm in Kentucky, and did his writing with pen and paper. His wife Tanya would create typewritten drafts of his manuscripts on a Royal standard typewriter purchased in 1956—which was, he insisted, “as good now as it was then.”
But friends told him he needed a computer. It would make it easier to write, they insisted.
In response, Berry came up with his list of nine reasons to embrace new technology. Let’s revisit them, one by one.
Nine Standards for Technological Innovation
(1) The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
This is a very persuasive selling point for new technology. And for most of my life, tech companies worked hard to lower prices.
I still recall my parents scrimping and saving in order to buy a color television when I was seven years old. It cost almost $500—a huge amount in those days.
They probably should have waited. A few months later, RCA dropped prices to $399.
Prices continued to drop in later years. You can buy a high tech TV today at Best Buy for less than what my parents paid in the 1960s.
Computers also got more affordable—at least until recently.
I got my first computer (an Apple IIE) when I was in graduate school—it was an expensive gift from the Boston Consulting Group in exchange for accepting their job offer.
The list price back then was $1,400. I could never have afforded to buy it on my tight student budget.
But, over a period of many years, each subsequent computer I acquired was better and cheaper than my previous model. Alas, that happy trend has now ended.
When I buy a new computer now, I pay more. And the performance is not always better. I recently had to scrap a new desktop after only a few months, and go back to my previous model.
The new computer didn’t work as well as my five-year-old one.
When did new tech stop getting cheaper?
It happened the day Steve Jobs died. Maybe not exactly on that date—but shortly afterwards.
Look at this chart of iPhone prices, adjusted for inflation, and you can see what I mean.
Now let’s go to the second reason to adopt new tech from Wendell Berry’s list.
(2) It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
This is another good reason to upgrade your setup. And tech did get smaller for many decades.
Guess who played a key role in that? Yes, Steve Jobs again. Because of his obsession with product design, we now carry a huge amount of advanced tech in our pocket.
Just consider this remarkable fact: Every device featured in this Radio Shack advertisement from 1991 has been replaced by your tiny phone.
Your smartphone has replaced every one of these devices.
But this, too, changed soon after Jobs died. (Are you noticing a pattern here?)
The thinnest iPhone ever was the iPhone 6 (2014)—at a slim 6.9mm. The company continued to launch ‘mini’ models for a few years, but stopped after iPhone 13.
Tech is now bulking up. It’s not just the devices—wait until you see those AI data centers. A single facility can spread over two kilometers.
(3) It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.
This is the most obvious requirement for new tech. It needs to work better than old tech.
But Silicon Valley has totally abandoned this ideal. Every web interface I use has gotten worse over time—from search engines to social media to software to shopping apps.
Google is worse than ever. Twitter is worse than ever. Amazon is worse than ever. Facebook is worse than ever. Everything I get from Microsoft is worse than ever.
So here, too, we see that new tech previously fulfilled Berry’s requirement—but stopped doing so around the time Steve Jobs died.
But friends told him he needed a computer. It would make it easier to write, they insisted.
In response, Berry came up with his list of nine reasons to embrace new technology. Let’s revisit them, one by one.
Nine Standards for Technological Innovation
(1) The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
This is a very persuasive selling point for new technology. And for most of my life, tech companies worked hard to lower prices.
I still recall my parents scrimping and saving in order to buy a color television when I was seven years old. It cost almost $500—a huge amount in those days.
They probably should have waited. A few months later, RCA dropped prices to $399.
Prices continued to drop in later years. You can buy a high tech TV today at Best Buy for less than what my parents paid in the 1960s.
Computers also got more affordable—at least until recently.
I got my first computer (an Apple IIE) when I was in graduate school—it was an expensive gift from the Boston Consulting Group in exchange for accepting their job offer.
The list price back then was $1,400. I could never have afforded to buy it on my tight student budget.
But, over a period of many years, each subsequent computer I acquired was better and cheaper than my previous model. Alas, that happy trend has now ended.
When I buy a new computer now, I pay more. And the performance is not always better. I recently had to scrap a new desktop after only a few months, and go back to my previous model.
The new computer didn’t work as well as my five-year-old one.
When did new tech stop getting cheaper?
It happened the day Steve Jobs died. Maybe not exactly on that date—but shortly afterwards.
Look at this chart of iPhone prices, adjusted for inflation, and you can see what I mean.
Now let’s go to the second reason to adopt new tech from Wendell Berry’s list.
(2) It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
This is another good reason to upgrade your setup. And tech did get smaller for many decades.
Guess who played a key role in that? Yes, Steve Jobs again. Because of his obsession with product design, we now carry a huge amount of advanced tech in our pocket.
Just consider this remarkable fact: Every device featured in this Radio Shack advertisement from 1991 has been replaced by your tiny phone.
But this, too, changed soon after Jobs died. (Are you noticing a pattern here?)
The thinnest iPhone ever was the iPhone 6 (2014)—at a slim 6.9mm. The company continued to launch ‘mini’ models for a few years, but stopped after iPhone 13.
Tech is now bulking up. It’s not just the devices—wait until you see those AI data centers. A single facility can spread over two kilometers.
(3) It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.
This is the most obvious requirement for new tech. It needs to work better than old tech.
But Silicon Valley has totally abandoned this ideal. Every web interface I use has gotten worse over time—from search engines to social media to software to shopping apps.
Google is worse than ever. Twitter is worse than ever. Amazon is worse than ever. Facebook is worse than ever. Everything I get from Microsoft is worse than ever.
So here, too, we see that new tech previously fulfilled Berry’s requirement—but stopped doing so around the time Steve Jobs died.
by Ted Gioia, Honest Broker | Read more:
Images: Ted Gioia/Radio Shack/Wendell Berry, New England Review/ Breadloaf Quarterly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)