Super Bowl Halftime Entertainment Contrasted with Baseball

People making a big deal about the halftime show at the Super Bowl.

One more way baseball is a better game? You always know who the halftime performers will be (it'll be you, there in the stands) and what the music selection will be ("Take me out to the ballgame! ..").

Also, with baseball, it does not seem as though they're trying to meet a 3 injuries per game quota.

One More Generation Gap Metric - words per minute while talking

One of the more curious things about this late-stage information economy is how a person in his 30s on a podcast will talk about 2X as fast as a person in his 50s or 60s. I suspect it is an adaptation to living in a flood of information that simply can't be absorbed at the speed we ancients absorb it. They listen to podcasts at 2X and talk at 2X as well. One more way we become living artifacts.

Accidental Holidays

Today’s Super Bowel takes its place alongside other accidental typo holidays - Violent Time Day, Eater Brunch, Prude Month, and the curiously tasty Yum Kipper.

The 2027 Paradigm Shift in No Hands Driving

Having grown impatient waiting for the full development of self-driving technology, in 2027 Americans simply went all in on modified bumper car design, building to absorb collisions rather than avoid them.

The Two Transformations of AI

My AI prediction has two dimensions.

First, I think it will do for knowledge work what power tools did for craftsmen. You still have hand tools—but now you also have a table saw. It will increase productivity and make some tasks much easier and still leave us with a number of tasks to do "by brain" in the same way that power tools still leave us with some tasks to do "by hand." 

The second dimension is more speculative. It concerns what AI might mean for the definition of “we.” At some point in evolutionary history, single-celled organisms became multicellular organisms. It’s not obvious that the single cells understood what was happening or even understand now that they're part of something larger, responding as they still do to their "environment." Single cells may still think they are the center of the universe in the same way that we individuals tend to, even when surrounded by 8 billion other individuals with similar notions.

AI may synthesize intelligence and insight in ways that cause us to organize, decide, and act collectively beyond our full understanding—or even our awareness. We may become something larger than we are individually. In this way it'll act much like cultures, institutions and markets. That is, make us part of something bigger.

Artificial Intelligence could become one more force that shapes us and that we don't fully understand but feel our way through by competing theories - just as we do with markets and cultures.

Trump's Exchange With Kaitlin Collins

Asked about Epstein's victims yesterday, Trump told the woman reporter - Kaitlin Collins - who asked him that she should smile more. Which I'm sure is what he and Jeffrey told those teenage girls.

Trump's Racism

 Racism for Republicans - it's a feature, not a bug.

And of course just yesterday, regarding the young women who were victims of Donald Trump's closest friend Jeffrey Epstein, Trump told a woman reporter that she should smile more.

Clearly old white crackers are the swing vote in this country. 

A Bad Combination

It is bad enough to be stupid or arrogant but there ought to be a law against anyone who insists on being both. 

Sir Bill Browder on Russia, Politics, and Trump

I don't think I've ever shared a YouTube interview on here before but this is unique. Sir Bill Browder explains how Putin operates and points out that what Trump is doing is aligned with Putin's methods.

Who is Bill Browder? His grandfather ran as a communist for president in the US and as a young man he decided that in rebellion against this odd family of his, if his grandfather was to be the most famous communist in the US, he - Bill Browder - would become the most famous capitalist in Russia. And he did just that, becoming wildly successful in Russia in its early, post-communist days ... until he crossed Putin and had to flee the Russia to save his own life.

In this interview he tells his story and shares his observation that Trump seems very much like Putin and is doing little to hide his goals or methods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkE6_nJb-UA

Next iteration YOLO

YOLT!
The jolt you get when you realize you only live twice - as the reincarnationists tried to warn you.

As Self Driving Cars Move More Rapidly, Will That Drive Rapid Obsolescence of Traditional Cars?

If self-driving hits a real inflection point—safer, easier, and not dramatically more expensive—what happens to the resale value of cars that need a human behind the wheel?

It is possible that this won't change because of preference. It might actually be increasingly difficult to use a traditional car in a world with more self-driving cars.

I can imagine cities and states saying: “During rush hour we’re going to run certain express lanes as coordinated convoys—tight spacing, high speed, smooth flow. Humans can’t be trusted in that environment, so those lanes are autonomous-only.” Not everywhere, not always—just enough to matter.

And once the most valuable driving real estate (time + roads) starts going autonomous-first, doesn’t a human-driven car become less like “transportation” and more like a hobby?

What do you think—does this crater demand for non-autonomous cars, or does car ownership simply evolve (self-driving becomes the new normal) without destroying the legacy market?

Personally, I feel like we could quickly hit an inflection point that makes human driven cars increasingly dangerous which would collapse their resale value.

2 Important Messages to Broadcast During the Trump Presidency

I think it is important to have two messages in the midst of the chaos and attacks on norms driven by President Trump.

1. Trump and his supporters are fans of autocracy and eager to move us closer to a government like that of some place like Russia at worst and Hungary at best. It is difficult to overstate this.
2. Trump has no power the instant Americans decide that he has gone too far. I'm not saying he'll be neutered quickly or easily but I am saying that if even 10% of Republicans decide that they don't want a dictatorship, he can - and will - be stopped quickly. 335 million Americans have so much more power than 1 former reality TV star.

Two ways we slide further into crisis. One is to pretend that he's a normal president. The other is to pretend that we're helpless against him. Neither is true.

What Are the Odds?

I’ve calculated the odds of this happening.

And?

It would be very odd if this happened.

What Korea Dramatically Illustrates About the Contrast Between Relying on Strongmen or Institutions

Trump's allure isn't novel. He's a strongman who will blow up institutions - even democracy - while insisting that only he can fix things. He can't.

The most telling experiment in the modern world played out in Korea over the last 75 years or so.
Racists can't explain the difference between North and South because .. well, the whole peninsula is populated by Koreans.

More enlightened folks who point to culture instead of race can't explain the difference because ... well, the whole peninsula is populated by Koreans.

If the difference can't be explained by memes (culture) or genes (race), what does explain it?

The North trusts a strongman.
The South (after a faltering stage or two in which they did flirt with authoritarianism) trusts in institutions.

What kind of difference does that make?

It takes only 2 weeks for the average South Korean to generate as much GDP as a North Korean creates in a year.

Trump is doing everything he can to undermine institutions - even democracy itself. Anyone who thinks that will help the regions of the country generating less wealth and jobs - or even those regions generating more wealth and jobs - is ignoring repeated lessons of history of people who trust in strongmen rather than institutions. 

NATO Secretary Mark Rutte on Russia's Massive Casualties in War Against Ukraine

Based on reports from January 2026, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has stated that Russia is experiencing "massive" casualties in its ongoing war against Ukraine, with estimates of Russian personnel killed in action reaching approximately 20,000 to 25,000 per month.

Monthly Death Toll (20,000–25,000+): Rutte emphasized that these figures represent soldiers killed (dead), not merely wounded. Some reports indicate that in December 2025, the rate was as high as 1,000 killed per day, totaling over 30,000 dead in that month alone.

Comparison to Afghanistan (1980s): Rutte and other officials have pointed out that Russia is losing more soldiers in a single month in Ukraine than the Soviet Union lost during its entire 10-year campaign in Afghanistan (where roughly 15,000–20,000 Soviet soldiers were killed).

Casualty Ratios (Dead vs. Wounded): Reports consistently indicate a historically high proportion of fatal casualties to wounded. A Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) study suggests that Russian forces have incurred over 1 million total casualties (dead and wounded) by early 2026, driven by intense "meat grinder" tactics.

Ukraine has gamified the use of drones in its attacks on Russian armies (rewarding teams for more deadly attacks and drone technology) and this seems to have contributed to its deadly force against Russia. It's not clear at what point Putin will stop his attacks but it seems as though this escalation will lead to some tipping point at which he loses his authority to rule, either by military forces rising against him, seeing their chances of succeeding at a coup as just as good or better than surviving the escalating attack from Ukraine. Or the Russian people may  turn on him, an event that would depend more on an assassination than a military maneuver by desperate forces or people. Even worse, his country may just be ground down by rapidly evolving Ukrainian weaponry and forces and eventually lose its international power, left a shell of its former self. It may even be as conceivable that Ukraine invades Russia as it is that Russians turn on their president who treats them as expendable. In any case, it seems hard to imagine a world in which Russians long put up with 1,000 soldiers killed each day.

It is also easy to imagine that AI will enhance both the evolution of drone design, construction and lethality and resultant gains against Russia, suggesting that even the nearly inconceivable 30,000 killed each month may rise.

Nothing about Putin's current military action seems sustainable. 

Why MAGA Hates George Soros

MAGA hates George Soros for a simple reason. The man lived under fascism and communism and understands that the fact of authoritarianism is secondary to the distinctions between commies and fascists.

New WNBA Team: Sleeveless in Seattle

I told Sandi, "I think a good NBA team name would be 'Men in Tank Tops.'" She quickly came back with a much better WNBA name: Sleeveless in Seattle 

Fed Chair Powell on Disconnect Between Consumer Sentiment and Behavior

"Consumers are filling out questionaries with fairly downbeat information and then ... spending. There has been a disconnect for sometime between consumer sentiment and behavior."

- Jerome Powell, 28 Jan FOMC meeting press conference.

The Canadian Dollar During Trump's Presidency

Shortly after Trump was inaugurated and announcing tariffs, the Canadian dollar was worth 68 cents to the US dollar. It is now at 74 cents.

A Perspective on Today's Politics and the Need for Less Traumatic Triggers for Change

In an America with less than one-tenth today’s population, the Civil War, over four years, killed more than 2% of all Americans—somewhere between 620,000 and 750,000 people. That works out to about 425 deaths every day. A comparable civil war today, at the same population share, would mean roughly 6.7 to 8.4 million deaths—about 4,600 to 5,700 Americans per day for four years. A 9/11 every day, for four years—and then some.

My reading of history has left me wildly optimistic about the direction of progress. It took me a while to notice a darker pattern alongside that optimism: Americans are capable of profound change, but they often seem willing to exercise that capacity only after something egregious has occurred. Apparently, change is so hard that we have to make things worse before people will make them better.

The Civil War was horrific. It also became a catalyst for the end of slavery, accelerated industrialization, and helped forge a national identity where many Americans had previously lived in worlds no larger than their state or region. The country was clearly much better after the Civil War than before it.

Today, many Americans feel shaken by Trump’s policies—by the erosion of norms, the stress on institutions, even the deployment of federal power in American cities. That reaction is reasonable. Healthy even. One important thing to remember, however, is this: none of this approaches Civil War–level trauma. You're tough enough for this and can both move to change things and still delight in all that delights you. You should be outraged - but only occasionally. 

The good news is that outrage often precedes reform. The bad news is that, historically, things have tended to get much worse before Americans mobilize to make them better. When this period passes—and it will—we should take that lesson seriously. We need to build a political system capable of steady, constructive progress without requiring catastrophe as its trigger. A catalyst for change that looks more like sustained conversation than a bar fight. Because we will make a better America after all this - but that will also be an America that our grandkids think is not enough. (And they'll be right.) The good news is that we're still improving this fascinating experiment called America. The even better news is that we're getting better at improving how we drive improvements.

Voter Turnout Seems to Rise in a Divided Country

A divided country tends to vote at higher rates. Earlier this century, voter turnout in U.S. presidential general elections hovered around 55% of eligible voters.

Between 1848 and 1872 — a period that included the Civil War — average turnout was about 75%. Viewed in that light, recent presidential elections are telling: turnout was 67% in 2020 and 65% in 2024, both high by modern standards and reflective of a deeply divided electorate.

As I've said before, I think the slogan that could win the next election is, "Make politics boring again."

The Balancing Act: FDR vs. Dictatorship and the Power of Inclusive Policy (Or, What is Fascism?)

Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler both came to power in 1933 and died in April 1945—one by stroke, the other by suicide. Their parallel timelines make the contrast in governance stark.

System	Core Alignment	Who Was Excluded
Hitler’s Fascism	Government + Business	Labor, democracy, intellectuals, free press
Stalin’s Communism	Government – Business	Independent labor, markets, press, and thought
FDR’s New Deal Democracy	Government + Business + Labor + Intellectuals + Free Press	None, in principle; dissent tolerated and institutionalized

 

Hitler and Stalin crushed opposition. FDR, facing the Great Depression, could not dictate policy—nor did he wish to. Instead, he built an economy that worked through inclusion: Congress, the courts, corporations, unions, intellectuals, and a free press all played roles. No one was silenced for dissenting ideas.

This made policy slower but more sustainable. It also made it democratic.

---

The Great Experiment in Inclusive Governance

The 1930s and 1940s tested three competing economic systems—capitalism, communism, and fascism—under the pressures of depression and war.

Fascism and communism seemed, at first, to demonstrate superior efficiency: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR mobilized industries rapidly, while democracies looked paralyzed by debate. Yet the cost—repression, censorship, and moral catastrophe—soon revealed that such efficiency was brittle.

FDR’s “third way” wasn’t an “either–or” but an “and”: public investment and private enterprise, labor and management, federal power and local initiative. He depended on cooperation rather than control. Even when Congress or the Supreme Court struck down his ideas—such as his first child-labor bill—he adapted rather than crushed opposition.

To build support, Roosevelt accepted compromises, some tragic. To win southern Democrats’ votes, for instance, he excluded domestic and farm workers—many of them Black—from Social Security. Progress was incomplete, but FDR understood that the measure of reform is better, not perfect. People who sacrifice progress for perfection, he knew, end up with neither.

---

How the Systems Treated Business

The difference among regimes can be seen in their treatment of corporations.

• Stalin: Private enterprise virtually abolished. The economy was state-owned and centrally planned; inefficiency was endemic.
• Hitler: Private firms remained but operated under strict state direction—rearmament priorities, wage controls, and “Aryanization.” Ownership was private; purpose was dictated.
• FDR: Business stayed private but subject to democratic regulation—the SEC, FDIC, and Wagner Act balanced capital with accountability. During WWII, firms accepted temporary direction but returned to normal market decisions afterward.

FDR renegotiated the balance between Adam Smith’s market and Jefferson’s democracy. His genius lay not in speed or purity but in creating institutions that could reconcile competing interests and keep learning.

He embodied that openness personally: FDR held 998 press conferences, about two per week, a record unmatched by any president. His administration invited scrutiny because he understood that criticism was a source of strength, not weakness.

---

Fast but Fragile: Dictatorship’s Illusion of Efficiency

Authoritarian systems look effective because they move fast—but that speed comes from excluding dissent.

• Hitler’s Germany recovered quickly from the Depression but only by crushing labor, silencing intellectuals, and building an economy dependent on conquest. Once war began, the system devoured itself.
• Stalin’s USSR industrialized rapidly but at staggering human and economic cost. Without market feedback or intellectual freedom, stagnation was inevitable.

The apparent efficiency of autocracy was a mirage—impressive bursts of progress followed by collapse or sclerosis. The absence of open debate guaranteed such results.

---

FDR’s Alternative: A Sustainable Flywheel

Roosevelt institutionalized negotiation rather than command.
Key New Deal policies—

• the Wagner Act (1935) protecting unions,
• the Social Security Act (1935) creating a safety net, and
• the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) setting wages and hours—
  all reflected a belief that balanced participation produces lasting strength.
• Intellectual freedom underpinned innovation—from the Manhattan Project to advances in medicine and computing.
• A free press ensured public accountability.

He also safeguarded intellectual freedom, which later paid dividends in wartime research from radar to the Manhattan Project. Meanwhile, an independent press kept citizens informed and officials accountable.

These policies took time to shape but proved adaptable. By WWII, the U.S. could mobilize like a command economy yet remain democratic and privately driven—a hybrid far more effective than Germany’s rigid model. Protecting rather than purging intellectuals drew global talent—Einstein, Fermi, and others—whose discoveries gave the Allies decisive advantages.

Unlike Hitler, who needed war to sustain his regime, Roosevelt built an economy that could thrive in peace. The institutions of the New Deal—banking reforms, labor protections, social insurance, and research funding—underpinned decades of prosperity. The National Science Foundation, conceived just before FDR’s death, signaled that even knowledge itself had become an economic institution.

---

Enduring Institutions

When Eisenhower, the first Republican president after FDR, took office, he didn’t undo the New Deal. Quite the opposite. In a 1954 letter, he wrote:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. … There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things… Their number is small and they are stupid …”

Just as Lincoln had created an economy in which a ruling party could never again ignore capital, FDR had created an economy in which labor could never again be ignored.

The Price of Gold Rises as Trust in Institutions Wanes

Gold has risen sharply, up 90% in the last year. That alone doesn’t prove much, but it is suggestive.

I don’t particularly like metals as investments, but they have a place. Fiat currency is extraordinarily powerful when paired with strong institutions: a legal system that defines and protects private property, enforces contracts, and adjudicates disputes predictably. In that context, dollars aren’t just paper—they’re claims embedded in a functioning system.

But when faith in that system weakens, metals start to look more appealing. Gold, in particular, functions as an international asset that is far less dependent on any single country’s legal regime or political stability. It doesn’t require trust in courts, central banks, or elected officials—just belief that others will accept it.

I wasn’t prescient enough to anticipate gold’s recent rise, but in retrospect it makes sense. (And if you cynically suggest that this is true of most market changes, I'd have to wince and admit you're right.) When the world’s largest economy is led by an aspiring strongman who has openly mused about subordinating the central bank, weakening institutional checks, and ruling by personal will rather than predictable policy, some investors will move money out of bank accounts, bonds, and equities—and into assets that feel insulated from political discretion.

My crude working theory is this: if Congress and the courts continue to constrain attempts to concentrate power, the dollar will likely hold its value reasonably well. If those guardrails erode, international currencies and gold will continue to gain relative to it.

That said, I don’t claim deep expertise here. The system is complex, the variables numerous, and even if this framing is mostly right, predicting timing and magnitude is extremely difficult. Markets often sniff out risk early—but they also overshoot, reverse, and surprise.

Gold’s rise may not be prophecy. It may simply be a barometer: not of certainty, but of growing doubt about the reliability of governance itself.