Friday 3 July, 2026

The Beeline

Imagine how attractive these flowers would look if you were a bee. According to the invaluable Plantnet app, it’s Verbascum chaixii ViLL. Which is ‘Nettle leaved Mullein’ to the rest of us.


Quote of the Day

”The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”

  • John Kenneth Galbraith

Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

J.S. Bach | Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring | Leo Kottke

Link

I once heard him play this live at the Cambridge Folk Festival sometime in the 1970s. And at one magical moment, the man sitting next to me began to whistle the chorale. And Kottke grinned in response.


Long Read of the Day

Greatness and the Machine

An interesting essay by Brendan McCord, based on a lecture he delivered at the 2026 Cosmos Feast at the Château de Tocqueville in Normandy. In it he argues that AI poses an unprecedented threat to human freedom and independent thought in a way that Tocqueville feared. There were, he thought, two inter-related dangers to democracies. One was ’soft despotism’, where government gradually assumes responsibility for daily life. The other was tyranny of the majority and a culture of conformity that discourages independent thinking. McCord argues that the long term danger of AI is that it might merge these two.

We face a condition no people has faced before: a tool that acts not on the world but on the will itself. Such a tool endangers things that a tyrant never could.

The first thing it risks is autonomy: the cultivated capacity to author your own reasoning. This means framing the question, weighing what matters, and then owning your judgment. This is not the same thing as agency. Agency is about getting things done. Like Elena, you can simultaneously be highly agentic, but devoid of all autonomy.

The second loss is older and grander. Tocqueville feared that equality would cost us the potential for greatness. He arrived in America, half-afraid that the democratic age had extinguished thumos – what the Greeks called the part of the soul that loves honor, contest, and daring.

Tocqueville, however, found it on the merchant ship. At the end of volume I in Democracy in America, he tries to solve the mystery of how American merchants were able to offer cheaper rates and dominate transatlantic shipping. He finds the answer in temperament.

The American leaves Boston to buy tea in China, is gone two years and touches land once, lives off brackish water and salt meat, runs into the storm under full sail and mends the ship as he goes. He does all this to sell a pound of tea for a penny less than the Englishman. He does this because, as Tocqueville writes, the Americans put a kind of heroism in their manner of trading. The old fire does not die in a democratic age, it changes address…

I’m not sure I buy the argument about the nature of the damage that AI could do. But I like people who think about this stuff outside the confines of the “AI Fight Club”. And in case you’re wondering what it costs to stay at the chateau, forget it. If you want to know the price, you can’t afford it.


Books, etc.

While we’re on the subject of Tocqueville, I’ve been entranced by the Economist’s Tocqueville Road Trip: Democracy in America at 250 which has made me feel ashamed that I’ve never read Tocqueville’s masterpiece. So I’ve asked for it as a birthday present.


What links AI and JMW Turner? Let me paint a picture for you…

My most recent Observer column:

I’m staring at JMW Turner’s Rain, Steam, and Speed – The Great Western Railway, a painting he did in 1844 of a section of the line at the Maidenhead railway bridge. It’s a classic Turner landscape obscured by swirling clouds, wisps of steam and rain. Nothing is clear except the funnel of an oncoming steam train and the walls of the viaduct, built by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, which Turner has exaggeratedly foreshortened, leading our eyes to follow it back to the fuzzy horizon. Everything else in the picture is a misty haze.

Pondering the picture, I began to wonder if what I was looking at was a visual metaphor for our current plight. We’re in the middle of a traumatic phase transition – from a disintegrating socioeconomic order into a future that is unknowable and could conceivably be dystopian. Lots of things that we once regarded as unthinkable are happening on a daily basis. Assumptions that we used to regard as solid bases on which to plan for the future are evaporating like melting snow.

Take, for example, the belief that children would have better lives than their parents had. Or that a university degree was a ticket to employment. Or that young people who worked hard would be able to own a place of their own. Or that democratic politicians who took bribes and kickbacks would be shamed into resignation once their transgressions were exposed.

In the middle of this chaos, however, one certainty seems to have gripped our ruling elites: that AI is the future. It’s the modern counterpart for the steam locomotive in Turner’s picture. And – according to the dominant narrative everywhere – it’s coming for us all…

Read on

pdf download here


This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!


Monday 29 June, 2026

Fuchsia

I think this is still my favourite flower. If you’re ever in Kerry at this time of the year you can drive down country lanes where the hedgerows appear to consist of little else.


Quote of the Day

”If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy.”

  • J.D. Vance June 26, 2026 Link

Sadly, it’s true.


Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel | Bist du bei mir | Placido Domingo & Sissel Kyrkjebjo

Link

This beautiful air — which has often been wrongly attributed to J.S. Bach because his wife had included it in one of her notebooks — came to mind yesterday. A beloved sister-in-law had passed peacefully away on Saturday morning after an horrendous battle with cancer and, like everyone else, I was hit by contradictory feelings — sadness at her loss, and relief that at least her suffering was over. The great thing was that her death was peaceful, something captured by the (translated) lyrics.


Long Read of the Day

Killing Keir and admiring Andy

If you are, like me, perpetually pissed off by the shallowness of mainstream media coverage of British politics, then this essay by David Aaronovitch may cheer you up. It’s triggered by the remarkable in-house coup which brings Andy Burnham into office with no noticeable mandate, and consigns Keir Starmer to the condescension of history. David has been a formidably cussed and independent commentator on these things for as long as I can remember and he’s spot-on here. His point, he says, is that,

Starmer may not have been good but he wasn’t a disaster, and yet he ended up underwater by 40 points and with commentators claiming that he was “hated” by the voters.

In these polarised times it’s impossible to escape being hated by someone. Starmer was labelled a genocidal war criminal over Gaza by the Left and an abettor of antisemitism by Netanyahu supporters for his recognition of the state of Palestine. Some gender-critical feminists loathe him for being slow to appreciate the pitfalls of gender ideology, and transgender supporters for appreciating them eventually. Latter-day discoverers on the Right of the historic wrongs imposed upon the people of Diego Garcia (almost entirely a “Left” issue until 2024) now call Starmer a “traitor” over a Chagos deal that was very nearly the policy of the last Conservative government.

In recent weeks new kinds of crimes have been laid at Starmer’s door. He was a disappointment in the tearoom, failing to stimulate his backbenchers and thus displaying the parliamentary equivalent of erectile dysfunction. He was strangely incurious. He was unsusceptible to argument. He callously didn’t even tell his staff that he was about to resign (which, if they hadn’t realised it by last weekend, made them a political version of the WASPI women).

But the voters? Why would they hate someone who has tried pretty hard not to upset them? (In fact, polls seem to suggest that very negative feeling about Starmer is limited to around 30% of the electorate.)

Read on to see his conclusion. It isn’t complimentary to the great British public.


Books, etc.

Although (as usual) I’ve got too many books on the go, Edward Luce’s review of this new book by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan might have to be moved up the queue.

One thing that surprised me is that Trump has now become “almost entirely housebound”. And in that house,

He is now surrounded exclusively by loyalists, many picked because they look like they are “from central casting”. He observes that often about Scott Bessent, Trump’s imposing Treasury secretary, and especially about Pete Hegseth, his swaggering, trash-talking “secretary of war” and former TV anchor. The daily intelligence briefing is just as chaotic. Hegseth’s party trick is to show Trump short videos of US missile strikes or boats being vaporised in the Caribbean. These are known as “Hegseth’s snuff films”, which Trump prefers to normal briefings.

Other principals, such as Howard Lutnick, Trump’s secretary of commerce, are there mostly because they are rich. Trump tells people that he puts up with Lutnick’s “bullshit” because he donated $25mn to the planned Trump library in Florida. But Trump’s library will be no such thing. As Haberman and Swan report, it will be a skyscraper hotel and luxury development accompanied by the Qatari gift of a Boeing luxury jet. After Trump leaves office, the Pentagon will “turn over” that jet to the “library”. The land, worth $67mn, was a gift from the state of Florida.

Regime Change is replete with such telling detail.

Which of course is the disreputable reason I want to read it. I should be ashamed of myself, as my mother would have put it.


My commonplace booklet

 Drowning Doesn’t Look Like Drowning

Having read this I’ve come to the conclusion that perhaps everyone else should too. As a child I once got caught in a large Atlantic roller and thought I would drown. I’ll never forget it and for at least 30 years I avoided going to the beach on which it happened.

Here’s a sample:

  1. Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled, before speech occurs.
  2. Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.
  3. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water, permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.

Read on.


This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!


Friday 26 June, 2026

Café life


Quote of the Day

”Criticism and Bolshevism have one thing in common. They both seek to pull down that which they could never build.”

  • Noel Coward

Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Abdullah Ibrahim | Little Boy

Link


Long View of the Day

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video might be worth a million.

I could have generated a transcript of this video by Hannah Fry, a Cambridge professor, which provides the most useful and accessible explanation I’ve come across of why AI ‘agents’ might be both the smartest AND most worrying things we’ve ever invented. But I think the video conveys the message more cogently than text. It really made me think because I had downloaded OpenClaw but had held back from using it to build autonomous agents because (i) I couldn’t think of an application that would be both genuinely useful (for me) and (ii) safe. It’s still sitting there, looking at me reproachfully.

My commonplace booklet

Lovely piece of satire by Private Eye.

Many years ago Brits used to laugh at Italian politics where the country seemed to have an endless merry-go-round of Prime Ministers. Well, guess what? When Andy Burnham takes office in July the UK will be on its tenth Prime Minister in a single decade!


Teaching Meta a lesson

For the background, see here.


This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!


Wednesday 24 June, 2026

Deux-Chevaux de luxe

Beautiful example of French ingenuity.


Quote of the Day

”Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.”

  • Thomas Mann

Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Wagner | Tristan und Isolde, Act III: Liebestod| Karajan and the Berliner Phil

Link

As Groucho Marx might have observed, I don’t like the look of Wagner, but I sure like the noise he makes.


Long Read of the Day

3 Lessons on Writing from Joan Didion’s Notes

This essay by Jillian Hess will be interesting to anyone who is interested in the writing process and/or the work of Joan Didion. I tick both of those boxes, which is why I liked it.

This is how Didion defines a writer: “a person whose most absorbed and passionate hours are spent arranging words on pieces of paper.”1 Anyone who has read Didion’s writing will not be surprised by this definition—her prose could only have been written by a person who passionately arranged words, hour after hour, day after day.

Before I went to see Joan Didion’s papers at the New York Public Library, I read all the reports claiming the archive gives us new insight into Didion’s writing process. Of course, I wanted more information—I wanted to know more of the nitty-gritty details regarding how Didion’s worked. So, I made an appointment and read through her papers. As I did so, I kept my attention trained on her methods so that I could write the report I wanted to read. And now here it is!

TL;DR summary. Three principles:

  1. Collect Fragments
  2. Transfer Notes to Different Formats
  3. The Work is Never Perfect

Read on for detail. Hope you enjoy it.


Books, etc.

I came on this after listening to David Runciman’s conversation with its author on his Past, Present, Future podcast. Sarah O’Connor is a distinguished FT journalist who has been writing about work for decades and is the best person imaginable to ask about the likely impact(s) of AI on work. Accordingly, I bought a copy of her book and started to read. And am already chastened by how shallow my thinking had been on the subject. Ignorance is not always bliss.


‘Muskism’ is a new word to ask an AI about – but don’t expect to get a straight answer

My latest Observer column:

What is Elon Musk? Genius, meme lord relentlessly inflating tech bubbles (SpaceX’s recent record-smashing initial public offering), raver about population collapse and cheerleader for far-right conspiracy theories? All of the above, and more. But focusing on Musk as an individual is a mistake, say Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff in their recent book, as it misses the big question about him: what does he really stand for?

Their answer is that Musk is the spiritual heir of Henry Ford in two ways. One, is that Ford invented a revolutionary way of manufacturing cars, and Musk pioneered a new way of making the next generation of them: electric vehicles. But their key insight comes from recognising that Ford not only made cars. He also spawned a new kind of capitalism: what we now call “Fordism”.

This combined mass production with mass consumption and became the operating system of 20th-century socioeconomic life. Musk, they claim, is spawning something on the same scale. They call it “Muskism” (hence their book’s title, Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed.)

Read on

For a downloadable pdf version, see here.


Linkblog

Something I noticed, while drinking from the Internet firehose.

  • The Manhoff Archives

Major Martin Manhoff spent more than two years in the Soviet Union in the early 1950s, serving as assistant army attaché at the U.S. Embassy, which was located just off Red Square at the beginning of his time in Moscow.

He took full advantage of his post, using his gifted photographic eye to capture hundreds of images of everyday life in Moscow and across the U.S.S.R.

When he left the country in 1954 amid accusations of espionage, Major Manhoff took with him reels of 16 millimeter film and hundreds of color slides and negatives he shot during his travels – including of one of the Soviet Union’s pivotal events, Josef Stalin’s funeral.

But after his return to the United States, the trove of rare images lay forgotten, stored in cardboard boxes in a former auto body shop in the Pacific Northwest until its discovery by a Seattle-based historian.

Absolutely fascinating archive. It had a real resonance for us because my wife’s father was the British Embassy doctor at the same time as Manhoff and would have been a witness to some of the same scenes.

Link


  This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!


Monday 22 June, 2026

Through a glass, brightly

A window in a lovely old Yorkshire hotel


Quote of the Day

”The markets are moved by animal spirits, and not by reason.”

  • John Maynard Keynes

C.f. the current AI ‘investment’ bubble


Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Abdullah Ibrahim | Bra Timing From Phomolong

Link


Long Read of the Day

Sovereign AI is really hard to achieve

This is a really sobering read from Anton Leicht on what Europe would need to do to achieve AI sovereignty. It was prompted by the fact that the U.S. government shut down Anthropic’s Fable 5, currently the leading frontier AI model. The decision was motivated ostensibly by domestic cybersecurity reasons, but the effects on U.S. allies — fear, disorientation, alienation — were not only not the goal, but weren’t even seriously considered. But what it means is that in 2026’s AI policy, the rest of the world is so powerless that it can be cut off from frontier AI as mere collateral damage of domestic U.S. policy.

These days, if you can’t see the noose of a politically charged security apparatus wrapping around previously-abundant artificial intelligence, I’m not sure you’re paying attention. Increasingly, the frontier of AI capability is controlled by a maximally volatile version of the U.S. executive branch. Evidence is generated ad-hoc or perhaps deep inside the intelligence community, action is taken based on personal loyalties and with little respect for long-run consequences, decisions are biased toward immediate effects and domestic concerns. All this is carried out by an American presidency that considers itself a unitary executive that wields supreme power, and Congress is frozen into inaction by vociferous AI politics and institutional dysfunction. No interdependence and rational economic incentive truly binds this sort of administration—and so no ally can truly rely on American frontier AI.

Now assume another thing to be true: frontier AI really matters, the best systems are strategically and economically superior to the rest, and the resulting lead gives those at the frontier a decisive economic and military advantage. Frontier systems become so powerful that they threaten the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence, and that their owners become as powerful as any nation. In that world, you either own a frontier system yourself, or you are at the mercy of those who build, own, and control them. From that, any reasonable country would conclude that it simply needs its own frontier AI, however high the costs.

His argument is that achieving this will be a more formidable task than is understood by most European politicians.

This is not only a matter of succeeding at the most ambitious infrastructure project in recent history. It’s a matter of succeeding at this project while under adversarial pressure from the U.S. and strict scrutiny from fickle electorates. No one voicing the ambition of reaching the frontier is grappling with that further challenge of insulating the project against American coercion and domestic backlash at the same time.

As a result, the debate about sovereign frontier AI remains unserious. The LinkedIn types and Euroboosters, stripped of real resources, are forced to pretend that you can build AGI in a coworking space in Stockholm. EU institutions voice lofty ambitions, just to shape them into massively underfunded subsidies for blue-skies research that would bear its first fruits after American superintelligence has already been deployed. And everyone who is aware of the scope of the challenge shies back from discussing it. Just seriously discussing middle power parity at the frontier has become the marker of a fool. But that won’t cut it anymore. If things continue down this path, sovereign frontier development might yet become the only play. I think we sceptics have dismissed that future too readily…

He goes on to sketch what would be needed to achieve AI sovereignty. It’s not quite on the ‘Manhattan Project’ scale, perhaps, but it will require more resources, political determination and stamina to bring it off. And at the moment only one state other than the US seems likely to pull it off. Guess who?


Books, etc.

In 2005, a former senior Facebook executive, Sarah Wynn-Williams published a book about her experiences in Facebook. It’s a pretty graphic account of what a toxic corporation is like on the inside. As Larry Lessig, the great American lawyer and campaigner put it “If you ever need to be convinced that the future of humanity should not rest with the judgment (or integrity) of Silicon Valley executives, this book is a must read.”

It is. I know Sarah slightly, and she’s a formidable witness. Ever since Careless People came out, Meta — Facebook’s owner — has waged a relentless campaign against her. Here’s how her lawyer described it in a letter to the Hay Festival organisers who were putting on an event in which Sarah would appear on a panel with Carole Cadwalladr and Tim Wu.

As you may know, in March 2025, Meta initiated an emergency arbitration against Ms. Wynn-Williams and her publishers, demanding an order blocking publication of her memoir, Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism.

Through that process, Meta has obtained a temporary order preventing Ms. Wynn-Williams from “promoting” her book or speaking about certain topics, regardless of whether what she says is true. As a result, while we continue to challenge that order, Ms. Wynn-Williams has been careful not to speak about her book or about Meta during her public appearances.

Despite Ms. Wynn-Williams’s caution, Meta has threatened her with further sanctions. In March 2026, Meta filed a sanctions motion claiming that Ms. Wynn-Williams violates the order any time she appears in public in a place where she should know that her book is available for sale and her presence might draw attention to it e.g. a bookstore.

Meta’s motion expressly identified her forthcoming appearance at the Hay Festival as an example of conduct that should be formally sanctioned. Meta based this assertion in part on Ms. Wynn-Williams’s planned appearance with Carole Cadwalladr, who Meta called “the British investigative journalist primarily known for her negative coverage of Meta” and with the academic Tim Wu, who Meta described as “another known critic.” Meta also said attending the Hay Festival would violate the order because the Hay Festival’s “promotional materials include a direct link to ‘Browse the Festival Bookshop,’ … which offers Careless People for sale.”

In the event Sarah sat on the panel, silent, motionless and expressionless while the other panellists discussed her book. At the end of the session the audience gave her a sustained standing ovation.

Meta’s legal persecution of Sarah reminded Larry of the ’Streisand Effect’ — the phenomenon in which an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information results in the unintended consequence of the effort instead increasing public awareness of the information. And it gave him and idea: Sarah may not be allowed to publicise her excellent book, but there’s nothing to prevent the rest of us from doing it.

So here’s a little poster that will be appearing on this blog from time to time.

Nil carborundum: don’t let the bastards grind you down.


My commonplace booklet

There’s no Leica like an old Leica

As long-term readers will know (only too well), I’ve been a keen photographer since I was a teenager, and I have used Leica cameras since the early 1970s, which is why I was often broke in those days. What I like about the cameras is that they’re nearly indestructible. (The guy who sold me my first M2 said — jokingly, I think) that it was “made from a melted-down German battleship”).

Well, here’s one that has obviously been through the wars.

It was put up for sale at in auction in Wetzlar on the other day. According to the catalogue

With a total production volume of just 402 units – of which only 141 were finished in black paint – the “M Professional” (MP) ranks among the rarest Leica cameras ever made. Developed specifically for reportage photography, it was conceptualised in response to American press photographers such as Alfred Eisenstaedt and David Douglas Duncan, who wanted to use their M cameras with the added benefit of the Leicavit rapid winder – which, at the time, was only available for the Leica IIIf. This particular model (with the serial no. MP-33) was originally delivered to Brandt, a Swedish Leica retailer, on July 29, 1957.

It went for 600,000 Euros. But at least it’s still in working order.


This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!


Friday 19 June, 2026

Farewell to Venice

On our way to the airport.


Quote of the Day

”I don’t mind growing old. I’m just not used to it.”

  • Viktor Borge

Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Mozart | Così fan tutte, K. 588, Act 1: “Soave sia il vento” 

Link

I know, I know: Fiordiligi and Dorabella are being taken for a ride. But it’s a gorgeous tune.


Long Read of the Day

When Super-Chickens Started to Roost

Terrific blast by the redoubtable Margaret Heffernan on techbro arrogance and Tony Blair choking on the AI Kool Aid.

In 2014 I was invited to speak at a California tech ‘summit’ comprised of the CEOs of young startup companies. I was no stranger to this kind of event; when I was the CEO of startups, we gathered regularly with our peers to help one another and share what insight we had into a new and confusing market. No longer running companies, I was intrigued to see what these gatherings had become.

“There is nothing wrong with healthcare that getting rid of doctors won’t fix.”

”There is nothing wrong with education that getting rid of teachers won’t fix.”

”There is nothing wrong with the legal system that getting rid of lawyers won’t fix.”

… and so on. The new world would be improved by eliminating human relationships.

The speech made me want to leave. But I honoured my commitment and stayed,..

I’m glad she did. And so might you be if you read on.


My commonplace booklet

RIP Abdullah Ibrahim

The great African jazz pianist has passed away. His song Mannenberg became the unofficial anthem of the ANC’s fight against apartheid. I knew him first as Dollar Brand and was mesmerised by his music. May he rest in peace.

In one of those strange coincidences, his Blue Monk was the opening music at the funeral on Wednesday of an old friend who, in addition to being a distinguished academic, was also a jazz lover. In fact he once told me that if he hadn’t become a systems theorist he would like to have had a Chair in Jazz Studies.

You can hear Mannenberg here. And his wonderful Bra Timing From Phomolong is here.


Linkblog

Something I noticed, while drinking from the Internet firehose.

How does a mechanical watch work?  Lovely explainer by Bartosz Ciechanowski.


This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!


Wednesday 17 June, 2026

In-flight refuelling

A hoverfly extracting nectar from an obliging flower. I was reminded of aircraft in-flight refuelling methods.


Quote of the Day

”Male domination is so rooted in our collective unconscious that we no longer even see it.”

  • Pierre Bourdieu

Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Bizet | Minuet from L’Arlésienne | María Cecilia Muñoz, flute; Alina Traine, Harp

Link

Thanks to Joe Dunne for alerting me to it.


Long Read of the Day

Meet the New Bosses, Worse Than the Old Bosses

Really interesting Substack post by Paul Krugman. In the 2000s, when it started to become clear that the wealth digital technology bestowed Silicon Valley moguls rivalled that of the Rockefellers, Morgans and Carnegies of the early 1900s I began to think of the Silicon Valley crowd as the next generation of ‘robber barons’. Turns out, that was a gross under-estimate. The nice thing about Paul Krugman’s post is the way he demonstrates how different the current era is. He’s not revealing anything we didn’t know already, but he makes it much clearer. And he explores the dramatic societal consequences of such wealth.

Many people have compared our current era to the Gilded Age. But that analogy is deeply unfair to the Gilded Age. Like the robber barons of yore, today’s oligarchs are immensely wealthy — even wealthier, relative to the economy as a whole, than their predecessors. And extreme wealth corrupts our democracy. But the corruption is deeper and more destructive now than it was then: The mitigating factors that once put some brakes on the harm done by excessive wealth concentration are now mostly gone.

About wealth concentration: The standard source for information on extreme wealth is the Forbes 400 list. Forbes only began compiling that list in its current form in 1982, but it published its first listing of America’s top fortunes in 1918. The chart above compares the wealth of the richest 5 Americans in 1918 with that of the richest 15 in 2025 — 15, not 5, because the total U.S. population more than tripled over that period. I scale their wealth both as a percentage of total wealth and as a share of GDP.

Either way, the concentration of wealth at the very top is much higher now than it ever was during the Gilded Age. And these are numbers from last year, before the SpaceX IPO. The robber barons were pikers compared with today’s oligarchs.

This level of wealth brings with it immense political influence…

It does. And that why now is different from Gilded Age 1.0.

Do read it.


My commonplace booklet

I love this photograph by the movie director Wim Wenders which I think was taken when he was on a road trip in the US preparing for his film Paris,Texas. It reminds me of Edward Hopper’s paintings — that strange sense of emptiness.


Feedback

Apropos my little piece about David Hockney and his ‘joiner’ artworks, Euan Williamson sent me this striking image he made of the Irish playright George Bernard Shaw. It’s created from an Autochrome portrait by Alvin Langdon Coburn, taken in colour in 1907 via the Lumieré brothers’ newly-patented colour glass-plate process.


  This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!


Monday 15 June, 2026

My newspaper rightly pulled out all the stops to celebrate David Hockney — and to mourn his loss. He was a ‘national treasure’ in the same league as David Attenborough and Alan Bennett


Quote of the Day

”You will know you’re old when you cease to be amazed.”

  • Noel Coward

Hmmm…. I’m getting there.


Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Mumford & Sons + Friends Bonnaroo | Amazing Grace

Link

A venerable hymn given the bluegrass treatment.


Long Read of the Day

What would Muskism be without Musk?

Henry Farrell’s review essay on Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff’s new book,  Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed  which, appropriately enough, came out just before Musk became the world’s first trillionaire.

Both they and Henry are trying to get above the IPO fray to figure out what the longer-term consequences of the current madness might be.

It’s hard to even begin to articulate this question on a day where on the one hand Musk is enjoying his stock market apotheosis, and on the other is doing everything he can to stir up race riots. But what would Muskism look like without Musk? I take Slobodian and Tarnoff’s ultimate lesson as being that we need to move beyond Musk’s personality, and start thinking about Muskism or Muskismus (I like the German word, which is why this post has the German translation’s cover) as a mode of organizing production, as a generic ideology, as a set of political bargains, as a form of state-business fusion, or some weird amalgam of all four. If Muskism is going to change the world as its backers hope, it is highly unlikely to be because SpaceX manages to corner the entire global economy. If it fails, as I personally suspect it will, it is going to be because of the underlying contradictions that are getting papered over.

To figure this out, we might begin with the other businesses that seem to exemplify Muskism. Obviously, this would include Palantir, and a bunch of the defense-tech businesses funded by Musk’s adversary Peter Thiel. Thielismus starts from many of the same premises as Muskism, but with a different clatter of tacked-on lunacies (less cosmism; more prophecies of the Antichrist). Are there businesses that adopt some of the aspects of Muskism that Slobodian and Tarnoff acknowledge as useful (SpaceX has transformed the launch business) without all of the negatives? It would be useful to know: the waterfall approach to project management has not been good e.g. for Europe’s defense sector.

We might also want to ask whether Muskism is inextricably intertwined with US hegemonic power. What happens to the Muskist project if US hegemony fails? What happens to US hegemony if Muskism fails?

Do read it. We need more thinking on this level.


Books, etc.

After news of David Hockney’s death broke I went searching through my bookshelves to find this compendium of his work looking for this picture:

It was the most prominent early result of his experiments with photography. He began creating what he called ‘joiners’, images of scenes stitched together from hundreds of polaroid shots of a particular scene. As someone who’s been a keen photographer since my teenage years, I was fascinated by these works and fondly imagined that they would provide me with a way to create artworks that were more than just photographs.

Big mistake. Here’s the evidence — a joiner I did of the O’Connell monument in Glasnevin cemetery in Dublin.

It’s ok but feeble and unimaginative compared with Hockney’s works in the genre. I discovered that making joiners work was exceedingly difficult. The art is in finding creative ways of assembling the individual pieces of the mosaic. Hockney had the art. I didn’t.


This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already! <hr

Friday 12 June, 2026

Hopefully…

Seen in Arles on a Summer evening


Quote of the Day

There are three ways to make a living:

Lie to people who want to be lied to, and you’ll get rich.
Tell the truth to those who want the truth, and you’ll make a living.
Tell the truth to those who want to be lied to, and you’ll go broke.

  • Jason Zweig

Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Mark Knopfler | If this goodbye

Link


Long Read of the Day

The Five Books That Could Save America

Remarkable essay by Larry Lessig, someone I’ve known (and admired) for decades and who embodies my mantra (channelling my inner Gramsci) that what we need now is “realism of the intellect and optimism of the will”. The former starts with acknowledging that liberal democracy has failed to deliver for an awful lot of people.

Here’s how Larry sets out his stall.

I’ve long been skeptical that we, as a people, can recover from the catastrophe we now face. Most think that catastrophe is Donald Trump. I certainly believe Donald Trump is a catastrophe, but the catastrophe we face is deeper. And to cure it, if indeed it can be cured, we must work through its layers.

One layer is the corruption of money. A necessary but not sufficient condition for curing our deeper catastrophe is to end the corrupting influence of money in our politics. That’s possible, and we might be on the edge of a critical breakthrough, but even that breakthrough won’t be enough.

Because even deeper and profoundly more consequential is the corruption caused by engagement-based media. Cable news and social media render us inherently and unavoidably incoherent as a people. They profit by turning us into ignorant people who hate each other, and through this business model, they’ve earned endless profit. Solving the corruption of money won’t solve this. Given the extremism of the First Amendment, it’s not even clear we have the constitutional authority to solve this. But even if we did, there’s a third layer to our catastrophe that I’ve become convinced we must solve as well. And this layer, surprisingly (given my brand is pessimism), we could solve. At least, I think I’ve glimpsed a way.

This third layer was introduced most prominently by the first (and most famous) of the five books that could save America: Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. Abundance describes powerfully and effectively the current incapacity of our system of governance. We’ve lost, as they evince and everyone notices, the ability, as a people, to do big things. The book maps a range of such failures. The common thread linking these cases is the emerging sclerosis of American governance. That, for Democrats especially, is existential, because Democrats especially proffer government to address the problems we all recognize as real.

This is a point I’ve long believed but never been able to articulate as powerfully or as effectively as Abundance does. It was the essence of my diagnosis after the last election: Democrats are obsessed with describing the 15 great geeky plans they’ve got for solving key problems in our society, never recognizing that the American public glazes over at the descriptions because the American public believes that government can’t do anything. We’ve been convinced by a line in Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Anyone trying to understand this layer must start with this book…

Read on. The strange thing is that most of what he says also applies to the UK in its current state of paralysis.


Books, etc.

See above!


My commonplace booklet

Quentin’s Law of Optimum Velocity

Nice blog post by my friend Quentin, who was musing on why he now likes to drive more slowly than he did twenty years ago.

He proposes a formula for calculating one’s optimum velocity:

Vmax = 120 – age

I daren’t tell you how low my optimum speed is. What’s yours?


Linkblog

Something I noticed, while drinking from the Internet firehose.

This made my day. A billionaire named Kevin O’Leary (Hmmm… sounds Irish) — who is the guy behind a new data centre in Utah which is twice the size of Manhattan — attacked two local girls who oppose it. Big mistake. Worth watching to see why.


This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!


Wednesday 10 June, 2026

Bag Lady plus mutt

Part of Paul Day’s bronze frieze under his Meeting Place sculpture at the Eurostar station in St Pancras. Note the way the dog’s head has been fondly polished by passers-by.


Quote of the Day

”Never mistake activity for achievement.”

  • John Wooden (famous basketball coach)

Applies to much of the ‘AI-slop’ currently being generated.


Musical alternative to the morning’s radio news

Tom Waits | Picture In A Frame

Link


Long Read of the Day

How To Read A Novel: Or why fiction gives us an antidote to narrowband thinking.

Really thoughtful long essay by Steven Johnson. It was triggered by a question posed by Patrick Collison, the only known example of a civilised billionaire: why should we read classic novels?

I sketched out an answer to this question in my book Farsighted, arguing that novels (and fictional narratives in general) were extensions of the human mind’s marvelous aptitude for building simulations of potential events. It’s something we do so effortlessly that we rarely stop to think about how nuanced a skill it really is: creatively projecting forward into our possible futures based on our previous experience of the world. Narratives of all sorts allow you to parachute into other simulated experiences, which ultimately give you more data for your own simulations. But novels, I would argue, give you the richest simulation of the interior life of other people’s experiences: you get a ringside view of all that emotional and cognitive action. This is particularly true of the novel after, say, 1750 or so, when the novelists began adopting more of the inner monologues (both first-person and “close-third” perspective) that Shakespeare had explored on the stage.

It seems fairly obvious to me that there is practical utility in running these simulations. We accumulate wisdom that we can apply to our own lives by watching other people live theirs. Historical nonfiction—particularly if the author has access to the subject’s inner life through journals or correspondence—arguably has even more utility, in that the events in question actually happened in the real world, and not in the imagination of the novelist. (This is one reason I decided to write nonfiction instead of novels—the other being that I don’t think I’m a good enough writer to write novels.)

I’ve admired Johnson for ages, not just because he’s a marvellous non-fiction writer, but more recently because he played a lead role in the Google team that created NotebookLM — which IMO is the most useful and imaginative AI that we have (and one that I use all the time). So I think this essay is worth your time.


Books, etc.

Screenshot

Link

Here’s the blurb:

The hardest choices are also the most consequential. So why do we know so little about how to get them right?

Big, life-altering decisions matter so much more than the decisions we make every day, and they’re also the most difficult: where to live, whom to marry, what to believe, whether to start a company, how to end a war. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach for addressing these kinds of conundrums.

Steven Johnson’s classic Where Good Ideas Come From inspired creative people all over the world with new ways of thinking about innovation. In Farsighted, he uncovers powerful tools for honing the important skill of complex decision-making. While you can’t model a once-in-a-lifetime choice, you can model the deliberative tactics of expert decision-makers. These experts aren’t just the master strategists running major companies or negotiating high-level diplomacy. They’re the novelists who draw out the complexity of their characters’ inner lives, the city officials who secure long-term water supplies, and the scientists who reckon with future challenges most of us haven’t even imagined. The smartest decision-makers don’t go with their guts. Their success relies on having a future-oriented approach and the ability to consider all their options in a creative, productive way.


My commonplace booklet

What Silicon Valley thinks of the rest of humanity 

Most people I know in the A.I. industry think the median person is screwed, and they have no idea what to do about it. I live in San Francisco, among the young researchers earning million-dollar l salaries and the start-up founders competing to build the next unicorn. While Silicon Valley has long warned about the risk of rogue A.I., it has recently woken up to a more mundane nightmare: one in which many ordinary people lose their economic leverage as their jobs are automated away.

Most economists and A.I. experts do not expect [the most extreme] scenario, but the persistence of the permanent underclass idea should concern all of us. First, because it signals how much collateral damage the A.I. companies will tolerate en route to A.G.I. And second, because the production of a social underclass is a policy choice. Instead of waiting for impact, we need to think seriously — now — about how we plan to support workers through A.I. disruption.

  • Jasmine Sun

Notes on AI, Labor, and China 


This Blog is also available as an email three days a week. If you think that might suit you better, why not subscribe? One email on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays delivered to your inbox at 5am UK time. It’s free, and you can always unsubscribe if you conclude your inbox is full enough already!