Search
95 results for “MsConstrued”
-
In or Out?
Since I stepped back from blogging with the post linked here below I felt I haven’t left it in a great place and as thought matured along to the stream of world events it feels as a capstone that if not published would be sorely missed:
With this post I dispense with any structure, schedule or direction the blog has previously had. I intend to add to it a post at a time, if and when my perspective feels unique or valuable. I think events have now taken their course with sufficient clarity and understanding present in public discourse that I don’t expect to be posting too often.
In this post I include a paragraph on interpersonal relations and draw a line under my professional experience. I’m positive that’s not a lecture you need to hear. But, I must put out there what’s cool and what not just as the info seemed to have come across a well suited place to reside.
While my views and sentiment are fundamentally unchanged I hope you will find the synthesis sufficiently fresh and insightful.
The feature image comes compliments of Gemini, who as well enriched my vocabulary with the word “capstone” above as well as thought of a topic without which this post could hardly be considered complete.
I leave you to it.
The quintessential thesis to the virtue of capitalism, or rather, the freedom of enterprise and accumulation of private property is that it rewards both acting in the interest of society (i.e. fulfilling its needs) and efficiency. The latter is obvious to every child: between two entities, the one that’s more efficient (i.e. earns more against minimal outlays) will retain a greater share of aggregate profits and command the greater investment budget. However, as the offerings to be made available are selected to maximise profits rather than broad utility does that mean that the needs of society are the needs of those with (most) wealth? Do mainstream politics and media serve the exclusive purpose of disguising the will of some as the will of all? Are inequality and social exclusion implicitly embedded in the cognitive framework that so permeates Western culture? Is awareness of such a lacking social contract held back due to vested interests who, in their limited and short-sighted view, believe they benefit from the status quo? What, in fact, are the pillars of our social contract? Are these arbitrary? Outdated or current? Do they contribute to an efficient and prospering society? Why is it that as everyone rushes to please capital holders most all work is done behind closed doors? Does society know what it wants and what is good for it? As well, once it understands this can it afford it? Economics has not yet devised a way for one person to make themselves richer without making someone else poorer; the former’s profits universally come from the latter’s pockets. Is our system failing us, or has it been precisely designed to deliver slow progress at the cost of human sacrifice?
The historical antithesis to capitalism has been communism: exclusive public ownership of the “means of production” and state central planning. However, rationed welfare distorts the earnings incentive and steers competition in the direction of obtaining the greatest portion which usually both directly detract from productivity. Instead of distributing the objects of desire, I observed, a better suited strategy might be to distribute the means of production and so ensure a certain amount of challenges and novelty are circulating in the economy.
Opposite to progress is the tendency to simplify the analysis down to these two historic extremes, often practiced by the machine geared toward maintaining the status quo. In reality – for better or worse what keeps the world running are mechanisms that evolved which are ideologically neutral, e.g. money creation in the banking system, continuous legislation and governance extending across the private and public sectors. Interventions have outcomes and, I argued, we should aim to direct policy by choosing a set of interventions to maximise expected aggregate wellbeing which I took to be synonymous with opportunity.
For both the species and everyone individually to prosper we must cooperate with one another. Diligence and the drive for self-sufficiency erode wasteful bloat and focus resources toward providing the most refined commonly used offerings at scale. The redundancy associated with self-sufficiency, as with competition, is the price society naturally pays to maintain its fitness. However, the excess of such redundancy is harmful since it directs resources away from their optimal use.
The distribution of welfare, i.e. the division of profits remains a central issue.
Overlapping it in part is the question of balance between the material and the “spiritual” (at the two extremes one might call themselves a materialist or a spiritualist; some might even flip-flop depending on how much they crave the good things in life and what they feel those are) that in part dictates the social contract: what standards of material well-being does society provide for “spiritualists” and what burdens does it place on those choosing to focus on the mundane?
Ceasing to care for the state of the world we pass on to the next generation is the ultimate irresponsibility bordering on malevolence.
Personally, I aspire to be a mundane, rational person and find appeal in meditation.
Now come to think of it, living beings adapt to the existence of other living beings in ways that transcend feeding on them, e.g. behaviours that have evolved to punish lack of effort in cooperative tasks as well as reciprocal altruism. This is a central theme in Dr. Sapolsky’s work that I’d come to appreciate by (again) waffling about it.
From a rationalist perspective, very few things, if any, are as low as brute emotional aggression. I mean specifically compensating for lack of approval by going after emotional injury, and in an automatic, reflexive way – kind of like the jelly fish becoming agitated at its reflection in a tilted mirror – the other fish that’s slacking – swimming less aggressively toward the fish in front, not fairly and reciprocally cooperating, putting itself on the line. (You know? Actually, those are sticklebacks.)
Also on that list must be ad hominem attacks looking to exploit the relative obscurity of a subject matter and gain an outsized chunk of credit and social influence for oneself. Think of this the next time your boss, coworkers or (so-called) friends play devil’s advocate. In the meanwhile does anyone keep track of the outcomes and the details? I’ve made my share of mistakes – in software – one that has made history with the root cause never being found while others resolved through agility by correcting assumptions – a process so routine that I can only recall one or two; and – in markets being the more difficult to get right and discussed on this blog – these were more numerous and fall to partition between getting the weights of different factors wrong and missing the time-frame in which certain hypothesis would play out, both of which I like to think would benefit from having spent more time and looked in more depth. But with markets there is also the factor that the correct answer is not the correct answer, instead the correct answer is what most people, most money, will bet on it being. With this in mind considering the markets as a proxy for the truth falls somewhere between naive and delusional. E.g. the efficient market hypothesis can, at best, be correct only if a good amount of market participants stands not to lose from fair valuations… which may come to be only after market makers have secured positions for themselves (as Dr. Burry would say).
Here below I will revisit topics this blog revolves around, of course, but I will start with one I’ve not discussed earlier: AI. First of all, the technology already has surpassed general level human intelligence. It most certainly is smarter than me. Its ability to interpret (complex) metaphors, find emphasis, provide examples and the level of knowledge embedded in the models is astonishing. Having a benevolent and aligned AI companion is in the interest of everyone. The ability to gain deeper knowledge, insight and inspiration, the gift of time is well worth having to deal with the disruption to established practices. As ever, those who come out on top will be those found to have interpreted the moment as an opportunity and made the most of it. In my view, AI is disrupting everything at once through two vectors: client facing and internal. In the former sense it’s an added cost no company can avoid. Everyone must provide an AI interface to customers or risk obsolescence since natural language will be the way we interact with computers. (It took only thirty years.) As well, companies can expose functionality to be used by agents or even make agent templates available to customers. Along the other, firms will be looking for the AI to provide the highest value. Think of it in terms of an antithesis to the suffering of Marvin from the Hitchhiker’s Guide. The quality of existing solutions and the IT will have a chance to claim importance. All business processes already are supported by software and, as Dr. Amodei insightfully proposed a key step will be to develop plugins to expose these nodes to the AI, beit for use by employees or the agentic force. There are many unknowns to play out and the future we hope to be blessed with will be anything but boring. This future has the potential to be more steeply expensive than anticipated as well as bring broad consolidation since absent added value or efficiencies, costs will necessarily need to be passed on to customers. At present, Wall Street finds businesses well enough capitalised and profitable for their spending to drive earnings growth in medium 10’s at companies delivering the AI products. The rapid technological change evokes thoughts of risk. Will anyone be able to talk their agentic database or network administrator that granting them access is a routine task? How many humans will be auto-clicking the approve button? Every plugin exposes a functionality to an attacker, increases the attack surface. Building out these capabilities requires a defence in depth strategy with meticulous testing. In a rush to market scenario while at the same time IT jobs are being eliminated how many organisations will follow that route successfully? On the one hand applying the same standardised solutions more rapidly and at scale will decrease bespoke vulnerabilities and transform the IT function as a differentiating factor between companies (rightly so, the clever among the IT workers will find themselves embedded in business teams), on the other it will potentially make the entire world vulnerable to a single exploit. So the game of cat and mouse shifts to the security teams working on model development. And then the more successful they are – the less they are needed. Ultimately, no revolution has an exact blueprint – and even decentralised computing would be vulnerable to a poisoned pill. Ignorance is bliss, if no one can access the codes, if no one understands them, no one can break them – let computers build themselves? If only it were that simple. Software available to the public can be reverse-engineered and these elements used to drive attacks on presumed enterprises utilising it. Fully open sourced software brings the highest degree of security. As the industry is set to consolidate and converge the present moment presents a crown to those who’ve advocated open source consistently throughout. But, it will remain up to companies to open-source their application portfolios and for others to pass on the cost and the risks to their customers. How about the contrary risk of a model crushing your closed source security architecture? Well, either customers will now pay more for what they thought they had all along – secure software or profits at software houses will fall. The fates of the CRWD’s of the world seem to be set to be entirely rendered obsolete by AI – as bloat virus scanners for containers should be (you’ve either built the correct source or included the correct provided library or you haven’t – their entire business is indicative of waste and business seems to be a booming; I mean who buys into that – right, the same people who pay MSFT, we’ve been over this already and found they’ll have a bright and shiny future – beyond even a question of accountability as CRWD was clearly not for the largest cyber-security incident in history that it caused). Detecting attack patterns in incoming traffick? You secure your endpoints, not put AI agents in a cage. Sure, some limits to reasonable behaviour might make sense but that’s hardly bullet proof security and, well – child’s play. Anyhow, first companies spun-off infrastructure, now infrastructure is spinning-off security, and everyone subscribes to corporate press releases as the source of truth. Be this as it may, Anthropic having the SOTA model and making it available to select closed-source companies means passing the cost while keeping the risk some other model provider might surpass it; though this would be that much more difficult if the source/service layout isn’t open to them to begin with. If you’re not on the list, you might as well wind down which makes the incumbents moats all that much more insurmountable – but what’s all this about anyway – it’s either MSFT or AAPL, AMZN or GOOG? The information technology complex having a ballroom constructed for them at the White House? Companies no one has and never will have any choice but to pay? With this installment of AI and its resource requirements the collective has prevailed over the individual, that much has been clear from the start. We are truly entering a time of universal control that will be close to impossible for any single entity to contest and we shall call this security, freedom and democracy at the same time. To be clear, this installment of AI is not a superhuman general intelligence that is autonomous and benevolent to guide our existence in the direction of enhancing everyone’s quality of life, and breadth of choice. No, it is a tool to be used by those who possess it to further their own interests. The best we can hope for is for the latter of the two factions to emerge: one pursuing control and the other opposing it, for the former has without doubt been pursuing their agenda at pace for a while now already. We’re left to conclude what we’ve always known: a governing entity that can’t secure itself and its constituency will cease to be a governing entity. We might add that among all possible systems sustainable along this axis the best is the one diverging the least from the above stated direction of general wellbeing. In this respect, a superhuman AGI might prove more effective than any human government. What we can say about either one’s benevolence or prospects of peaceful succession is a question I’ll leave to the reader (or might be posed to an LLM). In summary, on the positive side software will become developed by fewer developers, better developers and development will be more closely integrated with and embedded in actual business functions while being supported by the AI capability, including security analysis – which will result in code being more broadly standardised (finally). Contrary, security afforded by the AI service subscription will become a function of ‘how much would a breach cost us’ and with this number being the absolute upper limit on spending for 3rd party security analysis an attacker with improved economics might be able to come out on top. This is especially so at companies that will use inferior models to aid their decimated ranks of developers while relying on security being a service. Last, fewer developers means fewer per developer licenses to pay hence the shaky confidence in the industry seems justified. As MF think, if it doesn’t have an AI model it’s not worth owning, but if it has one that it can successfully sell (and governments are a-buying, out of their shiny brand new five per cent of GDP defense budgets) than that’s just unbeatable at the moment. And then, the moats aside, companies listed above, the digital landlords who’ve snapped up all the NVDA silicon are kind of pressed to keep buying it since their competitive advantage can be somewhat eroded by the next-gen cloud provider running on next-gen silicon and this might very well be CRWV. ORCL? Hence, there can be a little bit of a tug of war developing here, with NVDA implicitly promising to deliver progress still in the ball-park of Moore’s Law for which it depends on TSMC (as everyone else). This has knocked out INTL – before everyone (in America) decided 5 nanometers is good enough. But, should progress stall price pressure will build up from other parts of Asia, so while I’m a huge fan here I am more cautious. Between a business driven by cutting edge tech innovation and one relying on government contracts clearly risk is an order of magnitude less in the latter. Relying on human stupidity takes it a notch lower so MF et al. all make sense, just depends how you spin it.
What is Wall Street telling us about the price action in technology stocks? These are cheap, technology is a buy because – get this – the growth premium, going by the consensus estimate, embedded in their stock prices is now below the market average. Like a good strategist, you should ignore any and all risks and buy those stocks that have fallen more than the market – because, you know, things such as war and technological revolutions don’t change outlooks at all. I suppose their readership already had in mind that what led the way up, where risk was bought also led the way down as risk was being liquidated – and will lead the way back up as the dip is bought (like it turned out). Pitching quantitative analysis for fundamentals, dressing up dip buying in a dotted dress while actually raising concerns about earnings makes for great entertainment that only Yahoo! Finance can convey with seriousness. But then, any serious Wall Street firm should by now have an AI agent that double checks the context in which their research and market commentary is disseminated and might drop any jokers way down on the interviews queue. While you could have read some great advice you also could have walked away thinking AI disruption is limited to the software industry – where, indeed, it is most glaring – instead of jotting it down as ubiquitous.
Alright. Now for the question Gemini motivated: how will the AI disruption affect employment? My own answer is that it will not reduce it in the medium term but companies will need to be flexible with hiring. As we can conclude from the above discussion to deliver the added value companies will need employees. Whether customers will experience a value explosion or a value blip it will be down to everyone working on it. This is somewhat of a big ‘but’ so I leave room for unemployment to marginally edge higher under the effects of the said disruption.
Moving on to the macro picture, the media have managed to paint it so that economists came out wrong to predict a recession due to tariffs in H2 2025. Since, the harmful effects of the levies have gone largely unmentioned. My own rudimentary model estimated the aggregate effect of MAGA economic policy to be detracting anywhere from two to four percentage points from US GDP growth (depending on parameters as they were evolving). In reality it slowed by 0.7%, with the economy having grown 2.1% in 2025 compared to 2.8% in 2024. I believe the economists estimates alongside my own failed to predict the boost in consumer and business spending caused by front-running tariffs complementing the conviction of the MAGA consumer. These two factors turned out to be a major tail-wind for the economy in the previous year. We would be very foolish to misconstrue this idiosyncratic and transitory event as evidence that policy is salutary. Its full effects will become evident this year and will have the ill fate of measuring against an inflated baseline. So far tariffs have had the single effect of reducing importer profitability as consumer prices remained relatively stable. If and when prices ultimately rise and the US trade deficit declines (against its medium term average as I originally modelled) the negative second order effects of a loss of income in the import/merchant sector will proliferate. To the contrary, the economy will continue to derive strength from digitalisation trends (that I previously mysteriously referred to as novel opportunities) and AI investment. With consumer confidence now at an all time low, the economy seems to have some ways to go before convincing everyone it’s not quickly turned into a one trick pony. The timing of the Iran war coincides with the y/y sliding frame of oil prices changing from deflation to stagnation: oil had bottomed at $60 in April of 2025 as OPEC hiked production. While this in and of itself would have eliminated a tail-wind for the Fed to cut rates, the current circumstances are of an outright inflation shock. In this context, the US maintaining the previous year’s growth rate should be seen as a major achievement.
Another aspect of policy that I got wrong was the evolution of the budget deficit. In fact, it had shrunk during the previous year both in absolute terms and, clearly, as a percentage of GDP. The fiscal discipline is amenable (despite the upside down amendments to the social contract in support of it), but the growth projections associated with the OBBB will come under test, which in conjunction with war time spending may necessitate further spending cuts if the deficit is to maintain its downward trajectory. Translated into outlook for US rates this spells increased uncertainty, quite far from the tranquil environment Sec. Bassent and Mr. Musk were eager to paint past summer. They would “work with the markets to bring rates down.”
Professional economists make predictions that can be entirely ungrounded. Take for example the March jobs report that blew past such expectations, as it was interpreted, due to an unwind of a healthcare strike. How can an entire profession miss something as large? So, we can make two claims: the number for the month is a statistical anomaly rather than indicative of strength and the estimates themselves serving to backstop a signal to the markets. A beat of expectations is interpreted by algorithms precisely as an indicator of strength. The prevalence of algorithmic trading places holistic assesment of risk on the back seat.
In this light we can take expectations of corporate profitability to rise through to the end of the year with a pinch of salt.
The economy continues to be seen as strong and equity prices supported, as while investors are more concerned with securing their share rather than the relative efficacy of such investment. We can state that the appetite for risk drives the news cycle rather than the other way around.
Last year I wrote about bank earnings growth hitting a ceiling due to the lower IR on reserves and a presumed top in frothy markets. In addition the capital adequacy ratio (CET1) limits available balance sheet capacity and it has been steadily dropping across the industry since the beginning of the Trump 2 presidency. At the present pace for instance it should take a major US bank bellwether approximately (only) a year to expend the excess buffer it has over the statutory limit, or alternatively a loss of approximately $40B (having accounted for the reservations for credit losses held as Tier 2 capital) for it’s credit growth potential to evaporate. For reference, the geometric average of the said institutions annual balance sheet growth since 2021 was 3.77%. Peculiarly, net income for the full year 2025 is just <i>under</i> that of 2022 though double that of 2023 and at approximately 2/3 that of 2021. Meanwhile, the stock is up 114% since 1 Jan 2022 and 147% since 1 Jan 2023. The Trump 2 era de-regulatory response considered is to reduce the required CET1 ratio and thereby increase lending capacity. More leverage, more risk? Seen this once before? That point is mute, more central is that within the present framework (regardless of its parameters) credit losses – coincidentally in the case of our bellwether equal in scale to the share repurchase budget – constitute a systemic risk to lending activity and hence the economy – a credit freeze 2.0 – this time even entirely not linked to any derivative instruments.
The 2026 funding requirements for big tech AI build-out exceed the balance sheet growth of this major bank more than six times over. Taken in hand with long lingering doubts about the quality of private credit portfolios (which by definition lack transparency), this has the potential to limit growth or even lead to a liquidity crunch that the central bank would need to mitigate.
While the bulk of debt is held off balance sheets, nonetheless it’s the expansion of the money supply that enables its steady growth.
In the world of investment banking the inflation in equity prices means of course a rise in commissions but the slope of the increase can’t reasonably be considered sustainable. The same goes for M&A activity (boosted by deregulation). The easy money has been made. Analysts have caught up. Of note, momentum leaders would have to grow earnings 10x to come in line with market average P/E. Hardly anything to it.
Just as well, relying on dip buying regardless of any risk factors has worked twice now for the Trump administration. Such a reflex has generated a momentum shift and pushed a stalled bull market back towards ATH’s and beyond. But, the current instance still has the capacity to play out as the “Trump put” that bounced: reversing the effects of the war, compounding the economic damage already inflicted by administration policies that caused the market to top at the start of the year in the first place is certainly not in the MAGA chief’s power: he’s not in possession of a magic wand, no matter how deep in the depths of delusion we decide to venture, right? One time or the other it will become clear to the hordes of dip buyers that this dip is not going to bounce and when that happens the effects of the unwind in momentum might be severe.
Economically, if the Iran war were to end tonight it’d take at least months for supply routes and prices to normalise and if you’re drinking the official kool-aid this could easily slip your mind.
Crossing into politics, having myself denounced the present Trump regime as soon as it was elected, I fully blame Europeans and the unified global political right for the complete and final disintegration of the system of international law. The US/Israel war with Iran started with the assassination of the country’s leader amid negotiations. This seems to be becoming somewhat of a specialty of the two country coalition and I wonder what fate awaits the current leader during the ongoing fortnight of ceasefire. Chop heads off until one emerges that agrees to our demands – the good old time-tested strategy. It became shockingly clear right from the onset that the MAGA regime will lead brutish politics and the Allies not having drawn red lines from day 1 is a historic disgrace. “We’ve learned from history and stand up to bullies,” said the moral midgets and lap dogs.
Trumpism can never be considered a legitimate nor democratic policy.
Iran challenged the gorilla that is Trump to an open fight and as it stands at the time of this writing with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz now double-sided the situation might require a military solution despite administration statements. Even as the US is almost certain to prevail in that scenario, tail risks notwithstanding, there would be strategic damage to US posture, in the range from a deficit of munitions to revealed tactics. For what? If Iraq (and Afghanistan) are the blueprints for success it would seem that the US vision for South Asia is a stream of countries having the following characteristics: i) their territory will not be used in support of terrorist attacks on the US or Allies, ii) they will not align with Russia nor China, and iii) if they have oil they will allow US companies access to it. What I am taking aim at is that these spell oddly like conditions we would expect to find in colonies with little to offer to the domestic populations.
Looking back to the root of the hostility is of course the long standing US ‘friendly dictators’ foreign policy: having overthrown the obedient Shah, the present regime in control of significant oil supply found itself instantly targeted as a superpower on principle can not allow its will to stand opposed – beit to control the supply of the fossil fuel or AI technology.
In all, it’s the ‘soft power’ aspect of NATO as a collection of obedient regimes that MAGA seem to have deprecated in understanding, replacing it perhaps with a novel mechanism to deliver colonial obedience – that of the clandestine hierarchy of the global political right.
Thus, the person having chosen to wiggle the biggest carrot, with his staking the “special relationship” is of course fully to blame for the global debacle – this being Keir Starmer (and throw in the cabinet – especially the foreign secretary, current in a long line with only their toes barely sticking out of US’ rear). The UK, along with everyone intended on being part of the free world, need a strategy aimed at opposing the control of the global right rather than delivering themselves into it.
On the contrary, Spanish leadership in opposition to Trump is admirable.
The strong states of the Eastern block – China and Russia – are not the solution but are neither any more the opposite – the EU has just such countries in its ranks – having parted with being secular, where culture and opinion is prescribed – and growing more similar by the hour. Whether it’s the pantone blue or stripes that accompany the stars that folks are wrapped up in, or the Union Jack – say it’s not so: surely we are not hypocrites, fighting wars of expansion and control.
Now, opposition parties in “developing democracies” who are long down the road toward centralised authoritarianism can’t any longer point to the developed world and say – look how liberties and human rights are protected; instead the developed world points at them and says – look how a strong state can be made to work (in an exercise of narrow framing). The elections in Hungary were the victory the Hungarians were looking for. The outcome is that the so-called European People’s Party will grow another tentacle. The right, firmly in control, will push as far as they can get away with. The new leadership, rather than being a direct vassal of Trump and Putin in the global order, will pursue more close integration with the economies of the Balkans under Merz’ scepter and foremost to the benefit of ‘entrepreneurs’ who are properly aligned. I see little that can change. After all, a topic in the elections was who can more effectively suck the straw of EU funds. Nothing in the way of that model is contested, nor will have Hungarians become suddenly less closed.
As well as Trumpism, the policies of the EPP can never be considered legitimate, can never be considered anything more than a foil to deliver their people’s into a form of serfdom.
Alas, people’s minds have become so inert that they happily and continually choose the lesser evil and expect this to change their fortunes for the better. Hungary is owned by a select few “families” as my native Croatia… If you’re there, I hope this catches your attention after the punch leaves your system. But much more likely people hearing this would be baffled with what at all is wrong with two neighboring conservative countries being focused on preserving their national heritage? Just the price they pay for it: social justice and progress; the personal wellbeing and independence of their populations – causes they probably never really prioritised, valued highly or understood.
This being said, congratulations to Hungary – I’m happy to see Orban gone, he’s been irking me since his very start.
For the final political remark, regarding the global geopolitical balance – if the US has expended strategic resources then the opposing side (being Russia) fails to acknowledge they’ve already suffered a major loss. If for them the wars were a way to minimise the long-term strategic disadvantage this has utterly failed. Sure, perhaps NATO is not in Donetsk but many former allies along with Russia itself look like Swiss cheese. It’s way past time to commit to a new strategy. It’s way past time to make peace. The greatest victory both sides can claim would be to save lives not already lost.
With this I approach another topic that I wish I picked at with more calm earlier: TSLA. Seing millions having saluted along Musk’s extended right hand declaring that sales will <i>completely</i> evaporate was nothing short of unhinged. Regardless, in my perspective if it is to merge with SpaceX there will be a valuation gap to bridge. On the one side, business across vehicle deliveries, taxi and Optimus programmes will continue to be <i>slow</i>. On the other, SpaceX may equally so struggle to convince of its earnings potential. Both the IPO and the merger are inviting of scrutiny. Since the public will be aware any valuation the IPO fetches will in part go toward buying out TSLA shareholders there should be a cap on the IPO valuation. Conversely, TSLA price will be supported up to the level the market believes SpaceX can pay. If the underwriters pull this off without collapsing the earnings multipliers then they will have deserved every cent of the fees they’ll be paid. If not, I get to smirk when TSLA becomes “[that] cheap” again. But I mean – a giant space/AI/chips/communication/media/robots/vehicles corporation plugged into the government, what’s not to like? It will be raining money so long as they can deliver on these segments – and in all reality that will come down to whether they can attract the necessary talent. I for one would not like to work there (I see myself firmly in the other factions camp) but I can get if people find this amalgamation intriguing. The stock itself is a proxy for risk so, with the market having recovered to ATH’s on the back of the momentum shift caused by the bounce off the Iran war bottom, it shouldn’t surprise it too popped to catch up.
To wind this post to a close I’ll review the behaviour of bitcoin in the lens of my previous writing. Fistly, since the ATH in October 2025 it’s sold-off that in hindsight we can interpret as a leading indicator for the equity market. It bounced back as the S&P etched out ATH’s in late January but quickly took another major leg down along with sentiment. It’s currently trying to break higher on the momentum mentioned above. As such, its behaviour is entirely consistent with that of a (high) risk asset. Having previously colloquially characterised it as a perpetual far OTM call option, I note the divergence in its price from the equity market at the onset of the war when BTC rallied – seemingly acting as a safe haven. As I wrote before, I believe this may be down to traders using BTC to hedge their equity shorts, so that in general we need to mind whether bitcoin will behave differently to our base expectations around inflection points.
I also interpreted the crypto token as CDS. Having revisited that text I found it somewhat incoherent so definitely a clarification is due. But moreso the confusion extends to my central text (“Bitcoin and the modern economy”), specifically the paragraph concerned with “enumerating the motives to hold currency,” where – intended on aligning the growth of the entirety of the money supply with the movement of interest rates – I entirely parted with logic. In fact, as the text surrounding the paragraph suggests, the two aggregates of liquidity-preference – effective liquidity and liquid savings of the private sector – have an <i>opposite</i> sensitivity to IR. In addition, we must break out financial markets liquidity from the speculative-motive within the liquid savings into its own aggregate alongside the two others. What’s more then, the precautionary-motive (i.e. the residual) while being part of the liquid savings will align its IR sensitivity with the other two top level aggregates. We conclude that as IR rise the speculative-motive and the income-motive will expand in part at the expense of the residual (which three together form the liquid savings) and in the other part due to shrinking effective and financial markets liquidity. This is consistent with rising IR causing bearishness and the liquid savings expanding being an indicator thereof. The converse applies when IR decline. Since our motives are, in fact, misaligned with respect to rates, the only reason we can state for the change in quantity of the aggregate money supply to be inversely correlated with rates is the effect of leverage: people will leverage more intensely and de-leverage less intensely when rates are low and conversely when rates are high.
From here, before we can make sense of our CDS interpretation, we must dispose of the assumption that credit spreads and CDS premia are themselves proportional to interest rates. This simply doesn’t necessarily hold: though they affect each other, credit quality can vary independently of the absolute level of IR – like sentiment itself, that after all we found it drives.
We have the following: the aggregate money supply grows with the economy. While bullish sentiment prevails money is leaving the “sidelines” (the residual component) and flowing into effective liquidity (transactions in the real economy), financial markets or, as interest rates rise, shifts within the liquid savings towards speculative and income motives. (Accounting for the shift is a matter of psychological preference). The price of bitcoin, as risk in general, is supported by money flowing into the markets. While the supply of funds – the liquid savings of the private sector that are available to be lend by the holders themselves or by banks that hold the funds on (idle) deposit – is decreasing relative to demand – the liquidity circulating in the real economy and the markets – it’s the perception of credit quality that supports the expansion of the aggregate money supply and somewhat replenishes the liquid savings relative to effective liquidity.
The price of bitcoin is one part sentiment (the OTM call) and one part CDS.
Alternatively, to consider the price in terms of the demand for the available aggregate quantity of money we state that it will fall/rise as effective liquidity (real economy; demand for funds) grows/shrinks relative to the liquid savings (supply of funds) especially relative to equities. This relationship will be we weighed by apparent credit quality or, rather, the prospective pace of the growth of the money supply directed at speculative purchases in the financial markets. More succinctly we can state that bitcoin trades in proportion to the money residual and the pace of bank (margin) lending.
So, the price of BTC will characteristically peak on two occasions: firstly, after bearishness peaks (i.e. maximum demand for cash – residual) and secondly together with bullishness (in the credit markets). In the first instance the central bank may be conducting QE or otherwise increasing the supply of currency which is in low demand due to a bleak economy and low interest rates. In the second, the peak of the economic cycle (growth) will likely come together with increased inflation and mark the high of demand for money (effective liquidity) while at the same time its supply will have likely been slowing due to rising interest rates. Sentiment peaks after the economy. This is what we saw in Q4/25 and Q1/26.
Subsequently, both the economy and interest rates moderating frees up liquidity and supports markets. We generally don’t go straight into a depression or QE right after or just because a cycle has peaked. Instead, the economy self regulates and in time conditions transpire for a new cycle of growth to begin.
Crypto peaked in Q4 as markets realised that the AI investment cycle will consume great amounts of capital, and that private credit markets are in dubious condition.
At present, the Fed and regulators are attempting to ease monetary conditions and with the economy growing modestly the price of bitcoin is in an up-trend. An ideal scenario for bitcoin, as used to be the case for equities during the Yellen Fed, is precisely such growth supported by easy monetary policy. On the other hand, the risk is a liquidity crunch induced either by inflation or a rush to safety (cash) should the economy deteriorate beyond expectations.
Markets may be experiencing a Tesla moment – if the bulls pull it off, they’ll have earned their laurels.
In yet other terms we can note the fall in price of bitcoin from its highs as a perceived increase in market risk. Following this reasoning, when everything crashes the supply of BTC will increase pari passu with that of “fiat” (or even more in a stagflationary environment which scenario falls far beyond the mental capacity of crypto boosting hot-heads). If we, as we should, express market risk as the coefficient of correlation of the down movement in prices of all stocks we would expect bitcoin to be falling when this value is the greatest and conversely rising on an equivalent move in the opposite direction.
Clearly, the hard limit to the pace of money supply growth in the form of the CET1 ratio mentioned above is a drag on the prices of cryptocurrencies (which, being risk and for as while our current monetary and economic system endures, in the event of a crisis must first liquidate before they can rebound on the back of liquidity provided by the central bank).
It’s also less than fully known, at least by myself, how much of an impact on bank balance sheets would a further drop in crypto assets bring which would make for somewhat of a self-reinforcing effect.
In all, these conditions should put a cap on returns. Bulls can look forward to an Iran deal that lifts sanctions and puts Iranian oil on the market coupled with positive earnings and outlooks enabling the present momentum to continue. Bears look to risk in private credit. A trap door remains under the markets and if they have thus far resisted the pull of gravity this only means there is that much more distance along which to accelerate on the way down.
The setup feels suspiciously like a bear market rally and in my opinion there is an elevated probability that risk will head for the exits some time in the following months. If we break through resistance at ATH’s where the S&P currently sits, this will be a sign to add risk in the near term. (That is, if unlike The Man you haven’t already. I promise caution at inflection points is costing everyone money. It’s the “nothing matters” rally, remember, once it gets rolling – and rolling it is.) In this case we might at first think crypto is poised to deliver the most convexity. However, we will bode well to recall that money will remain in demand, be it due to the presumed resumption of the investment cycle or the government’s efforts to reduce the budget deficit. Hence, while the token will be supported in the bull case I don’t believe it will make a new ATH this year. Of course, should the markets fail to meaningfully break higher this will put bears in control for the summer.
Question is how to best express our outlook. The answer I’ve come across early in this blog but didn’t formally explore. For the financially apt readers it will come naturally as the barbell strategy proposed by Nassim Taleb.
To conclude I will look ahead to some proposals that I hope will become central to Western politics.
From a Keynesian point of view, having explored the modern economy, we can state: inequality is the new unemployment.
And so we have to ask ourselves have mainstream economics once again become orthodox? Is our social contract incomplete and faulty? Can we come to see that repairing it would mean opening entirely new horizons of opportunity? But also that – those who have made the same realisations – the global right are actively working toward the exact opposite: making the world a set of disjunct states ruled by the elites. The status quo is rightly without popular support and the time has come to look for change. To not propose meaningful change is to align with the right. The goal must always be to deliver progress.
Can the US rise to the challenge? Is the constitutional stipulation that direct taxes must be apportioned inherently at odds with the solution? Is progressive taxation inherently un-american? Surely the wealthier should be allowed to keep the same proportion of their income as everyone? The Constitution is a living document in order to stop itself from becoming an obstacle to prosperity of the nation. To the contrary if it’s become its own purpose, the nations laws will ossify. A lesson from IT (shared by Mr. Beck, right?) is that projects that become difficult to change die. So, on the one hand we find the trickle down economics of an investment bubble: the wealthy having no purpose for their money, and having no way to spend it – they invest in increasingly dubious affairs being valued in private markets in increasingly pyramidal ways, protect their status and retain the bulk of the upside for themselves. (This is again a clue that we live in an instance of a nouveau aristocratic system.) A series of risky bets being an optimal investment strategy (Taleb, Kahneman), vast wealth enables it in practice and effectively perpetuates itself – a goal shared with any amount of capital, so that the only inherently unjust aspects that immediately pop to mind are the accessibility (barriers to entry) of the investment landscape to pools of capital of varying scale and disposition as well as the political acumen that brought about the unquestionable fact that the rich pay a lower proportion of their income in taxes than the middle class (perhaps on par with the poor, making for that “k”) – demonstrated by rules such as lower tax rate for long term investment and losses being deductible that perfectly suits the investment strategy and the character of the economy both.
Now, the fix afforded by the Democrats finally is starting to seem as approaching the meaning of the word: they seem to have embraced redistribution of wealth.
The issue I have with Sen. Warren’s plan is that it may end up concentrating more spending power in the hands of the government, in which respect Bernie’s proposal of a de facto universal income is most welcome as it leads to a bottom-up economy, that we would find on the other hand.
A final thought that popped into my mind on the matter is to consider the global political right merely want to preserve capitalism. To this I would respond that capitalism itself doesn’t pose the question of the origin of capital. A regulatory environment that continuously works to restore broad availability of capital (the trail on which we find the democratic faculty of taking loans) simply makes for better capitalism by both widening the range of offerings that are commercially viable thereby increasing their social utility, as well as providing means for entrepreneurship to proliferate and deliver these offerings.
Yet the right would collapse the entire argument and claim, against all reason, that UBI is communism. They would stipulate men must work for their meal and in doing so reduce capitalism to an advanced form of feudalism, of slavery – where men must be forced to work and the mechanism of coercion is poverty. They would make us all out to be silly and not understand that the national product is a result of work and that if we all decide to lay flat on our backs our UBI won’t be worth anything. And even if there would be those who do, society should find ways to organise – through technology and openness – to enable pioneers to step in their place.
The global populist right has been telling lies and playing tricks for far too long. The times are such that not to pursue justice means to be corrupt.
The only way to win the vote is to promise a better, more believable future.
This brings me to a close. While in this post too I may have erred, it has undoubtedly brought us closer to the truth. It is the only thing people truly can believe.
Thanks for reading through!
#AI #AMZN #Bitcoin #BTC #CRWD #CRWV #Economics #Economy #GOOG #Investing #Markets #MSFT #NVDA #ORCL #politics #Tesla #TSLA #UBI -
CW: The police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were sparks that reignited smoldering fury against authorities across the globe. One of the most watched locations has been Seattle, where protestors barricaded off a cop-free zone, drawing outsize attention and, in the process, forming a new case study in the uses of technology both to […]
♲ @[email protected]:For Seattle’s cop-free protest zone, tech is both a revolutionary asset and disastrous liability
The police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were sparks that reignited smoldering fury against authorities across the globe. One of the most watched locations has been Seattle, where protestors barricaded off a cop-free zone, drawing outsize attention and, in the process, forming a new case study in the uses of technology both to advance a cause and to drown it in disinformation.
From the actual recording of Floyd’s killing and the protests and riots that followed, to documenting the police’s brutal response and sudden withdrawal, to the establishment of and widespread commentary on an improvised community, technology has played a crucial role throughout. But to center things properly, it is how people are using technology, not the technology itself, that has become more important.
More than ever before, information truly is power, and imbalances in who holds that power have been both reinforced and challenged in the course of events here. It’s heartening to see live streaming and instant distribution of video lead to accountability, but it’s also sickening to see deliberate campaigns to manipulate and subvert reality — and I say reality because it’s what I’ve seen with my own eyes. As a brief preamble, I should disclose some things.
First, I support the causes being advanced by protestors in Seattle. It would be useless to deny that I have taken sides here — partly because claims of objectivity are little more than a fig leaf for editorial decisions in matters of grave injustice and obvious abuses of power; but my presence at the protests has unavoidably been documented whether I like it or not, so there’s no sense in denying it.
Because second, I live on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the zone. I’ve been eyewitness to important events, (with a built-in tech angle at that) and it would be irresponsible for me not to use the privilege of this platform to share aspects of them that have been only sporadically covered.
And third, these protests have been organized and led by people of color, and I am a white guy who, comparatively, has only barely taken part. On issues of race, policing, and inclusion I will defer to others better equipped to educate: writers like Ijeoma Oluo (whom we recently interviewed), researchers like Joy Buolamwini, and publications like Blavity.
With that out of the way, this article will focus on three topics: The collection and use of digital media on both sides of police clashes; the use of social media and battle of information versus disinformation in the cop-free zone; and the emergence of live streaming as an indispensable medium for this and future movements.A matter of perspective
techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
Image Credits: JASON REDMOND/AFP / Getty Images
The initial protests in Seattle in late May, which devolved in some locations into riots involving the despoliation and destruction of police cruisers (somehow left unattended and filled with weapons), are difficult to track because they were full of movement and chaos. But they were thoroughly, if haphazardly, documented by attendees with the presence of mind to record what they were seeing.
It’s telling that there has been little or no attempt at a counter-narrative from Seattle authorities when their officers were repeatedly (and continually as of this writing) filmed employing plainly excessive force against unarmed, often unresisting protestors, or indiscriminately firing tear gas, pepper spray, and flashbangs into crowds. One woman’s heart stopped three times after being struck by a blast ball that appeared to be deliberately aimed at her, while thousands watched.
Where, one wonders, is the exonerating footage from the police side showing the protestors being described as aggressive, or non-compliant, or whatever key words officers use to justify brutality during a melee of their own creation? And yet the police are at a loss. Presented with innumerable examples of bad behavior, the force seems to have decided day after day to stand fast and let it blow over.
But it’s hard to do that when you have something like a video going viral of a child who’s been maced:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uKdqmBN744U?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
This image, which came to represent the Seattle PD’s inhumane treatment of protestors (they stand by wielding batons as the crying kid is treated), was taken by a local named Evan Hreha. It’s hard to erase such a powerful image — so they arrested him.
Hreha was arrested a week later by a dozen officers and booked into jail for, supposedly, pointing a laser at police. It hardly needs to be said that this account strains credibility. For one thing, Hreha says he was running a hot dog stand with friends at the time of the alleged offense. But it is absurd that police would or could identify one person in a crowd at a distance, then investigate and arrest them — for anything, let alone a fleeting non-violent laser use. And it just happens to be the man behind a viral video that makes the cops look bad.
This seems to be plainly a case of retaliation, but the police have made themselves unaccountable by controlling the information available. I contacted the records department to ask for anything related to the investigation and arrest of Hreha (among others), but it will be months before the police will release anything, if indeed they ever do.
Hreha was released two days later with no charges filed. But the chilling effect of intimidating someone who caught police in an act of brutality on camera had been accomplished. The officer who maced the kid, incidentally, has yet to be officially identified or disciplined.Does tech have the guts to deploy its resources against police brutality?
https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/09/does-tech-have-the-guts-to-deploy-its-resources-against-police-brutality/embed/#?secret=gdf5qC5tCH
This is exemplary of the power imbalance in conflicts of this type: On one side, voluminous documentation from people on the ground that is disorganized and difficult to bring to bear; on the other, documentation that is carefully organized and tightly controlled, allowing the exertion of authority using that control as leverage. Police have also begun the process of repurposing news and protestor footage for their own purposes.
But this story doesn’t always play out the way the cops would prefer.
In the first week of June, protestors were marching up Pine to confront the police for this and other acts, after which they would have, like many similar protests, moved on to rally in Volunteer Park and then gone home, to do it again another day. But police blocked them at 11th and Pine with a barricade and line of police in riot gear.
techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
SEATTLE, WA – JUNE 08: A person holds flowers as demonstrators clash with police near the Seattle Police Departments East Precinct shortly after midnight on June 8, 2020 in Seattle, Washington.
The group did not disperse as ordered, saying they would stay and protest peacefully until the police moved out of the way. Predictably, when curfew came, the police were liberal in their deployment of tear gas and flashbangs, causing serious harm to some protestors and terror across the entire neighborhood. This continued and grew in intensity for several days and nights. (In many cities these clashes are ongoing.)
The justification for using their “less lethal” tools with such gusto was predictable: The crowd was violent, throwing bricks and even improvised explosives at officers. But these claims were repeatedly and firmly dismantled, because these encounters were filmed in high definition from multiple angles, practically from start to finish.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/D5sQt_bQS4A?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
One particularly revealing video was shot by a person on a roof directly over the barriers. It quite clearly shows a peaceful crowd chanting and definitely not throwing rocks and bottles. Anyone can review it and see that there was not only no violence on the part of protestors, but that the flashpoint moment occurred (documented in other videos as well) when a cop tore a now-famous pink umbrella from the grip of a person, who in offering any resistance provided the excuse for the police to retaliate — indiscriminately and utterly disproportionately.
Huge volumes of evidence of police brutality have resulted almost solely from the oft-mocked habit of young people to always have their phone in hand. (We’re not far from the always-recording situation I posited nearly 10 years ago.)
“They picked the wrong generation to pull this shit on,” said TK, a protest organizer I spoke with. “Because governments didn’t create this power — this was created by normal, regular-smegular people just like all of us. The only people that can stop it is the people that created it.”
Rarely have the police released images or footage of their own, and when they do it is often a brutal self-own. They posted images of the aforementioned “improvised explosive” on Twitter shortly after one group assault on protestors, and within seconds people had pointed out it was a prayer candle, probably from a nearby memorial smashed during the melee. The police revised their reference to it as an “incendiary device,” which, while technically true, exposes the type of willful obscuration of the truth that was frequently to be found in the department’s communications.
Following another incident, body cam footage was released to support the narrative that a “violent crowd” had prevented the police from reaching a shooting victim in the protest zone and were therefore culpable in his death. People soon pointed out that timestamps visible in the video show that the cops arrived 20 minutes after the shooting, and after the victim had been taken to the hospital in a private car — because EMTs (for good reason) would not enter the scene before police secured it.We now know that the public statement put out by Seattle Police following the shooting at CHOP on Friday night, was mostly fictitious, as revealed by their own bodycam footage. They showed up 10 minutes later than they claim, after the victim had been transported to Harborview. pic.twitter.com/wN62gQxX8c
— Spek the Lawless (@spekulation) June 22, 2020
When the police chief made claims of rape and violence in the protest zone, it was pointed out that the SPD’s own crime reports system showed no such thing. Then her claim that armed gangs were extorting local businesses was quickly put down as well, by the businesses themselves — embarrassingly, the source of that claim was a totally invented account on a right-wing blog. (Ironically, once the police retook the zone, businesses quickly complained that their presence had forced them to close.)
And of course there are the innumerable videos, here as elsewhere, of extreme force being used on unresisting protestors, frequently with the apparently now requisite knee on the neck. These will hopefully prove useful later as counterbalance to police claims, and while officers still obscure their badges and refuse to identify themselves, the quality of the video makes identifying them by other means trivial.Cops attack peaceful protestors at Broadway and Pine. 5:30pm July 2nd. Dive tackled the kid next to me, put a knee on his neck. Can’t stress enough he did nothing.
Please share.#SeattleProtests #SeattleProtestComm #Seattle pic.twitter.com/mI5DTASEI4
— eli (@sre_li) July 3, 2020
The digital record has resulted in officers, the department and the chief being caught in lie after lie after lie. These are not misunderstandings or honest mistakes but misrepresentations deliberately crafted to discredit protestors and shield the department. It’s clear that if others were not carefully documenting every encounter, and critically investigating police statements and evidence, the lies would have shortly become the only, and therefore the true, record of what happened.
What I’ve described took place in Seattle, but others have compiled abuses in L.A., New York, Portland, and Chicago — where cops have just been caught in another type of large-scale manipulation of the record.
Now in many cities these departments are facing cuts or total defunding, as much as the result of their failure to successfully falsify the narrative as their more fundamental failures as institutions.
“This generation is not dumb, as much as they want to believe that. ‘You guys are just a bunch of dumb kids.’ Okay, well, this bunch of dumb kids is about to get the city to take half of your budget,” said TK. “So we ain’t that dumb, apparently.”
A last example of the power of social media in the pursuit of problematic police came late in the writing of this piece. After two protestors were struck and one killed on a closed highway after a driver circumvented police barriers, a detective from the King county Sheriff’s office made several brutally offensive posts on Facebook — public ones.
techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
These were spotted by concerned citizens, who took screenshots not just of the content but also the list of people who had liked or commented positively on the posts, looking them up, as well. This proved to be a shrewd tactic, for when the posts began to make waves online, Brown’s entire Facebook page was deleted.
Turns out Detective Brown is not only Governor Jay Inslee’s cousin, but reportedly also the head of county executive Dow Constantine’s security detail and his sometime driver; a 40-year veteran of the force who has been accused of abusive behavior before. Within 48 hours Detective Brown was on leave and being investigated. One hopes that the officers and public officials who publicly endorsed Brown’s behavior will soon be confronted, as well. But how quickly this avenue of recourse would have disappeared had they been tipped off.
Keeping the cops honest is a welcome application of what might be termed citizen forensics, but social media would soon provide a counter-example of technology being deployed to discredit the protestors and mislead millions.In the Zone
techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
A rally at the cop-free zone on Capitol Hill on June 10.
Believe it or not, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone wasn’t anyone’s idea.
The now infamous cop-free area barricaded off by protestors has been profiled frequently and, almost without exception, incompletely and inaccurately, in mainstream news and on social media. It’s an instructive but deeply frustrating example of how, as the old saying goes, “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.”
A very brief origin story is as follows: On June 8, following a particularly violent yet ultimately unsuccessful attempt to purge the area of protestors the previous night, the police abruptly announced they would be leaving the East Precinct building, taking all valuables, weapons, and sensitive documents with them.
Protestors were astonished. They had not asked for this and had no reason to — their demands were about defunding the police, investing in the community, and releasing jailed protestors. Incredibly, even now no one has taken responsibility for ordering the abandonment; the mayor and police chief have both denied doing so. But abandon it, they did.
Protestors immediately continued marching, some continuing to Volunteer Park and others remaining behind, citing the need to protect the precinct from anyone who might want to damage it, for days on end if necessary and at all hours. If you’re skeptical, remember: This is all on video. People learned early on that many people only believe what they have seen, and even then only sometimes.
Since a car had nearly plowed through protestors the previous day and the driver actually shot someone (before being gently taken into custody by police), and hearing reports of right-wing agitators in the area, the protestors redeployed the barriers to make a safe zone at the ends of nearby streets. Someone spray painted “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” on one, inadvertently branding the whole movement.‘Welcome to Free Capitol Hill’ — Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone forms around emptied East Precinct — UPDATE
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2020/06/welcome-to-free-capitol-hill-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-forms-around-emptied-east-precinct/embed/#?secret=qUJTj18w53
What followed in the CHAZ (later the CHOP) was several days and nights of compelling events, speakers and tributes to lost lives, attended by thousands, including myself.
But what followed online was a nonstop deluge of wild exaggerations, manipulated media, racist vitriol and, of course, innumerable death threats. It would be impossible to list even a fraction of the information online that I could contradict with what I saw with my own eyes, but here are a few examples.
The most glaring one has to be, of course, Fox News photoshopping a gunman into multiple unrelated scenes of destruction and dishonestly using those as evidence of chaos in the zone. This was done so poorly it would be comical if it were not part of a larger, continuing narrative seeking to discredit the protests and zone as an antifa-run separatist state.
techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
One of the images run by Fox News, a combination of one by David Ryder (whose photos for Getty illustrate this piece) with two by Karen Ducey.
The separatist narrative, which persists even today, was invented and amplified by lazy or traffic-hungry outlets and pundits with little evidence besides the tongue-in-cheek name.
There was not always the need to invent controversial imagery (indeed, the gunman Fox used really existed). Video of one person handing out rifles to his crew quickly made the rounds and, combined with the police chief’s irresponsible rumor-mongering, word of a “warlord” emerged.
Without getting into the complex and largely improvisational politics of the zone, this character and his heavily armed presence were generally not approved of. But for the weeks following this event I saw the image, his name and the warlord trope posted thousands of times, coming up every single day.
It’s tempting to say it’s hard to misconstrue a guy distributing assault rifles from the back of his car. But it is testament to the fractured narrative presented online that crucial context was almost always left out or substituted by falsehoods. Not only had a gunman actually shot a protestor after driving his car into the crowd the previous day, but at the very moment of the video, the police were suspected to have been engaged in a disinformation campaign intended to provoke conflict.
Public police scanner frequencies that night (which it was known protestors were monitoring) were full of reports of a group of 20-30 armed “Proud Boys” (a far-right group) moving toward the protest zone. Bike police on scanners said they followed the group for blocks, asked where they were headed (the CHAZ), tried to dissuade them from going there, and eventually reported that they spontaneously dispersed before reaching their destination.
Now, a large group of armed men working their way up from Downtown to Capitol Hill would be a rather conspicuous sight even in those days when record numbers of armed men walked the streets. Yet none of the thousands of protestors and allies spread throughout the city watching for them saw anything matching that description during or after. No communications from known Proud Boys (some of whom would in fact show up later to attack a protestor on video) indicated a presence. More directly, police descriptions of the group crossing certain intersections were contradicted by live traffic cameras showing those intersections, which showed no such thing.
But once again the apparent police intention of provocation via misinformation had been achieved. People at the CHAZ, already justifiably worried about violence, were put on high alert and armed themselves, producing a spectacle that even now persists on social media as a way to paint the entire protest with one brush.
The repeated amplification of individual images had some troubling commonalities, in particular the barely veiled parlance of racism. People in the protest zone and especially Black men, images of whom frequently accompanied these tweets and other posts, were invariably described as “thugs,” “savages,” “animals,” “feral,” and all the rest. Tellingly, those employing this vile lexicon were seldom Seattle or Capitol Hill residents; Twitter is very efficient at importing hate.
Indeed it did not take long for the CHAZ, having achieved the dubious distinction of attracting what is called national interest, to become the target of coordinated interference, harassment and disinformation campaigns by people all over the country. The resulting mess is a concise illustration of the incredible promise and complete inadequacy of online platforms in times like these.
The number of people and groups involved in these protests had made Twitter, with its accessibility and relative permanence, an invaluable tool for the dissemination of important information. While private groups on Signal, WhatsApp and Discord were also used, it was clearly better for things like police positioning, march updates, attacks on protestors and other crucial live communications to make the information as prominent and public as possible.“There was a lot of momentum being built up, people learning and educating themselves. So this was the chance to finally put everything we’d learned into action.”
TK and her fellow organizer Tatii explained that social media was at the heart of their work, though the end result of taking to the streets was always the ultimate goal.
“Social media is a huge part because without it, we can’t do shit,” Tatii said bluntly. “When it comes to finding the information that we need and finding resources to help Black people, all of that is through technology. That’s how we network with people, that’s how people reach out to us. That’s how we get people telling us about police scanners. There are a lot of group chats, like with our medics, our car brigade, our bike brigade. It’s all through social media.”
“Scouts let us know if like there’s 30 bike cops coming down Broadway. It’s crucial when you are trying to strategically plan around that type of stuff, to keep from being cornered and boxed in,” said TK.
“At least on the Black side of social media, it’s constantly been talked about, Black Lives Matter,” added Tatii. “There was a lot of momentum being built up, people learning and educating themselves. So this was the chance to finally put everything we’d learned into action.”
It’s easy to take Twitter for granted, so we should be sure to give the platform due credit for the fundamental capability it provides. Many I’ve spoken to here emphasized that they trusted what they read from accounts with a verifiable track record more than what they saw in the perennially out-of-date local news. In fact, as Tatii and TK noted, many of their fellow organizers came to Seattle specifically to learn for themselves the truth behind mainstream reports that didn’t pass a gut test.
But the choice to publicly organize via hashtag, for all that it made important information available quickly to as many people as possible, had two major consequences.
First, it fragmented that information almost to the point of usability: One never knew whether it was #seattleprotest or #seattleprotests, #seattleprotestcomms, #seatleprotest (yes), plain old #seattle, #defundSPD, or a handful of others. This was only exacerbated with the creation of the CHAZ, which birthed a dozen new hashtags of varying quality and population. Instagram provided powerful amplification effects but little verification or network building.
Twitter also exposed this stream of important information to eager antagonists across the country, who flooded those hashtags with abuse and misinformation. Posts with images from other or past protests were used to mislead or misrepresent the present ones, and pictures of police around the area from other times were used in an attempt to spook those who had learned to be wary of SPD’s presence. Fake names and events were publicized, fake demands issued and met, and fake accounts claiming to represent protestors or the zone.
techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
This post, though seen by many, was heeded by few.
The ownership of one particular account was hotly contested, and confused by such tantalizing hints as it following Huawei leadership (you can imagine the theories this spawned), and for an “official” statement ending with what appeared to be a few stray pixels from a Biden presidential campaign graphic.
Later, when attempting to provoke a “mission accomplished”-style early exit from the zone after the Mayor cut million from the police budget, the account exhorted its readers to vote for Biden. Needless to say this was not among the commonly agreed-upon demands or positions of the protests. Unless whoever was behind this strange yet prominent account exposes themselves, we may never know if it was a government plant, an agent provocateur or a practical joker, or what their intentions really are.
The enduring, chaotogenic myth that the CHAZ was an attempt to secede and form a socialist, anarchist utopia led to rebranding efforts. The misconception had become so widespread that it was decided to “officially” (as far as that concept existed in the space) change the name to the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest — then, noting the fact that Seattle itself is an “occupation” of native land, change the O to Organized.
This led to a further fragmentation of information channels: No one on the ground wanted to use #CHAZ and its relatives because it was no longer what organizers wanted to call it. But the name had entered the common parlance. So posts now needed to be #CHAZ, #CHOP, #CHOPCHAZ, and others like #CHAZSeattle and so on. It became very difficult to track an event — be it positive, like a march or speaker, or negative, like a fight or shooting — never knowing where to look or how to parse the information there.
It’s hard to overstate how effective the fractured narrative and opposing efforts were at shaping the national and global understanding of events surrounding these protests.
As they say you can never step into the same river twice, so it was on social media around the protest and the zone. The ever-shifting flow of Twitter sometimes produced absolutely vital data unavailable anywhere else, but always polluted with incomplete or premature judgments, ignorance, racism and false reports.
When I asked what digital tools were needed to better organize and avoid interference, protestors I spoke with generally said some sort of centralization and interoperability. Being able to colocate multiple feeds, authors, videos, images and static links in a dynamic, accessible way would save them huge amounts of time and effort. Certainly it would have helped to alleviate some of the problems noted above.Stream of conscience
“Live streaming and having our phones out every single day is our best form of self defense.”
Despite the shortcomings of social media at large, one digital medium that has proven itself truly indispensable to this protest and others to come is live streaming.
Although the technology has risen to mainstream popularity as a new form of passive entertainment on Twitch and other live platforms, it quickly became clear that it was the technology of choice for documenting these and other protests and social movements.
As TK put it: “People are visual learners; until they see it for themselves they don’t really believe it. And when it’s live, it’s live. You’re not seeing the cut, clipped and edited version. You can’t dispute what you see in raw live footage. You can’t ignore it.”
In Seattle, two people have become familiar faces, or voices, as they have doggedly documented every step of the protests this way, from before the CHOP to well after: Omari Salisbury and Joey Wieser.
techcrunch.com/wp-content/uplo…
Image Credits: Jake Gravbot
Salisbury runs Converge Media, an independent web-distributed news organization. He comes from a broadcast and networking background, and when the CHOP emerged literally outside his doorstep — the studio door opened onto the police line before officers left — he took the opportunity to share the story, as objectively as possible. To him, the only tool that fit the bill was live streaming.
“The viewer needs to be able to see the context, because if the viewer can’t see the context, then it becomes something else,” he said. “People appreciate us because the stream is long, we keep the camera there and we let people make their own decisions.”
He was there not just for the controversial or terrifying moments, like clashes between provocateurs and protestors, or the shootings that occurred later on, but for the huge number of peaceful hours when people would share their own experiences at Salisbury’s prompting. The result is an incredibly valuable archive of hundreds of hours of live footage, ground truth from inside the zone that has been watched by millions.
Joey Wieser has no media background, but rather just a passing familiarity with the systems and social media methods that can grab people’s attention. Yet his stream came to be relied on by many, and the events he captured also racked up millions of views, simply because he decided to take advantage of the tools at his disposal.“It's not that we don't have umbrellas. We just never met a storm worthy of one.
Until this week.” -Seattle pic.twitter.com/STGnwIc3sZ
— Joey Wieser (@itsjosephryan) June 8, 2020
“Live streaming and having our phones out every single day is our best form of self defense. Every day that I walk out my doorstep, I hold my phone as if it is my ultimate shield, my ultimate weapon,” he said. “Without it, I feel like I don’t have a role in this movement. It’s not like I’m some prolific live streamer, or that I know what Black communities need best. I’m just some white guy and I happen to work in tech. Having an understanding of what social media best practices look like, understanding analytics and social amplification — that combined with my community activism allowed me to come out here and do this.”
For Wieser, having the right connections or network was less important than being in the right place at the right time, even if it put him in danger. (He and Omari were both tear gassed multiple times and near shootings and other altercations.)
“I think it really puts the viewer at home in the driver’s seat,” he said. “Because they’re able to not only watch an uninterrupted stream, but to engage and have a real live conversation with somebody that’s there on the ground. You know, they can say, hey, turn to the left. What was that? It’s a participatory experience in a way watching the news doesn’t allow.”
One such incident I saw play out almost defies belief. Wieser was streaming the protest when a truck blasted through, nearly hitting several people. Minutes later, a person watching the stream was surprised when that very truck pulled up outside their apartment — it was their DoorDash driver, who announced proudly that they had just run down some protestors. (The driver’s plates and info were quickly sent through the proper channels.)THE PLOT THICKENS: The man in this truck is a driver for @DoorDash and was making a delivery. The customer was literally watching the livestream as the silver truck pulled up outside their home. pic.twitter.com/di1eI9bQjE
— Joey Wieser (@itsjosephryan) July 1, 2020
Being a two-way medium, it provides new opportunities for interference as well as engagement. Both Salisbury and Wieser experienced repeated attempts to pollute their comment sections or attack them personally.
“It’s not lost on me that this amplification can be used against us, but I think one of the important things about live streaming is that you can inject your own narrative, rather than let it be to the whim of, you know, Fox News or Sinclair,” said Wieser. “Regardless of whether or not the trolls take it over in the comment sections or in the hashtags, if you’re actually listening to the content, and if you’ve got someone out here who has the right heart and the right passion and the right analysis, you can reclaim that narrative.”“The citizen journalist has always existed. They just never had the tools to be on equal footing with national news.”
Salisbury, for his part, expressed that it is not always sufficient to simply document — one has to report, and that’s what he does.
“People rock with me because just turning on the camera and streaming, it’s not enough. Knowing the history of Seattle, the history of the neighborhood, understanding political positions… and you got to put paint where it ain’t, you know what I’m saying? The citizen journalist has always existed. They just never had the tools to be on equal footing with national news,” he said.
“People underestimate the tech that’s out there, especially the free stuff,” he continued. “I know people have their views about platforms and privacy. And I think that’s a different discussion. But I will say that what’s going on here allows for citizen journalists to touch the world. I used to build OTT and streaming platforms in Europe and across Africa. So understanding the actual technology that goes into this, man, I really don’t take no stream for granted. I’ve got people in Australia who’ve been on since day one. What if I had to cultivate that through my own contacts, do my own server, do my own everything? How would I reach them? It doesn’t work that way.”
He credits live streaming with putting pressure on local and national outlets to up their game, as well — being showed up by one person with a phone doesn’t look good for a major news organization.
“Citizen journalists and streamers came out here and forced the local media to change their whole game,” he said. “I mean, a guy with a cell phone didn’t get no respect back in the day. But I had my interviews with the mayor before anybody, my interviews with Chief Best before anybody. You see what I’m saying? I’m just a guy with a phone. Now the Seattle Times has a streamer out here. This situation has made the media adapt new technology.”
While live broadcasts have been part of local and national news for decades, it was in truth a totally different medium. But it’s now difficult to imagine coverage of events like these without modern live streaming, and legacy media have begun to recognize that. Technology has always been a double-edged sword. The events in Seattle and across the country have illustrated this powerfully, and it seems unarguable that whatever happens in terms of policy and politics, the nature of protesting and the power dynamic that has defined it for decades has begun to change.
Ultimately, though, the power does not belong to the tech, but to the people.
“Technology plays a big part in all this, but I’m gonna be real with you, what you need is more old fashioned beating your feet to the streets,” concluded TK. “It’s not that the technology is insufficient, but that people are choosing not to use technology to understand.
“We’ve proven it time and time again that the only ones that really got our back is us.”
feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc… feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/Techc…
techcrunch.com/2020/07/18/for-… -
Do I discover the Thing’s glow or do I place it there?
Following from yesterday’s more extensive blog post, I was a bit taken aback by Mari Ruti’s statement here in The Creative Self loc 314:
We can be guided to the Thing’s glow by people—artists, creators, and inventors of various kinds—who possess a stronger than average capacity to either extract it from an already existing object or to install it in an object that they create from scratch. Lacan’s example of the latter phenomenon is the manner in which Cézanne paints apples. Lacan claims that an apple painted by Cézanne is never merely a simple depiction of an apple but, rather, contains an aura of a mysteriousness that viewers respond to. While Cézanne’s apples do not give us the “Thing-in-itself,” they grant us a little taste of the Thing’s sublimity.
Are the words ‘extract’ and ‘install’ uncharacteristically poor choice from this usually careful writer? Or does Ruti intend the active connotation these words carry? To me they suggest an agent deliberately seeking to bring about an outcome through their engagement with the object, as opposed to this outcome being a byproduct of the interaction. It’s the difference between “the Thing’s glow” emerging as a consequence of a creative process and someone setting out to “make something sublime”.
I’m possibly overdrawing the distinction to make the point but I feel slightly allergic to the idea we could characterise this in such an active register. Creativity to me involves a form of surrender, centering what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious, rather than ‘extraction’ and ‘installation’. Furthermore, these two phrases sit oddly with each other, given that the former identifies a residue in the object whereas the latter puts it there in the first place. In Ruti’s defence she’s talking about the capacity of a person to do this rather than suggesting that’s the intention of the process. But I do think there’s an underlying assumption of activity in her conceptual architecture here which I fundamentally don’t agree with. For example from loc 342:
Although there may be something about the object itself that makes it a good candidate for serving as a vessel for the objet a, it is we, ourselves, who unconsciously place the objet a within this object. Yet the fact that we are the architects of our own desire does not decrease the relevant object’s ability to draw us in with an inexplicable, irresistible force. We may even come to value it so highly that our desire for it feels nonnegotiable. In other words, due to the hidden link between the Thing and the objet a—the fact that the objet a contains a smidgeon of the Thing’s aura and therefore always in the final analysis refers back to the Thing—our desire for an object that seems to contain the objet a can become so strong that we are willing to sacrifice a great deal for it.
Do we unconsciously place the objet a within the object? I’m not sure that’s the case. I think in any given moment we are constituted as a being for whom the objet a is already within the object. To talk about unconsciously placing it there suggests that we are doing that, almost as a form of projection, it’s simply that we don’t know that we are doing it. Whereas I took Lacan to be saying something more unsettling: that I am someone who cannot help but be drawn in and that the question is simply how I relate to that power exercised upon me. To talk about ‘unconscious placing’ misconstrues a structural relation as a psychodynamic one.
There’s a latent volunteerism here which changes how we relate to the receptive unconscious. If we are ‘placing’ then it carries the promise we might learn to place differently, as opposed to remaining with what emerges through the structured relation to the world and changing through our engagement with what emerges. It’s staying with what happens to you rather than locating yourself as the source of what happens. It also changes the relation to the question I’m preoccupied by: why do I feel the Thing’s glow in this object and not another? If it’s unconscious placement the question becomes abut the psychodynamic pattern of my projection of the sublime onto the world. If it’s a consequence of the structural relation, the question becomes about how I was constituted as a being who feels the call of the Thing where I do. The latter question is significantly broader in the scope than the former and that matters.
I find this uncomfortable because ‘unconscious placement’ is easier to incorporate into a biographical frame. What in my past disposes me to unconsciously place the glow in this way? In contrast the structural frame becomes far more diffuse even as it lends itself more clearly to empirical objects: what is the call I feel in relation to the glow of thing? How do I relate to that call? How does it lead me to act? How might I act differently? What are the resources which might support such different responses?
#bollas #Lacan #MariRuti #objetA #theThing -
Do I discover the Thing’s glow or do I place it there?
Following from yesterday’s more extensive blog post, I was a bit taken aback by Mari Ruti’s statement here in The Creative Self loc 314:
We can be guided to the Thing’s glow by people—artists, creators, and inventors of various kinds—who possess a stronger than average capacity to either extract it from an already existing object or to install it in an object that they create from scratch. Lacan’s example of the latter phenomenon is the manner in which Cézanne paints apples. Lacan claims that an apple painted by Cézanne is never merely a simple depiction of an apple but, rather, contains an aura of a mysteriousness that viewers respond to. While Cézanne’s apples do not give us the “Thing-in-itself,” they grant us a little taste of the Thing’s sublimity.
Are the words ‘extract’ and ‘install’ uncharacteristically poor choice from this usually careful writer? Or does Ruti intend the active connotation these words carry? To me they suggest an agent deliberately seeking to bring about an outcome through their engagement with the object, as opposed to this outcome being a byproduct of the interaction. It’s the difference between “the Thing’s glow” emerging as a consequence of a creative process and someone setting out to “make something sublime”.
I’m possibly overdrawing the distinction to make the point but I feel slightly allergic to the idea we could characterise this in such an active register. Creativity to me involves a form of surrender, centering what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious, rather than ‘extraction’ and ‘installation’. Furthermore, these two phrases sit oddly with each other, given that the former identifies a residue in the object whereas the latter puts it there in the first place. In Ruti’s defence she’s talking about the capacity of a person to do this rather than suggesting that’s the intention of the process. But I do think there’s an underlying assumption of activity in her conceptual architecture here which I fundamentally don’t agree with. For example from loc 342:
Although there may be something about the object itself that makes it a good candidate for serving as a vessel for the objet a, it is we, ourselves, who unconsciously place the objet a within this object. Yet the fact that we are the architects of our own desire does not decrease the relevant object’s ability to draw us in with an inexplicable, irresistible force. We may even come to value it so highly that our desire for it feels nonnegotiable. In other words, due to the hidden link between the Thing and the objet a—the fact that the objet a contains a smidgeon of the Thing’s aura and therefore always in the final analysis refers back to the Thing—our desire for an object that seems to contain the objet a can become so strong that we are willing to sacrifice a great deal for it.
Do we unconsciously place the objet a within the object? I’m not sure that’s the case. I think in any given moment we are constituted as a being for whom the objet a is already within the object. To talk about unconsciously placing it there suggests that we are doing that, almost as a form of projection, it’s simply that we don’t know that we are doing it. Whereas I took Lacan to be saying something more unsettling: that I am someone who cannot help but be drawn in and that the question is simply how I relate to that power exercised upon me. To talk about ‘unconscious placing’ misconstrues a structural relation as a psychodynamic one.
There’s a latent volunteerism here which changes how we relate to the receptive unconscious. If we are ‘placing’ then it carries the promise we might learn to place differently, as opposed to remaining with what emerges through the structured relation to the world and changing through our engagement with what emerges. It’s staying with what happens to you rather than locating yourself as the source of what happens. It also changes the relation to the question I’m preoccupied by: why do I feel the Thing’s glow in this object and not another? If it’s unconscious placement the question becomes abut the psychodynamic pattern of my projection of the sublime onto the world. If it’s a consequence of the structural relation, the question becomes about how I was constituted as a being who feels the call of the Thing where I do. The latter question is significantly broader in the scope than the former and that matters.
I find this uncomfortable because ‘unconscious placement’ is easier to incorporate into a biographical frame. What in my past disposes me to unconsciously place the glow in this way? In contrast the structural frame becomes far more diffuse even as it lends itself more clearly to empirical objects: what is the call I feel in relation to the glow of thing? How do I relate to that call? How does it lead me to act? How might I act differently? What are the resources which might support such different responses?
#bollas #Lacan #MariRuti #objetA #theThing -
Do I discover the Thing’s glow or do I place it there?
Following from yesterday’s more extensive blog post, I was a bit taken aback by Mari Ruti’s statement here in The Creative Self loc 314:
We can be guided to the Thing’s glow by people—artists, creators, and inventors of various kinds—who possess a stronger than average capacity to either extract it from an already existing object or to install it in an object that they create from scratch. Lacan’s example of the latter phenomenon is the manner in which Cézanne paints apples. Lacan claims that an apple painted by Cézanne is never merely a simple depiction of an apple but, rather, contains an aura of a mysteriousness that viewers respond to. While Cézanne’s apples do not give us the “Thing-in-itself,” they grant us a little taste of the Thing’s sublimity.
Are the words ‘extract’ and ‘install’ uncharacteristically poor choice from this usually careful writer? Or does Ruti intend the active connotation these words carry? To me they suggest an agent deliberately seeking to bring about an outcome through their engagement with the object, as opposed to this outcome being a byproduct of the interaction. It’s the difference between “the Thing’s glow” emerging as a consequence of a creative process and someone setting out to “make something sublime”.
I’m possibly overdrawing the distinction to make the point but I feel slightly allergic to the idea we could characterise this in such an active register. Creativity to me involves a form of surrender, centering what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious, rather than ‘extraction’ and ‘installation’. Furthermore, these two phrases sit oddly with each other, given that the former identifies a residue in the object whereas the latter puts it there in the first place. In Ruti’s defence she’s talking about the capacity of a person to do this rather than suggesting that’s the intention of the process. But I do think there’s an underlying assumption of activity in her conceptual architecture here which I fundamentally don’t agree with. For example from loc 342:
Although there may be something about the object itself that makes it a good candidate for serving as a vessel for the objet a, it is we, ourselves, who unconsciously place the objet a within this object. Yet the fact that we are the architects of our own desire does not decrease the relevant object’s ability to draw us in with an inexplicable, irresistible force. We may even come to value it so highly that our desire for it feels nonnegotiable. In other words, due to the hidden link between the Thing and the objet a—the fact that the objet a contains a smidgeon of the Thing’s aura and therefore always in the final analysis refers back to the Thing—our desire for an object that seems to contain the objet a can become so strong that we are willing to sacrifice a great deal for it.
Do we unconsciously place the objet a within the object? I’m not sure that’s the case. I think in any given moment we are constituted as a being for whom the objet a is already within the object. To talk about unconsciously placing it there suggests that we are doing that, almost as a form of projection, it’s simply that we don’t know that we are doing it. Whereas I took Lacan to be saying something more unsettling: that I am someone who cannot help but be drawn in and that the question is simply how I relate to that power exercised upon me. To talk about ‘unconscious placing’ misconstrues a structural relation as a psychodynamic one.
There’s a latent volunteerism here which changes how we relate to the receptive unconscious. If we are ‘placing’ then it carries the promise we might learn to place differently, as opposed to remaining with what emerges through the structured relation to the world and changing through our engagement with what emerges. It’s staying with what happens to you rather than locating yourself as the source of what happens. It also changes the relation to the question I’m preoccupied by: why do I feel the Thing’s glow in this object and not another? If it’s unconscious placement the question becomes abut the psychodynamic pattern of my projection of the sublime onto the world. If it’s a consequence of the structural relation, the question becomes about how I was constituted as a being who feels the call of the Thing where I do. The latter question is significantly broader in the scope than the former and that matters.
I find this uncomfortable because ‘unconscious placement’ is easier to incorporate into a biographical frame. What in my past disposes me to unconsciously place the glow in this way? In contrast the structural frame becomes far more diffuse even as it lends itself more clearly to empirical objects: what is the call I feel in relation to the glow of thing? How do I relate to that call? How does it lead me to act? How might I act differently? What are the resources which might support such different responses?
#bollas #Lacan #MariRuti #objetA #theThing -
Do I discover the Thing’s glow or do I place it there?
Following from yesterday’s more extensive blog post, I was a bit taken aback by Mari Ruti’s statement here in The Creative Self loc 314:
We can be guided to the Thing’s glow by people—artists, creators, and inventors of various kinds—who possess a stronger than average capacity to either extract it from an already existing object or to install it in an object that they create from scratch. Lacan’s example of the latter phenomenon is the manner in which Cézanne paints apples. Lacan claims that an apple painted by Cézanne is never merely a simple depiction of an apple but, rather, contains an aura of a mysteriousness that viewers respond to. While Cézanne’s apples do not give us the “Thing-in-itself,” they grant us a little taste of the Thing’s sublimity.
Are the words ‘extract’ and ‘install’ uncharacteristically poor choice from this usually careful writer? Or does Ruti intend the active connotation these words carry? To me they suggest an agent deliberately seeking to bring about an outcome through their engagement with the object, as opposed to this outcome being a byproduct of the interaction. It’s the difference between “the Thing’s glow” emerging as a consequence of a creative process and someone setting out to “make something sublime”.
I’m possibly overdrawing the distinction to make the point but I feel slightly allergic to the idea we could characterise this in such an active register. Creativity to me involves a form of surrender, centering what Bollas calls the receptive unconscious, rather than ‘extraction’ and ‘installation’. Furthermore, these two phrases sit oddly with each other, given that the former identifies a residue in the object whereas the latter puts it there in the first place. In Ruti’s defence she’s talking about the capacity of a person to do this rather than suggesting that’s the intention of the process. But I do think there’s an underlying assumption of activity in her conceptual architecture here which I fundamentally don’t agree with. For example from loc 342:
Although there may be something about the object itself that makes it a good candidate for serving as a vessel for the objet a, it is we, ourselves, who unconsciously place the objet a within this object. Yet the fact that we are the architects of our own desire does not decrease the relevant object’s ability to draw us in with an inexplicable, irresistible force. We may even come to value it so highly that our desire for it feels nonnegotiable. In other words, due to the hidden link between the Thing and the objet a—the fact that the objet a contains a smidgeon of the Thing’s aura and therefore always in the final analysis refers back to the Thing—our desire for an object that seems to contain the objet a can become so strong that we are willing to sacrifice a great deal for it.
Do we unconsciously place the objet a within the object? I’m not sure that’s the case. I think in any given moment we are constituted as a being for whom the objet a is already within the object. To talk about unconsciously placing it there suggests that we are doing that, almost as a form of projection, it’s simply that we don’t know that we are doing it. Whereas I took Lacan to be saying something more unsettling: that I am someone who cannot help but be drawn in and that the question is simply how I relate to that power exercised upon me. To talk about ‘unconscious placing’ misconstrues a structural relation as a psychodynamic one.
There’s a latent volunteerism here which changes how we relate to the receptive unconscious. If we are ‘placing’ then it carries the promise we might learn to place differently, as opposed to remaining with what emerges through the structured relation to the world and changing through our engagement with what emerges. It’s staying with what happens to you rather than locating yourself as the source of what happens. It also changes the relation to the question I’m preoccupied by: why do I feel the Thing’s glow in this object and not another? If it’s unconscious placement the question becomes abut the psychodynamic pattern of my projection of the sublime onto the world. If it’s a consequence of the structural relation, the question becomes about how I was constituted as a being who feels the call of the Thing where I do. The latter question is significantly broader in the scope than the former and that matters.
I find this uncomfortable because ‘unconscious placement’ is easier to incorporate into a biographical frame. What in my past disposes me to unconsciously place the glow in this way? In contrast the structural frame becomes far more diffuse even as it lends itself more clearly to empirical objects: what is the call I feel in relation to the glow of thing? How do I relate to that call? How does it lead me to act? How might I act differently? What are the resources which might support such different responses?
#bollas #Lacan #MariRuti #objetA #theThing -
@gusseting
You might well be. You don’t have to defend yourself, It’s no my wish to put you in that position. I merely pointed out that useful discussions are those where there is a single and clear topic and that divergences are distracting and can be misconstrued, that’s all.
And yes, you were alleging @johnquiggin is bought by the #FossilFuelLobby. He is an academic of good reputation and does have #economic insights that are worth considering no matter which side of politics one supports IMHO. As for the #AustralianInstitute, I like what #RichardDenniss and #GregJericho have to say almost without excception (Neither of them are bought by #Fortesque or the fossil lobby BTW).I don’t really want to argue with you. Thruth be known I abhor confrontations, physical or otherwise. Let there be peace between us dear tooter.
#AusPol -
Here’s the Deputy Secretary of the Interior Doing the Bidding of a Foreign Mining Company
2025-07-17-memo-reinstating-m-37049DownloadOn the very same day that the DC District Court of Appeals issued its per curiam opinion putting the Boundary Waters litigation on hold for 90 days, Deputy Secretary of the Interior Kate MacGregor issued this memo, re-instating the Jorjani M-Opinion.
That legal opinion misconstrues history, suppresses evidence, and twists logic to say that Twin Metals has a “non-discretionary” right to renewal of its mining leases on the edge of the Boundary Waters: put crudely, it says that a foreign mining company has more discretion than the United States government over the disposition of federal lands. The US government capitulates and cedes decision-making authority to a foreign conglomerate.
This is the very same legal opinion that led the agencies into a legal and ethical morass during Trump’s first term. (For context, follow this link; it will bring up about four pages of results. For some discussion of the legal opinion, see this, this, and this, at least for starters. The Jorjani M-Opinion was also one focus of my Boundary Waters FOIA litigation. Those public records are posted here.) It feels like we’re caught in a time warp, or some kind of loop.
We are returning to status quo ante, or at least ante Biden. Antofagasta obviously did not like its chances in the DC District Court, and with Doug Burgum’s help it managed to put the litigation on hold. Pete Stauber failed to sneak non-reviewable lease renewals for the Chilean company into the latest budget. But the mining company and its lobbyists were able to pull strings at Interior. Now they will have to undo, or find a way to work around, the twenty-year moratorium on sulfide mining in the Rainy River watershed put in place by the Biden administration.
Type your email…
Subscribe
#ANTO #authority #corruption #cronyism #DougBurgum #FOIA #governmentCapture #KateMacGregor #kleptocracy #RainyRiverWatershed #selectiveEvidence #Water
-
That's right folks! Stripey Sums it up below.
#Fediverse is often misconstrued as that network in the #DeSoc space powered by #ActivityPub exclusively - NOPE!
In fact, even mastobruhs would be wise to note that Eugen's original creation was an #OStatus networked product until quite recently in Fediverse evolution years.
Still, there's a lot of otherwise respected tech personalities that continue to insist and spread disinformation to the contrary. Shame on them - someone, everyone, needs to edjumacate those individuals spreading FUD and confusion to the next generation of n00bs arriving in this free and thriving world of privacy respecting, horizontally scaling, #FOSS based social communication systems.
Apparently, what I've quoted below was part of a larger, longer conversation, yet I'm confident that just what #Stripey points out below in correcting someone else's erroneous assumptions more than correctly describes Fediverse and puts an end to any misunderstanding for all sentient #Fedizens 🤘🤠🤘
⛵
.
RE: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/users/strypey/statuses/113015290565128857
-
At the SCA trade show this year, there was a little sumthin sumthin towards the back of Hario’s booth that many folks may have missed (Jay Caragay, however, did not miss it!). It is the new variant of the Hario V60, called the Hario V60 Suiren Coffee Dripper.
The Hario Suiren, in a fully customized version, with black and green ribs.The Suiren is not available officially yet in North America, but guess what: you can order one, with zero shipping charges (it’s coming from Japan), direct from the US Amazon site, right now for under $24! And you can also order a set of six spare ribs in one of six different colours (eight will eventually be available) to really customize your brewer. I don’t know how long this availability will last, but if you want one, you can order one, today.
What Exactly Is It?
The Hario Suiren is an open-air kinda pour over brewer, based on the same rib structure, and angles that the original V60 has inside all the filter holders in that series. But something’s missing: any surface area between those ribs! Its basically the polar opposite of a no-bypass brewer.
Now this kind of brewer – one that exposes the main filtering material to full airflow around it – isn’t new. Cloth pourover systems always worked this way, and over the years we’ve been sent various “out in the open” filter holders for Melitta cone filters, flat bottom filter papers, and even aftermarket designs for the V60 filter papers.
The V60 paper filters kind of float in the brewer, held in place by the ribs.What does make this new and interesting is just how beautiful Hario’s execution is of this brewing device. They are selling the Suiren in several variants, including basic black, basic white, and single colours. They are also selling it in “limited edition” mixed colours. And the give even more creativity, you can buy six coloured ribs to really customize your Suiren and make it entirely your own.
The Suiren ships in a flat-pack box, IKEA style, because you have to assemble it when it arrives. Inside the box is the filter holder / carafe rest, the filter’s main hub, and two boxes each containing six removable ribs. Click the ribs into the slots in the circular hub (12 ribs per brewer), and then click the assembled ribs and hub into the filter holder.
The box the Suiren comes in; next to it are how the spare ribs are shipped.The material is all plastic, and appears at first glance to be a different type of plastic than what Hario is using in their plastic V60s. It seems a bit more pliable, “softer” if that’s a thing. Don’t misconstrue though – the plastics are very high quality and once assembled the brewer is very sturdy.
We bought three brewers and two sets of spare ribs, direct from Hario Japan. One set featured alternating black and white ribs. The second set had three colours, in four ribs: red, white and blue (perfect for the 4th of July!). The third set was just black ribs, and also the cheapest option, costing about $6 less than the multi colour versions. We also bought green and purple rib sets.
That’s another thing that makes this brewer so fantastic: you can modify it visually to really make it your own. Choose the rib colours that suit your mood, your work area, or your kitchen. I firmly believe the more you feel your coffee device is meant specifically for you, the more you’ll get out of it.
Green’s kinda my colour of choice for most of my life, so this mix of green and black speaks to me.Brewing with the Suiren
We’ve experimented a lot with open air filter designs in the past, and something always seemed to happen that went against expectations and assumptions: you think the coffee would brew faster with more flow through, but that isn’t the case; if anything, the brews slow down a tad compared to normal, enclosed (and ribbed) filter holders. It took me a long time to figure out why this was happening. Eventually I figured it out via experiments we did in the CoffeeGeek Lab back in 2011.
But it was time to see if the Suiren did the same thing.
Pre-wetting the filter, note how it adheres to all the ribs very well. No worries about any sags or dips in the filter paper when brewing.And sure enough, the brew times with the Suiren, head to head with a standard V60 brew, were just a tad slower to finish. Magic? Naw. There’s a cause. But first, here’s what I did for both brews.
I set up my first brews with the Suiren side by side with #2 V60 ceramic brewer. Same coffee, same dose, same grind. Same filter paper. Same prewet procedure. Both on the scale, both geting a bloom pour of 2x the coffee volume (21g brewed, 42g bloom pour). Pause 30 seconds. Then pour water at around 2-3g a second to 150g total water weight. Pause 30 seconds. Finish to 300g water weight.
Pouring water during the second brew phase with the Suiren.Both pours were completed at around 3:10 mark. The standard V60 finished brewing by 4:10. The Suiren? 4:15. Weird, right?
Temperature is the cause. The open air concept of the Suiren does something a closed porcelain or plastic V60 does less of: it allows heat to escape the brewing slurry faster. Things cool down quicker in the slurry. The finished brew temperature in the cup is lower, with the Suiren. That’s what can slow down the brew and extraction: the hotter the water is, the more efficient it’s going to travel through ground coffee.
You can see this visually with the Suiren: moisture collects on the ribs, showing the dissipation of heat from the filter paper and brewing slurry.
See the collecting moisture on the ribs? That’s an indicator of heat escaping: the slurry is cooling down faster, thus slowing down the extraction.Measuring both brews after with a DiFluid R2 refractometer, they were almost identical, at around 1.32-1.34%
Regardless of all this, the Suiren was producing cups that seemed a bit more “mellow” than the standard V60; a bit softer, but by no means sour or lacking in body or depth. If I had to come up with one word, it would be “less sharp” (I guess that’s two words). And for my palate, that’s a good thing.
Basically, if you are a fan of super bright coffees, you might not like this brewer. Also, I was able to visualize the bypass happening out of the sides of the paper filter (though it proved impossible to photograph); you definitely want to use a 14:1 ratio with this brewer to get a properly extracted cup. If your pursuit is getting 300ml of brew from 15g of ground coffee, this brewer ain’t gonna do it. Go no-bypass.
Brewing coffee with the Suiren produces a nice, mellow, balanced and rich cup.Sure is Pretty
Look: I appreciate beautiful design engineering in coffee (to the point where I’m pretty critical of “engineer-designed UI”) and wow, did Hario ever hit a home run here. For $23 or less, this is a strikingly beautiful brewer. And you can completely customize it!
My partner in life is pretty blasé about all things coffee and espresso, given our house is full of the stuff. But she loves the look of the Hario Suiren so much, she actually posted a photo to her own Instagram account, which is saying something: I think the last time she posted something coffee related was half a decade ago!
When you wet the paper filter, it adheres in a very artistic way to the ribs.Honestly, for $23 or less, this is a no brainer. Who knows how much it will be once the middlemen and importers start stocking it over here in Canada and the USA. I’d probably pay as much as $35 or more for this, given its unique look and ability to deliver a more mellow, less sharp cup of coffee.
But for now, you can buy this via Amazon in the US, with it being shipped direct from Japan. There’s only one colour choice available at the moment (black), but you can also order sets of the ribs to customize your own.
And if you made it this far, here’s a gallery of some other photos I took of this pretty brewer.
https://coffeegeek.com/blog/new-products/hario-suiren-first-look-review/
-
While all other Sciences have advanced, that of Government is at a Stand; little better understood; little better practiced now than 3 or 4 thousand years ago. What is the Reason? I say Parties and Factions will not Suffer, or permit Improvements to be made. As Soon as one Man hints at an improvement his Rival opposes it. No sooner has one Party discovered or invented an Amelioration of the condition of Man or the order of Society, than the opposite Party, belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it.
John Adams (1735–1826) American lawyer, Founding Father, statesman, US President (1797–1801)
Letter (1813-07-09) to Thomas JeffersonMore about this quote: wist.info/adams-john/36370/
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #johnadams #censorship #factions #government #parties #partisanship #politicalscience #politics #progress #publicpolicy
-
This fundamental interpretive shift is noteworthy and prompts serious #questions regarding the #RFRA's #congruity with the #Constitution.
#ConstitutionalAmendments like the #1stAmendment must not be #altered or #misconstrued through the #enactment of #ordinary #legislation like the #RFRA. Such #alterations must be viewed as #undermining the inherent #authority of the #constitution and its #amendments, potentially creating #legal #discrepancies and #loopholes. (6/8)
-
In a shocking move, the Department of Justice has targeted activists in New Jersey in a new front in repression of the movement for Palestine and the Trump administration’s authoritarian offensive against the Left, workers, and social movements. The suit comes in response to a protest against a synagogue in West Orange being used to sell illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. The government is spinning what really happened, claiming the protesters were an antisemitic mob.The suit targets the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which has also been targeted by the state for their immigrant solidarity activism in California. The suit also targets American Muslims for Palestine, and includes several individual community activists.The federal government is suing these activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, a piece of legislation designed to prevent anti-abortion protesters from keeping people seeking abortions from entering clinics. This is the first time the legislation has ever been used to target a protest outside of a place of worship.However, it must be reiterated that the activists were not protesting the practice of Judaism — they were protesting supporters of a genocidal regime auctioning off stolen land. It has been common for Zionists to hold events that normalize violence against Palestinians in Jewish community spaces, and use that as a way to misconstrue the intentions of pro-Palestine protesters, many of whom are Jewish themselves.
These auctions for stolen Palestinian land in synogogues have been going on for a long time now. These synogogues are not being protested for Judaism, but for hosting this violently racist practice. -
I was browsing through old Greek mythology images and made a meme. I didn't read the background for this guy so I may have missed some context or misconstrued what's going on here, idk, whatev.
#dumbmemes #mythology #kronos #greekmyths #greekmythology -
I am often called a critic of #religion, but rather in the superficial way of those who misconstrue dialectical analysis as blaming. Never have I advocated for a world without religion, nor for a #rationalist crusade against it. #philosophy #GregoriusAdvena
-
Hi Derek!
And greetings from the remote mountain regions of #Humboldt where we export the genetics for those 🌺 flowers 🤘💀🤘
Anyway...
I'm trying to your post in which you both misconstrued and misinformed the reader with alarmist, and generally misunderstood narrative.
Specifically, and respectfully:
>***"I wonder if people using mastodon know that, without section 230, no one could legally afford to run a mastodon instance in the US. Section 230 protects what we do here every day. Politicians threatening 230 are threatening free speech on the internet."***
Although we'll go over both sentences, the part that I really take exception to is the first one:
- "I wonder if people using mastodon know that, without section 230, no one could legally afford to run a mastodon instance in the US."
I quoted you twice for emphasis, because what you said is simply NOT TRUE, at all Derek, but who would want to run a single user mastodon server instance anyway?
Okay a select few, but it's not economical to do so - here's why:
It's such #bloatware and a #resource_hog compared to other, more capable and featureful #Fediverse servers, like #Pleroma, #Takahē, #Epicyon, #Akkoma, #Calckey, #Soapbox, #Friendica, #Socialhome, #MicroblogPub, #Misskey, #Smithereen, and the list goes on and on for a while; a veritable laundry list of platforms endowed with more feature rich, more resource and energy conserving footprints.
You could call mastodon the white elephant in the room when it comes to kruft, waste of energy and resources, or lack of the most desired features by it's traditional userbase (although people are nowadays migrating their accounts to these other Fediverse platforms in ever increasing numbers).
Like you, I'm also a staunch proponent of Section 230, as it was originally intended and written - to protect publishers, NOT editors. But most of the conservative agendas to which you refer only seek to remove protections for sites that cross that line between that of #publisher to that of #editor anyway - so as long as you don't interfere with a user's #speech those deprecated silos would have nothing to worry about.
It's the Marxist/Leftist agendas in Congress that you need to worry about - they're proposing complete evisceration of section 230 - and yes, that would jeopardize, probably even put those monolithic deprecated silos out of business for good.
- I see very little that is bad about killing a rabid animal... Or a fox in the henhouse.
But... riddle me this Batman:
What would be so bad about that? It would destroy the surveillance plutocracy and data farming of individuals and their identities by those socalled, "Big-Tech" subjugation engines like #Faceplant, #InstaSPAM, #Reddit, #Twitter, and to a large degree, #Google too... (It won't do anything to stop the likes of Amazon or Apple though wrt their surveillance programs).
All if that, while at the same time encourage the migration of people to a fully decentralized and safer social media network where there are either no platforms (only censor proof protocols), as in #nostr; or #federated #SmallWeb and single user #ActivityPub platform instances; or those #Fediverse platforms that vow not to #molest_users who #publish on those platforms by imposing draconian #editorializing (censorship) upon their users.
Either way you can certainly look at this as a win-win situation for the #individual in #social_media networking. The question really is therefore, "How badly do you wish to punish the privacy disrespecting subjugation farms that comprise that deprecated, monolithic silo space?"
I hope that helps, Enjoy!
⛵
.
-
@gooba42 @stepheneb If you chose to inanely misconstrue the research paper that way, then that is on you #bless
-
@gooba42 @stepheneb If you chose to inanely misconstrue the research paper that way, then that is on you #bless
-
@gooba42 @stepheneb If you chose to inanely misconstrue the research paper that way, then that is on you #bless
-
@gooba42 @stepheneb If you chose to inanely misconstrue the research paper that way, then that is on you #bless
-
@gooba42 @stepheneb If you chose to inanely misconstrue the research paper that way, then that is on you #bless
-
Leylines: From the old straight track to Ghostbusters
Published February 2017
A few years ago, a paranormal investigator acquaintance who knew I was a geologist asked me what I thought about leylines related to paranormal phenomena. I wasn’t familiar with this association or the history of leylines then. After consulting several references and poking around the Web, I am now! Take a trip with me traveling down some spooky paths to make sense of leylines.
Ghostbusters 2016
I finally got around to watching the new Ghostbusters movie (with the all-female team). There they were: leylines at the crux of all the paranormal trouble in town! It is indeed past time to deal with these pesky leylines (or ley lines, leys)- a larger-than-life, distorted, misrepresented concept that manifested like the Stay-Puft marshmallow man in paranormal circles.
Dr. Gilbert discovers that paranormal incidents plotted on a map are connected via lines. What if she didn’t have all the points? Three is the minimum and not statistically reliable. She could have drawn completely different lines or circles. Oh wait, they match an old map of ley lines.
The team determines that the crossing is a node and that’s where they must go. When they get there, they find the extremely well-lit vortex containment system conveniently on a platform.“What do those look like to you?”
“Leylines”
“What’s ‘leylines’?”
“It’s a hidden network of energy lines that run across the earth; it’s a current of supernatural energy.”
“Supposedly if you look at sacred sites and weird events all over the world and connect them with lines, where they intersect, it’s an unusually powerful spot.”
“He’s using the devices to charge the leylines. He’s creating a vortex.”Ghostbusters (2016)
Leylines as first proposed had NOTHING to do with energy or ghostly activity. How did we get to this?
As usually occurs with people and ideas, mix real bits with some imagination, blend it all into a confusing mess, then jazz it up Hollywood style, and you have the very convoluted answer. How about a walk down the fairy path? Or maybe it’s a UFO runway…
Watkins’ Old Straight Track lead to leylines
There are several books written on leylines but the term was coined in books by amateur archaeologist Alfred Watkins – Early British Trackways (1922) and The Old Straight Track (1925). Watkins observed that places of pre-historic and historic significance were aligned across long distances in the British countryside. Ancient henges, barrows, cursuses, building sites, monuments, tors, ponds, holy wells, etc., could be mapped as points along a straight line regardless of the terrain. He wasn’t the first to notice the connection to other sites that some thought were akin to “beacon hills” (think Lord of the Rings call for aid) where you could see the next journey point from your current point, but he was the first to say that they were ubiquitous. Astronomical alignments had also previously been noted.
Watkins encouraged people to take a map and a camera and do their own exploration for “leys”. It became a hobby for some in the 1930s when there was a strong national sentiment for the romance, lore, and legend of British ancient heritage.
Watkins’s idea was purely utilitarian. The Old Straight Track is tedious reading – wordy, dry, and full of speculation (and suspected leylines). But his hypothesis was rejected by academia and his work was discredited and ignored. Connecting four points to make a line was not difficult in a country where there were thousands of prehistoric and historic monuments. The width of the lines varied to allow inclusion of other points alongside. And, there certainly were straight segments of some significance used as travel ways or for ceremonial processions (such as funeral paths or “corpse ways”), perhaps later to become Roman roads.
At some point, “leys” shifted from being a guide to where special places were located to being forces of nature that dictated where these special places would be located and why that made them special, even magical. Watkins’s ideas were adopted by more imaginative types.
Earth Energy via leylines
Straight lines already had some supernatural significance. For example, the paths where bodies were carried from the town to a burial site were called “corpse roads” and associated with routes of the spirits, which became spirit paths that you were encouraged to avoid. Spirits were said to have a preference for straight lines. Or the paths were said to be used by fairies so you surely had better steer clear of those!
Ceremonial paths, visible from the air and ground, are obvious in many cultures. In 1958, French author Aimé Michel in Flying Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery said that UFO sightings in France had occurred along invisible lines across great distances that formed a grid. He called this idea orthoteny and suspected the lines might be associated with the terrain.
Leylines and orthotenic lines were joined in concept by John Michell. Michell wrote The View Over Atlantis which heralded the “earth mysteries” idea in 1969. Kate Shrewsday writes:
“Glastonbury Tor is the focus for a veritable spaghetti junction of lines, a perfect ancient centre for the tie-dye set.” – Kate Shrewsday.Enter John Mitchell (sic), Eton-educated member of the hippy hierarchy, author of The View Over Atlantis and so many other books which re-ignited our passion for the old places. It was Mitchell who resurrected Watkins’ lines and used them to mystify a landscape which had become mundane.
His premises were so engrossing, so seductive, that a whole counter-culture grew green and vigorous around it.
Leylines were also seen as “arteries” of the earth, “veins” of energy flow, and equivalent to chi (qi) pathways said to be utilized in acupuncture of the human body. Standing stones, for example, marked the leys like sign posts but were also acting like acupuncture needles for the earth (I wish I was kidding with that) to channel astronomical energy into the leys. Also borrowed from Asian culture was the idea that monuments were placed in balance and harmony along the leylines as a sort of geographical feng shui. Conductive minerals like iron, gold, and silver were said to be associated with leylines. (Hmm, a testable claim.)
Ley lines appear in the online role playing game “Fate/Grand Order” as well as many other pop cultural items.It was a small jump to connect genuine scientific concepts of magnetic anomalies and telluric current to sciencey-sounding “earth energy lines”. The notion of telluric currents was co-opted by dowsers, but that is a completely different discussion I’m not prepared to have in this post. Some suggested that the power in leylines drew from the telluric current and that such power could be manipulated or used for societal advantages (what Michell called “spiritual engineering”). Watkins did not think leylines could be found with dowsing rods, but this creative subversion of his ideas occurred rather smoothly. Author and dowser Guy Underwood pushed the dowsing craze associated with leylines in the 1970s in the midst of the New Age wave of magical earth ideas. Underwood also espoused the idea of lines related to water-bearing zones or “blind springs“. I’ll return to this concept shortly.
So, in the 1970s, leylines were seen as channels of mystical “energy”. We can measure energy, yet no one was successful in measuring this particular energy scientifically. Ley proponents said the energy was too subtle or that research on the lines should be funded because of the potential to humankind. Locations associated with leylines became more magical as New Age popularity increased – places like Glastonbury (St. Michael’s ley and many others; see map above) and Stonehenge. Giants were said to be buried in the barrows as they were associated with incredible leyline power. This power was said to even cause the stones to come alive and move. (Another testable claim where evidence was never provided.)
When the leylines cross
Crossed lines have always been associated with magic. Crossroads are particularly notable as supernatural areas. Where leylines supposedly crossed, a strong “power spot” was created. These nodes could produce an energy “vortex”. Vortexes (vortices) are handy devices to explain an area as particularly prone to strange phenomena. No evidence for such energy vortexes exists, either.
Leylines as plot devices or explanations in fantasy fiction media began in the 1960s with authors like Thomas Pynchon and continued with concepts of conspiracy ideas of secret knowledge about sacred geometry of the earth. And, of course, we have leylines and the vortex as key plot devices in the new Ghostbusters, which brings us to the paranormal community connection – the intersection where supernatural ideas and vague scientific concepts crash and merge.
Paranormal connections
I liked this opening for an article about leylines in Fortean Times of June 2007:
Ever since Alfred Watkins announced his discovery of a network of ancient alignments crisscrossing the British countryside, the history of leys has been less of an old straight track and more of a long and winding road, one that has taken detours into everything from ufology to dowsing.
Poor Watkins! He was only trying to put some sort of order system into mapping remarkable places and things really spiraled out of control. This happens quite often as concepts sort of related to factual or scientific ideas lose their original meaning and clarity, or the terms get conflated. The above quote is the intro to a piece by Paul Devereux, a leading authority on leylines from the 1970s to the present. I found a 2003 interview with Devereux by paranormal personality Jeff Belanger on the Ghost Village site signaling that the American paranormal community was keying in on the concept of leylines around that time. Devereux’s opinion is that leys are not what Watkins thought or what the New Agers believed but something else related to sacred paths and possibly the supernatural.
Amateur paranormal research ramped up big time in the 2000s with the popularity of DIY spirit-seeking TV shows. But even before that, there were paranormalists who connected various geological features to reports of hauntings and poltergeists. A popular concept was taken from the Tectonic Strain idea of Dr. Michael Persinger who suggested that geological circumstances in fault zones might be responsible for anomalous luminous phenomena (also known as ghost lights) or related to earthquake lights. He thought these might be misconstrued as UFOs. (Ghost lights and Tectonic strain theory are future topics to explore here.) Leylines as sources of some undefined kind of energy were picked up as potential explanations for the manifestation of psychic energy that ghost researchers assumed was real. Genuine magnetic anomalies were turned into magical areas and connected to paranormal reports. Often, the researchers never actually checked for historic leylines or geological anomalies, they just assumed they were there because it was a very sciencey conclusion to make that sounded plausible (and the public accepted it). Use of dowsing rods to find this psychic energy is also common for paranormalists.
Ley nodes were commonly attributed to areas of “high strangeness” – a higher than normal occurrence of weird things like anomalous lights, poltergeist activity, bizarre creature encounters, and UFO sightings.
That paranormal investigator who asked me about leylines years ago was certainly hearing it from the buzz in his community. Again, we see the short jump to connect spooky feelings and unusual occurrences to the idea that there is a mysterious energy in the earth affecting humans on the surface. Their house, the moon phase, and solar activity were presumed to be amplifying the effect. Here is an example from Supernatural magazine of what paranormalists can believe about leylines (unedited):
Mapped fracture traces/lineamentsWell most of the Earths leys are positive but when two of these leys cross or intersect a vortex of negative energy is then created. It is like a powerful magnet attracting all kinds of lower vibrational spirit, energy or entity and even sometimes people. These entities can then draw off the energy, feed on it and use it to manifest. Bodmin Jail (Cornwall) is a place where two such energy lines cross and therefore they form lower energy vortexes and this, in turn, will also affect the way people behave in such places. They will be prone or influenced to lower vibrational thoughts, paranoia, anger, ego and fear etc………it can be a source of food to an entity to recharge their essence.
Leylines appear to be an (at least moderately) accepted speculative explanation for ghosts and hauntings. Because of the emphasis on other geological aspects (like minerals, fault lines, and water-bearing zones), I wondered if some paranormal investigators could be mistaking energy lines with lineaments. Geologic lineaments are any linear feature that contrasts with the surrounding ground identified via maps (stereoviews being most helpful) and are associated mostly with carbonate terrain and groundwater well productivity. It was not unreasonable to think that natural lineaments might be features obvious enough to have been noticed by prehistoric societies who might have constructed wells into these fracture zones with great success. True lineaments are usually areas of structural weakness (not “power”) that have weathered more than surrounding rocks. Drilling into a fracture trace can result in a kick-ass well yield. I was not able to find any examples of leylines that really were geologic lineaments, though it’s hard to imagine some enthusiastic person hasn’t done so a few times.
Paranormalists have misunderstood and mixed up ideas of mineral veins, fault lines, contacts between rock formations, and fracture zones. They have widely attributed a nebulous idea of “energy” and “flow” to seismic, structural, mineralogical, and hydrogeologic characteristics to reach a conclusion that leylines are real and are associated with hauntings and the other weird events people experience.
Conclusion
Ley lines of Seattle that looks like a game of pick-up sticks.In no way does this foray into leyline history come close to sharing all the information, creative notions, and opinions about them. Anyone interested can get lost for years in all the literature (some first decent choices are in the references). But, most of the current popular perceptions about leylines are based on presumption and are suitable only for entertainment.
Leylines have become a very messy melange of ideas about energy, electromagnetic fields, geologic fault lines, telluric current, voltage, and frequency conjured by paranormalists. It’s a concept that sounds just sciencey enough for non-scientists to think it might have some merit. But it doesn’t.
Leylines have not been objectively shown to have any measurable energy differential. Studies have not conclusively shown that independent reports of odd phenomena are concentrated along discrete lines. Dowsing for leylines (or for anything else) has also never been reliably demonstrated. No tests, as far as I know, have shown that leylines can even be independently mapped by two different people. Even Watkins’ lines were never fully substantiated as a theory, though many proponents insist they were. It’s very easy to draw lines to connect a few things; the thickness of the line can determine if you include features or not. And, after a substantive distance, a line drawn on a map will no longer correlate to the earth’s surface due to the curvature.
Evolution of Ley Lines1. Long, straight alignments [Watkins] ... connecting sacred spaces2. "Energy" paths of spiritual significance ...that ancients could detect and so deliberately built on the lines ...adopted by paranormalists3. Energy could be used or manipulated ...negative or positive, earth and sky powers could combine ...New Age mysticism, magic, geomancy4. This earth energy is vital to our survival; we must rediscover the old ways that were lost. ...wisdom of the ancients, Gaia
In examining leylines we’ve seen them associated throughout the past few decades with an array of occult and paranormal ideas. Their ambiguous reality and flexible definition allow for seamless application from one strange phenomenon to another. The modern mystical concept of leylines that conduct earth energies, which can be harnessed for supernatural chaos, is fiction derived from subjective observations and perhaps even genuine earth processes. Going back to Alfred Watkins, even his old straight tracks may just be us pattern-seeking — connecting points because it feels satisfying — as people want to find connections and so will see them when they simply aren’t there. This has happened with leylines. Layers of lore and imagination have made leylines a useful trope to connect to spooky things.
References
A. Watkins (1925) The Old Straight Track. [Available in reprint from many publishers.]
D. Sullivan (2004) Ley Lines: The Greatest Landscape Mystery. Amazon Kindle edition.
T. Williamson and L. Bellamy (1983) Ley Lines in Question. Littlehampton Book Services Ltd.
J. Michell (1983) The New View Over Atlantis. Harper & Row.
#AlfredWatkins #dowsing #earthEnergy #energyLines #Ghosts #haunting #leyLines #lights #Paranormal #poltergeists #tectonicStrain #UFOs
https://sharonahill.com/?p=372
-
Media Reported Hamas Got Millions Via Crypto, but the Data Provider They Cited Says It Was Misconstrued - After Hamas' deadly attacks in Israel, media reports linked the terrorist group with tens... - https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/10/26/media-reported-hamas-got-millions-via-crypto-but-the-data-provider-they-cited-says-it-was-misconstrued/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=rss&utm_campaign=headlines #terroristfinancing #wallstreetjournal #elizabethwarren #regulations #congress #policy
-
Claim that #Chinese #scientists created 100% fatal #COVID19strain misconstrues study’s findings
Researchers in #China recently released a study, which has not been peer-reviewed, that tested the #GX_P2V #coronavirus on #geneticallyengineered mice. Although #GXP2V belongs to the coronavirus family, it did not originate from #SARS-CoV-2, which causes #COVID19.
-
Kyle Clark fact checks trump’s speech during his recent visit to Aurora.
(I was going to describe this as Kyle ‘bringing receipts’, but thought folks might misconstrue that as Kyle showing proof that tfg paid his bills for this appearance, and we know that would never happen!)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=O8PZiCjreko&si=3Iv3X8_Hke7TZnQy
#USPolitics #trump #Aurora #Colorado #KyleClark #9News #NextWithKyleClark #Election2024 #HarrisWalz2024 #VoteBlueToSaveDemocracy #FactCheck
-
Here are two reasons:
🖕 🖕 jk lol
Reason 1: Misconstrued religious allegories, like Osirian drama and role of Set in Kemet, which influenced Ancient Greece and Israelites.
Reason 2: Trauma and acculturation, which causes worldviews to metaphysically spread.
#reason #satan #allah #elohim #yhwh #compassion #love #WeResistWar #ResistWar
On Invidious: https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=q5Hc0kaMM9s
On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Hc0kaMM9s
יהוה אלהינו
https://www.thetorah.com/article/yhwh-the-original-arabic-meaning-of-the-name
سلم שלם 🏳️ 🕊️
-
Here are two reasons:
🖕 🖕 jk lol
Reason 1: Misconstrued religious allegories, like Osirian drama and role of Set in Kemet, which influenced Ancient Greece and Israelites.
Reason 2: Trauma and acculturation, which causes worldviews to metaphysically spread.
#reason #satan #allah #elohim #yhwh #compassion #love #WeResistWar #ResistWar
On Invidious: https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=q5Hc0kaMM9s
On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Hc0kaMM9s
יהוה אלהינו
https://www.thetorah.com/article/yhwh-the-original-arabic-meaning-of-the-name
سلم שלם 🏳️ 🕊️
-
@BenUNC oh, I see! I tend to use "please" because written stuff gets misconstrued (as you implied with your reply, thanks).
If I open with "please" I don't overuse it; my tone in the rest carries the scent of that - so I can then be briefer, as you suggested.
Sometimes I forget that tone doesn't carry in text, and sometimes it bites me, and then I remember to think about it more.
Interested in citations about how people react to differently worded pleasantries!
-
Someone asked me recently about the ability to "Read the Room" and whether or not this was a skill that can be developed. I certainly believe it is a skill and can be cultivated. Perhaps the most impactful maxim which can guide us in this regard was taught to me by a Jedi Knight who went by the name Zenchi from the Temple of the Jedi Order. He told me, "Learn to Observe without needing to React."
The Internet, particularly the social media algorithm demon, has created an incentive not just to React to everything, but to Observe specifically to React. In this way we often bias our interpretation of that which we observe with a skew towards the least charitable interpretation so that our reaction can be as extreme as possible.
To counteract this and hone this skill of reading the room, we can practice several behaviors that will improve our lives.
First, be the last person to speak in an interaction. When you allow everyone else to have their say, it gives you a chance to examine their perspectives and gauge their intentions.
Second, questions are better than statements. The cultivation of curiosity leads to more robust conversations. A statement can often be viewed as dismissive or ultimate in nature, sometimes leaving a conversation partner feeling as though there's nothing left to say. Curiosity, by contrast, is almost always viewed as an invitation to continue discourse.
Third, speak in a way that is pleasant. We've been taught to rely on flippancy and sarcasm in modern discourse as we assume the intentions of others or deliberately misconstrue them to make ourselves look superior. By engaging with someone in a pleasant way, we can disarm hostility. Even if others fail to uphold this standard, we will still maintain our own peace which is of a value beyond measure.
#Advice #LifeSkills #Awareness #Curiosity #InterpersonalSkills #Discourse #Conversations #SocialMedia #Communication
-
DATE: April 30, 2026 at 02:00PM
SOURCE: STAT HEALTH TECHTITLE: STAT+: As artificial intelligence show off diagnostic chops, scientists reckon with the way forward
Getting a paper published in Science is a highlight of many researchers’ careers. But for internist and clinical AI researcher Adam Rodman, it’s also been a source of some agita.
On Thursday, Rodman and his colleagues published a compilation of experiments, including one using real-world data from a Boston emergency department, that show a large language model from OpenAI can outperform physicians in case-based diagnostic and clinical reasoning evaluations. To Rodman, the paper’s co-senior author, it’s a response to a gauntlet thrown down in Science in 1959. That paper “described how you would know that a clinical decision support system was capable of doing diagnosis better than humans,” he said. “And they can do it.”
But as generative AI tools like chatbots are heavily marketed — both to patients and clinicians — it makes him worried that the science experiments, all based on simulated and historical cases, will be misconstrued as proof of AI’s safety and efficacy when used to treat real patients.
Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…
-------------------------------------------------
STAT News reports "from the frontiers of health and medicine".
Learn more at https://www.statnews.com/category/health-tech/ .
See also their complete Mastodon account at @STAT .
This robot is NOT affiliated with STAT news and merely rebroadcasts from their site. Responses posted here are not monitored.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
.
Healthcare security & privacy posts not related to IT or infosec are at @HIPAABot . Even so, they mix in some infosec with the legal & regulatory information..
.
-------------------------------------------------#healthcare #healthtech #healthcaretech #healthtechnology #medgadget #medicine #doctor