Sunrise... with moon.

Write about whatever you like in the comments.

"So, what I notice when you talk with people is you seem like a tough guy, but you're really sensitive."

"You're an incredible listener, obviously. You learn all these things and you're putting together—this is my impression—a kind of map of the world, a map of knowledge through all these different people's eyes. My question for you is: how do you see culture shifting? Because I think you're really sensitive to it, and you're kind of like one of these signal fish—you notice what's happening in the environment and you're going to guide the school of fish accordingly. Do you think the culture is shifting toward better use of these exceptional — or natural — capacities that we already have, or do you think we're shifting away from it and we're going to run away in fear?"

Says Julia Mossbridge, a cognitive neuroscientist, beginning her interview with Joe Rogan by asking him a question.

Rogan gives a good answer:

I could plainly read that this anti-Pratt ad seems like a pro-Pratt ad, and I still thought, surely this must be a clever pro-Pratt ad.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an attack ad that comes off as an endorsement like this one https://t.co/MU0rAHM0Gc

— Dr. Ben Braddock (@GraduatedBen) May 10, 2026

Vance or Rubio? "According to multiple people close to the president, Mr. Trump asks advisers who they prefer..."

"... before frequently musing that he should just have Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio run together on the same presidential ticket in 2028. Mr. Trump’s advisers say he is simply having fun polling people, and that 2028 is not at the top of his mind at all.... According to several people close to both men, Mr. Vance and Mr. Rubio, who are friends, do not want to be seen as competing against each other for the 2028 presidential nomination.... By several accounts, the two actually do get along. It is not uncommon to see them laughing together at White House events. They talk about sports and family when they are together. They are also both very aware of the chatter about their reputations and respective futures...."

I'm reading "Vance or Rubio? Trump Muses on Successor as the ‘Kids’ Fill Bigger Roles. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are boosting their profiles, generating speculation about who’s lining up for the 2028 presidential nomination" (NYT).

I'd like to see both of them running, and I'd like them to find a new way that could be fascinatingly cooperative. I'm inferring that they both strongly support each other and are used to working together. They don't have to compete against each other at all. Each could recommend the other. Debates could have both of them arguing for essentially the same thing but giving the people the opportunity to choose which one will be the presidential nominee and which the vice presidential nominee.

A Spencer Pratt joke about free buses.

Zohran Mamdani: The NY subway will be free.

Spencer Pratt: The LA busses will be free... from urine, feces, stabbing, and attacks.@spencerpratt "So that's kind of similar. We both have free things for public transportation." pic.twitter.com/eWmPOsynrM

— jay plemons (@jayplemons) May 9, 2026

"In the book, [Jon] Krakauer describes [Sandy] Hill as a 'millionaire socialite-cum-climber' and claims sherpas carried her espresso maker..."

"... with beans from her favourite New York restaurant, and newspaper clippings about herself to be handed out at the Everest base camp. 'A great many people were offended by her ostentatious displays of wealth and by the shameless way she chased the limelight,' Krakauer wrote in the book, which sold in its millions. [Hill] later said that the 'espresso maker' was actually an eight-inch manual stovetop percolator.... The book also depicted an anonymous couple in the group, referred to as X and Y, who had an affair on the expedition. 'That was me. I am Madam X,' Hill has confirmed, while her partner was a snowboarder. The liaison angered the sherpas as they believed it brought bad karma and caused the storm...."

I'm reading "'Villain' of Into Thin Air breaks silence on Everest tragedy/The New York socialite Sandy Hill speaks for the first time about what happened on the mountain 30 years ago and the depression that followed her ordeal" (London Times).

"At Notion, the $11 billion business software developer he founded 13 years ago, [Ivan Zhao] hired a high-schooler."

"'We had to ask his parents for permission,' he explained. 'This guy has no experience working anywhere, but he is so talented, and he just grew up with YouTube, grew up with language models, so he knows how to access information given the tools in front of him.' The move was a small example, Zhao argued, of what he referred to as a new 'abundance approach' unlocked by powerful artificial intelligence (AI) tools. 'We’ve become a lot less picky about your capabilities and years of experience,' he explained. 'We are almost doing the reverse of what we were doing before.' Where once Zhao hired mostly mid-career, mid-level workers, Notion... now targets either very young or senior operators. The former are high on 'agency' (the enthusiasm to try things and embrace new tools); the latter often have high taste (a sense of what works and what doesn’t, refined through years of experience)...."

So begins "America’s white-collar jobs bloodbath gathers pace/US business has embraced AI, but predictions of mass unemployment may be based on the false premise that there’s a fixed amount of work to be done" (London Times).

"The worst part about AI is that it is giving the experience of competence to people who are stupid."

"These people who now are firing off 30-page Claude AI slop documents and they think they're smart and brilliant. They're following up with you, asking you to read them, and you check them out. None of it makes sense! These are people who, before AI, they were incompetent people. They couldn't even make a document, they couldn't write a good 2-page document, they couldn't organize their thoughts. Because they couldn't do that, they actually couldn't produce any output. And now they can produce output. They produce extremely long outputs that are terrible. It's because they, for the first time in their lives, have the experience of competence. It's making the rest of us miserable."

Says Jake Abrams, on TikTok. I prefer to read his comment as text, but you might want to observe him and see if it affects your reaction to what he's saying. I saw this first as video and decided to blog it but took the trouble to make a transcript because I find the video distracting. He drops the microphone at the end.

Clearly, he thinks he is one of the smart people. He doesn't like the stupid people horning in on the space that belonged to him and his people — you know, the ones who were always producing documents that gave off the impression of competence. Have those documents been making much sense? Were they concise? 

Now that everyone can produce long documents that look good superficially, what's going to happen? If people continue to read documents, will they separate out the search for what was written by A.I. or will they judge everything skeptically? It's more likely that they will use A.I. to read the documents and to assess them critically. In the end, who's going to feel that they are "smart and brilliant"? Is Abrams afraid that those he wants to view as stupid, perhaps because they didn't go to a good college, are going to play the game of using A.I. better than those who thought they had it made because they did go to a good college?

We'll see who picks up the tools and uses them best. 

Sunrise.

Write about whatever you want in the comments.

"Once an unseemly feature of the web’s fringes, deliberately ambiguous chatter about political violence has spread on mainstream platforms over the past year..."

"... most often in reference to Trump and Elon Musk, according to a new report from Know Your Meme, which tracks the rise of viral posts. 'Somebody should do it' and its online variants, the authors wrote, is wink-nudge shorthand for suggesting that somebody kill a powerful person. One of the earliest cases to go viral was a TikTok video from a Brooklyn comedian nebulously talking about 'all the Elon, Trump stuff.' Someone should 'throw their life away,' he said in the February 2025 post, and 'take one for the team.' The conservative Libs of TikTok reposted the clip. So did Musk, helping it rack up 48 million views.... Know Your Meme found that interest in the 'Somebody should do it' trend spiked after an armed man’s thwarted attack last month at the White House correspondents’ dinner in Washington, where Trump was scheduled to speak...."

From "They’re not saying someone should kill Trump. But they’re coming close. 'Somebody should do it' and its variants have become increasingly popular online memes" (WaPo)(gift link).

The top-rated comment over there: "Trump has condoned threats, attempts, and actual murders of people he doesn't like, and his sycophants condemn any comment they say is aimed at him as TDS. No one should be calling for assassination of anyone; I prefer impeachment or the 25th amendment to get him out of office. Trump's own rhetoric has fueled the fire and perhaps he should stop calling for senators and others to be killed."

You have to be very deeply into Democratic Party politics to write a blank-days-that-shook-the-blank headline about this.

"10 Days That Shook the House Map and Democratic Confidence."

That's the top headline at the NYT this morning. 

You know the story: "Just two weeks ago, Democrats felt increasingly emboldened about taking control of the House in November after seeming to fight the redistricting wars to a draw. But two court rulings — one by the Supreme Court and another by Virginia’s top court — and an aggressive new push by red states to carve up congressional maps have delivered the Republican Party its biggest burst of momentum in many months. Put bluntly, Republicans have roughly 10 more House seats that favor them than they did just 10 days ago, and Democrats are suddenly grappling with a new landscape."

This feels like one of those NYT articles that's mainly performing the service of tending to the readers' emotions. Let's all do panic together this morning. When I encounter that sort of thing, my natural instinct is to go somewhere else. If we're doing group emotion, I'm looking for the door.

So: I'm interested in the history of titles in the blank-days-that-shook-the-blank form. The original is "10 Days That Shook the World," the 1919 first-hand account of the Russian Revolution by John Reed. His editor described Reed's frenzy:

"Skipping meetings and sending an A.I. note taker instead has been called 'the latest office power move.'"

"Wallet-size recorders that use A.I. to log live interactions have become a product category.... A.I.-generated transcripts... preserve all sorts of things — offhand comments, quickly corrected statements, jokes — that humans would rarely write in the meeting minutes.... In a lawsuit or an investigation, that can make every word uttered discoverable. Even worse, say corporate lawyers: Sharing the meeting with an A.I. bot may void attorney-client privilege.... [Another] concern is accuracy. An A.I. transcript could, for example, record 'does matter' as 'doesn’t matter.' If that sentence comes up in court years later, the mistake may be difficult to remember. Corporate lawyers also worry about A.I. note takers’ lack of context and discretion. For example, recording every word of a board meeting, no matter how tangential the remark, could be legally perilous...."

From "All Those A.I. Note Takers? They’re Making Lawyers Very Nervous. A trendy productivity hack, A.I. note takers are capturing every joke and offhand comment in many meetings. They could also potentially waive attorney-client privilege" (NYT).

Human memory is also not perfect. Who remembers old conversations and can testify about them with verbatim accuracy? And yet we've relied on frail humans all these years. 

"On a recent afternoon at the Venice Biennale, I walked into a bright blue portable john and peed for art."

"Just outside the booth, a naked woman was submerged in a huge water tank, breathing through a scuba mouthpiece. My urine was about to pass along a tube from the toilet through several filtration systems, before topping up her glass chamber’s water level. The performer, who would stay in the tank for at least four hours, was essentially living in other people’s waste. And she had plenty of donors. The toilet is part of a presentation called 'Seaworld Venice' by the choreographer and theater-maker Florentina Holzinger that is undoubtedly the biggest talker of this year’s Biennale, which opens to the public on Saturday and runs through Nov. 22."

From "These Toilets in Venice Have the Art World Aflush/Undoubtedly the biggest talker at this year’s Venice Biennale is the Austrian pavilion, where visitors can make their own contributions to the work on show" (NYT).

I clicked on that link for "Seaworld Venice" and was confronted with big red letters saying "I live in your piss."

This is the kind of degradation of women that feminists used to rail against, but, here, the artist is female, so I guess we're not supposed to notice. The message is purportedly environmentalism. Also the artist puts herself out there: "Part of the performance at the pavilion involved Holzinger swinging her body from side to side inside a metal bell attached to a crane to make it ring out." Video at the link. Holzinger is naked. A commenter over there notes that she risks deafness, performing as a bell clapper.

ADDED: I don't remember ever seeing "talker" used to mean the thing being talked about: the show is "undoubtedly the biggest talker of this year's Biennale." I understand "talker" meaning a person doing that talking, but not This show is a big talker, meaning it's what everyone's talking about. I guess it's like the use of "-er" in "looker" used to refer to someone people look at and not the one doing the looking.

The OED defines "talker" only as the one doing the talking. An example from Jane Austen (from "Emma"): "I am rather a talker; and now and then I have let a thing escape me which I should not." 

And then there's that Shakespeare adage, from "Richard III": "Talkers are no good doers." I think we don't use that one too much. We're more likely to go with: "All talk and no action," "Actions speak louder than words," "Talk is cheap," and "Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk." 

Sunrise.

Write about whatever you want in the comments... except the Virginia Supreme Court case about the redistricting referendum. I just put up a new post about that, so scroll down for a concentrated conversation about that.

"In its 4-to-3 opinion, the Virginia Supreme Court wrote that Democratic legislators had violated the state’s constitution with their move to enact a new map meant to give their party 10 out of the state’s 11 U.S. House seats..."

".... up from the six it currently controls. Virginia voters had approved a constitutional amendment to allow for the map in a referendum. The problem, the court’s majority suggested, was that the first vote on the amendment in the General Assembly, which would authorize Democrats to redraw the map, occurred days before last fall’s legislative elections — meaning that some Virginians who cast their ballots early did so without knowing how their state lawmakers would vote on the new map. That, the justices wrote, violated the process laid out in the State Constitution. 'This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy,' the majority wrote...."

I'm reading "In Huge Blow to Democrats, Virginia Court Strikes Down House Map/The decision is a major victory for Republicans, wiping away a measure approved by voters to allow Democrats to gain as many as four House seats in the midterms" (NYT).

"Pentagon releases dozens of UFO files offering transparency on 'alien and extraterrestrial life.'"

That's the headline from The New York Post, from a whole hour ago, so I infer that there's nothing too exciting there.

I've never believed there have been alien visitors to Earth, so I had no hopes or fears relating to this new transparency. Did you?