Sarah Scoles at Undark:

How autonomous and semi-autonomous technology will operate in the future is up in the air, and the U.S. government will have to decide what limitations to place on its development and use. Those decisions may come sooner rather than later—as the technology advances, global conflicts continue to rage, and other countries are faced with similar choices—meaning that the incoming Trump administration may add to or change existing American policy. But experts say autonomous innovations have the potential to fundamentally change how war is waged: In the future, humans may not be the only arbiters of who lives and dies, with decisions instead in the hands of algorithms.

For some experts, that’s a net-positive: It could reduce casualties and soldiers’ stress. But others claim that it could instead result in more indiscriminate death, with no direct accountability, as well as escalating conflicts between nuclear-armed nations.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Christopher Caldwell in the NYT:

Who could have seen Donald Trump’s resounding victory coming? Ask the question of an American intellectual these days and you may meet with embittered silence. Ask a European intellectual and you will likely hear the name of Wolfgang Streeck, a German sociologist and theorist of capitalism.

In recent decades, Mr. Streeck has described the complaints of populist movements with unequaled power. That is because he has a convincing theory of what has gone wrong in the complex gearworks of American-driven globalization, and he has been able to lay it out with clarity. Mr. Streeck may be best known for his essays in New Left Review, including a dazzling series on the cascade of financial crises that followed the crash of 2008. He resembles Karl Marx in his conviction that capitalism has certain internal contradictions that make it unsustainable — the more so in its present “neoliberal” form. His latest book, “Taking Back Control? States and State Systems After Globalism,” published this month, asks whether the global economy as it is now set up is compatible with democracy. He has his doubts.

Understand Mr. Streeck and you will understand a lot about the left-wing movements that share his worldview — Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and the new Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance in Germany. But you will also understand Viktor Orban, Brexit and Mr. Trump.

More here. See here Adam Tooze’s review of Streeck’s How Will Capitalism End? 

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Neil Warner in Phenomenal World:

The threat of a return to the 1970s has long been a rhetorical feature of the British establishment. From the New Labour government’s Third Way reforms, to Jeremy Corbyn’s ambitious manifestos, and through to the current Labour Government’s rather modest spending increases, any prospects of redistributive taxation and spending, resurrection of trade union power, more worker-friendly policies, or state direction of industrial policy have been relentlessly attacked as a return to that dreaded decade.

The accusations are peculiar because, on the face of it, recent years have been very different from the 1970s. Trade-union power and militancy in the UK remain far weaker than before, the state no longer controls capital flows as it did prior to 1979, and competing ideological systems no longer overlap with geopolitics as they did during the Cold War.

Talk about going back to the 1970s, then, isn’t prompted by any real prospect of returning to those years or the conditions that underpinned them. Rather the 1970s have come to stand as a kind of shorthand for catastrophe—a catastrophe that Labour governments are particularly prone to. It was in the 1970s—as few in Britain are allowed to forget—that the overwhelming power and intransigence of the unions paralyzed British life, crippled the economy, and fuelled uncontrollable inflation, while state control and ownership stifled innovation and created inefficiency. On both the left and the right, the crisis of the 1970s is perceived to have laid the ground for Thatcher’s rise; facing the spiralling crisis, the 1974–79 Labour Government—led first by Harold Wilson, then by Jim Callaghan—is either portrayed as having been helpless in the face of the economic crisis and union power, or as having advanced its own strand of neoliberal reform now seen as mostly indiscernible from Thatcherism.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Branko Milanovic over at his Substack:

A simple-minded answer to the question is, No. The IMF is entirely dedicated to  preserving the world capitalist system and any socialist must disapprove of it.  I think this answer is wrong. But before I explain it, I have say a few words about the Fund.

Recently, I have been involved more with the IMF and have witnessed how keen they are to remain an influential player in the 21^st century. Moreover, to do that as a truly international organization under the conditions of extraordinary high worldwide tensions, threats of wars, and mercantilist trade policies.

My relations with the Fund go back to my early years in the World Bank. In those days, the Fund missions would ask the World Bank to provide one of their (junior) economists to join the Fund ostensibly to maintain communication and give to the World Bank the appearance of some decision-making role regarding social sectors and public expenditures. I thus went, very young, to about five or six Fund missions to Turkey.

The Fund missions were impressive. They benefited from an unparalleled access to government officials and to the data, but they also had excellent people to study these data. Their great advantage was (and is) access to government knowledge and information; their great disadvantage was/is lack of contact with the rest of the country. Yet, as I will argue, this never was the Fund’s mission—nor should it be.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

“Richard Feynman was one of the most influential physicists of his generation and in 1965, he and two colleagues were awarded the Nobel Prize. In June of 1945, his 25-year-old wife and high-school sweetheart, Arline, passed away after succumbing to tuberculosis. 16 months later, Richard wrote his late wife a love letter and sealed it in an envelope. It remained unopened until after his death in 1988.”

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Brooks Riley in Art At First Sight:

There are paintings that push beyond the confines of their chronology, with auras that have little to do with the orderly genre from which they emerge or even the painters who painted them. Obliterating the frames around them, they break through the fourth wall, headed straight for the viewer’s psyche like a parasite—settling into that part of the mind where we read and recognize ourselves.

I chanced on one of these wonders a few weeks ago—the portrait of Hans Burgkmair the Elder and his wife Anna, painted in 1529 by 24-year-old Lukas (Laux) Furtenagel. Burgkmair was 56 at the time, a successful printmaker and painter in Augsburg, a financial center of the Holy Roman Empire. He was also a friend of Albrecht Dürer, who had died a year earlier.

Before we’ve even had a chance to gawk at the two skulls bulging through the mirror’s own fourth wall, we feel eerily close in time to this couple.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Tom Lathan in The Guardian:

Sixty-six million years ago, an asteroid struck Earth, causing the extinction of around 75% of all species. This event was so significant that we now use it to define the boundary between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras. There had only been four extinction events of this magnitude up until then; today, we are living through the sixth – and we are its cause.

News of the sixth mass-extinction often comes in the form of statistics – 1 million species threatened with extinction; extinctions now occurring up to 1,000 times more frequently than before humans – and we are left none the wiser about what it is we are losing. A few years ago, I asked the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for a list of species that had recently gone extinct. I wanted to understand what was happening to the natural world, beyond the numbers. The list they sent back contained species from all over the world. One in particular, however, stood out to me.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Daniel Immerwahner in The New Yorker:

It started, like many good things, as a joke. NBC was filming a preview of its 1984 lineup, and Selma Diamond, a comedian in her sixties, had been tasked with introducing “Miami Vice,” a flashy affair of Ferraris, cocaine cartels, and designer sports jackets. She pretended to misunderstand. “ ‘Miami Nice’?” At last, a show about retirees, with their mink coats and cha-cha lessons. She got a laugh. And some execs thought it might not be a terrible idea.

The network proposed Diamond’s concept to two producers, Paul Junger Witt and Tony Thomas. The show, an executive explained, should feature ostensibly “over the hill” characters who were nonetheless “young in attitude.” Witt brought the idea to the writer Susan Harris, his wife, who came up with a pilot script. Harris had already pushed television’s limits with a show featuring an openly gay character (“Soap”), a show about a lusty divorcée (“Fay”), and a controversial story line about abortion (on “Maude”). Having written four seasons of “Soap” episodes, she was drained and planning to leave television. Still, a sitcom about older women was hard to resist. Here was another barrier to smash, Harris felt—“a demographic that had never been addressed.”

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Figure For A Landscape

Look, the solitary walker
out on this coldest Sunday of the year
shoulders the whole burden of the fable
which winter is, the moral panorama
of a silence so vast that all sounds have meaning.

In summer the landscape was simply
itself, and concealment humanly possible
in grass and shadow and the living noise
of child singers and animal dancers,
baroque in their cultivation of opulence and

the green life. But now
even the lake is petrified out of sound,
and the sky, impartially plundered
of inessential leaves, birds, clouds,
throws back his face without kindly distortion

as if he alone could answer for winter.
The tracks of the dead and the dying accost him,
crossing his footprints wherever he walks,
stands, is alive; and the clamor of ice
comes down with a crash, like an unstruck bell,

splitting his ears. In this season,
while we stay home with coffee and morning
newspapers, sensible of the danger
confronting us in the sight of a branch
gloved by a child’s lost mitten,

he is the hero that bears all loss,
who, by no particular virtue
other than solitude, takes on himself
the full silence, the whole terrible
knowledge the landscape no longer conceals.

by Lisel Mueller
from Heartland
Northern Illinois University press, Dekalb, 1967

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Aarthi Vadde at Public Books:

Aarthi Vadde: Hello, and welcome to Novel Dialogue, a podcast sponsored by the Society for Novel Studies and produced in partnership with Public Books, an online magazine of arts, ideas, and scholarship. I’m one of your hosts, Aarthi Vadde of Duke University. Today, we have novelist Jamil Jan Kochai and critic Kalyan Nadiminti joining us. Jamil’s most recent collection, The Haunting of Hajji Hotak and Other Stories, in some ways picks up where his first novel, 99 Nights in Logar, left off, with stories that crossed the border between the United States and Afghanistan. These stories are alternatively funny, terrifying, and heartbreaking, and seem to fracture collective memory by delving into the minds of Afghanis across generations. The Haunting was the finalist for the National Book Award and named one of The New Yorker’s Best Books of 2022. Welcome, Jamil. So glad to have you here.

Jamil Jan Kochai: Hey, I’m happy to be here.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Jeremy Hsu in New Scientist:

The famous marketing slogan about how a diamond is forever may only be a slight exaggeration for a diamond-based system capable of storing information for millions of years – and now researchers have created one with a record-breaking storage density of 1.85 terabytes per cubic centimetre.

Previous techniques have also used laser pulses to encode data into diamonds, but the higher storage density afforded by the new method means a diamond optical disc with the same volume as a standard Blu-ray could store approximately 100 terabytes of data – the equivalent of about 2000 Blu-rays – while lasting far longer than a typical Blu-ray’s lifetime of just a few decades.

“Once the internal data storage structures are stabilised using our technology, diamond can achieve extraordinary longevity – data retention for millions of years at room temperature – without requiring any maintenance,” says Ya Wang at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Noah Smith at Noahpinion:

Regular Noahpinion readers will know that I’m not very excited about a second Trump term. I don’t think the next four years are going to be hell on Earth or that they’ll lead to the collapse of the nation, but I do think Trump is probably going to degrade our institutions, foment chaos, appease our enemies overseas, and appoint a lot of very unqualified people.

BUT, I also do have to admit that Trump’s first term turned out much better than I expected! Trump did foment social and political chaos, but consider the following:

• • The economy demonstrated strong growth, with workers at the bottom of the distribution reaping especially large wage gains.
  • Thanks to Trump’s rhetoric, the U.S. belatedly woke up to the various threats posed by China, and realized that unilateral free trade has many drawbacks.
  • Trump did not lock Hillary Clinton up, or persecute his political enemies in general.
  • Trump did great on Covid relief spending, carrying American households through the pandemic and propelling a rapid economic recovery after the pandemic.
  • Trump’s Operation Warp Speed was the best Covid vaccine development effort in the world, creating new and highly effective vaccines in a very short period of time, and saving a very large number of lives.
  • Very few U.S. government institutions suffered long-lasting damage as a result of Trump.

That’s not the best-case scenario for how Trump’s first term could have turned out, but it’s very far from the worst. All in all, if you told me in November 2016 that this is how Trump’s term would go, I would have breathed a sigh of relief (well, except for learning that we were going to have a giant pandemic, but that was hardly Trump’s fault).

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Lawrence Weschler at Wondercabinet:

I ONCE ASKED Breyten Breytenbach, the exiled South African poet and painter, why, in his opinion, after the fiasco of his clandestine return to his homeland in 1975 (traveling incognito as a would-be revolutionary organizer), the calamity of his arrest (his cover having likely been blown before he even entered the country, such that not only was he arrested but virtually everyone he’d contacted was arrested as well), the debacle of his trial (his appalling, groveling breakdown, his operatic recantations and expressions of contrition, all to no avail), after his being sentenced to nine years’ hard time in the country’s notorious penal system, why, I asked him, why had the authorities who allowed him to go on writing in prison nevertheless forbidden him to paint?

At the time, we were sitting in Breytenbach’s airy, light-drenched studio, in Paris. (He had been released in 1982, a year and a half short of the completion of his nine-year term, and had immediately returned to his Paris exile.) We had been looking through a life’s worth of canvases, dazzlingly colorful paintings with surreal images by turns lyrical and profoundly unsettling. He paused for a moment to think about the question, then said, “They weren’t stupid. I think they must have realized that for me an empty canvas would have been an open field of freedom—and they weren’t going to allow me that.”

more here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Alice Gibbs in Newsweek:

Dreams can transport us anywhere—from soaring above treetops to reliving the grind of office life—but what do they truly reveal? A recent survey by Talker Research for Newsweek asked 1,000 U.S. adults about their most common dreams, uncovering nine recurring themes. “Dream content is always intriguing,” Dr. Shelby Harris, director of Sleep Health at Sleepopolis, told Newsweek. “I tend to approach the topic with a healthy dose of skepticism about specific ‘meanings.’ Dreams are less about symbolic messages and more about how the brain processes emotions, stress, and daily experiences.”

While pinning down exact meanings might be tricky, Dr. Harris offered insights into why these recurring dreams continue to surface—and what they might reveal about our waking lives.

1. Work

For many, the daily grind extends into sleep. Work-related dreams—whether about stressful deadlines, impossible tasks, or returning to the office after retirement—topped the list. “I dream I’m still working, even though I retired eight years ago,” shared one respondent, while another recounted struggling with “complicated tasks with nonsensical rules and directions.”

Why does this happen?
“Work dreams often reflect unresolved tension or concerns about productivity,” Harris told Newsweek. “They’re a clear sign that stressors are bleeding into sleep.”

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

David Caplan in Ivy Style:

Students, colleagues, and friends all saw how seriously Edward Said took clothes. “Our usual ritual upon meeting after some time apart,” a friend remembers, “was for him to look me up and down and pass withering judgments on the condition of my shoes, and to berate my obstinate reluctance to engage a proper tailor.” Said insisted another friend, a colleague at Columbia University, buy a jacket he “didn’t need (and couldn’t afford) . . .. but I couldn’t withstand the force of Edward’s solicitude, and finally went and bought one. Black. Cashmere. Very nice. I wore it for ages.” In all these accounts, Said’s clothes set him apart. “[O]ne of the features that distinguished him from the rest of us,” a fellow seminar participant recalls, “was his immaculate dress sense: everything was meticulously chosen, down to the socks. It is almost impossible to visualize him any other way.”

…After the publication of Orientalism, Said and the leading scholar of the academic field he condemned, Bernard Lewis, filled pages upon pages of The New York Review of Books with charges and countercharges. “The tragedy of Mr. Said’s Orientalism is that it takes a genuine problem of real importance, and reduces it to the level of political polemic and personal abuse,” Lewis asserted. Said responded, “Lewis’s verbosity scarcely conceals both the ideological underpinnings of his position and his extraordinary capacity for getting everything wrong.” Said also launched ad hominem attacks against less prominent scholars who disagreed with him, ridiculing their professional accomplishments and impugning their sanity, even their humanity. “They let me get away with this because I dress so well,” Said was fond of saying, referring to his employer, Columbia University. Even when I disliked Said’s politics, I loved the way he dressed.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

Sean Carroll at Preposterous Universe:

Not too long ago, Brad Pitt and Eric Bana starred in a (loose) adaptation of Homer’s epic poem The Iliad; next month, Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche will headline a film based on The Odyssey. Given that the originals were written (or at least written down) in the 8th century BCE, that is some impressive staying power. But they were also written in a very different time than ours, with different cultural context and narrative expectations. We talk about the issues of translation in general, and these Greek classics in particular, with Emily Wilson, whose recent translations of The Iliad and The Odyssey have garnered worldwide acclaim.

More here.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.