№ 832. Cubao

 

Kapitan Tambay

№ 831. Bruce Liu – Ravel: No. 3, Une barque sur l'océan, Miroirs, M. 43

Ocean's Embrace

№ 830. The medieval understanding of intelligence is exactly what we need in the age of A.I.

By Boyd Taylor Coolman August 17, 2026 

In a recent essay in America, Terence Sweeney drew attention to Pope Leo XIV’s consistent concern with education in his writings, including in “Magnifica Humanitas.” Mr. Sweeney noted the pope’s attention to a new reality: that in an age of artificial intelligence, especially in light of what the pope labels a “technocratic paradigm,” we are experiencing “certain currents of thought that interpret progress as surpassing the human condition, and which are often grouped under the labels of transhumanism and posthumanism.” 

 

Monet

№ 829. Stolen Treasures: Why The British Museum Refuses To Give Back Its Looted Artifacts

Elgin Marbles

 

Few institutions hold as much global prestige and controversy as the British Museum. Behind its grand façade lies a collection shaped not only by curiosity but also by conquest. Interestingly, many of its most famous pieces were taken during centuries of empire-building, yet they still sit behind glass in London.

So, let’s find out why the museum refuses to return what so many call stolen history.
 

№ 828. Alex Eala

For decades, the global perception of the Philippine nation has been defined by labor export and structural economic migration. The world has grown accustomed to seeing Filipinos through a lens of subordination—as domestic helpers, seafarers, nurses, and service workers. While these roles represent honest work and undeniable fortitude, they have allowed the outside world to view our people as permanently consigned to the socioeconomic periphery: a third-world population ill-equipped to compete in spaces reserved for global privilege.

 

Alex Eala

 

 

Eala’s emergence fundamentally dismantles that quiet prejudice. Her trajectory invites a necessary parallel to the late Arthur Ashe. When Ashe broke through the racial barriers of elite tennis in the 1960s, his presence was more than athletic; it was an explicit disruption of institutional exclusion. He proved that composure, tactical intelligence, and sustained excellence could dismantle the deeply held assumption that certain spaces belonged exclusively to certain people.

That historical thread reaches a poignant milestone at the upcoming US Open in Flushing Meadows. Given her ranking and global draw, tournament officials may well schedule Eala to play on Arthur Ashe Stadium—the centerpiece court named after the man who first broke tennis’ color line. For a Filipino woman to step onto that exact court, under the night lights of New York, represents a moment of profound symbolic weight.

Yet her rise also exposes a sobering truth about our domestic sports establishment. Eala’s development did not occur through traditional, underfunded Philippine sports federations. Recognizing the limitations of our local system early on, her family secured elite European training at the Rafa Nadal Academy in Spain, allowing her to acquire world-class technical conditioning while continuing to proudly carry the Philippine flag. Her trajectory illustrates that while Filipino talent is vast, our domestic institutions often lack the structural support necessary to cultivate it to its ultimate potential.

What international commentators find so astounding is not merely her baseline game or left-handed forehand, but the absolute composure. She does not play with the timid deference often expected of athletes from peripheral nations. She plays as an equal among equals.

For a nation long accustomed to being looked down upon, Eala’s success offers something far more durable than fleeting pride. It provides a sharp, undeniable refutation of the idea that Filipinos are inherently limited to subordinate roles on the world stage. Her presence at the highest echelons of professional tennis proves that when given equal preparation and opportunity, the Filipino can stand unbowed in any arena—country clubs included.

ATTY. JAMES D. LANSANG

 

№ 827. What end-of-life experts know about living well: love your wrinkles, celebrate birthdays and don’t obsess over work

Sarah Phillips

Thu 13 Aug 2026 10.00 BST   

 How can our understanding of mortality shape the way we live? Palliative care doctors and death doulas share the lessons they have learned

We will all face death one day, but our attitude towards this is individual. How can our understanding of mortality shape our approach to life? Here, palliative care doctors and death doulas share what they know about the end – and how it informs the way they live.

 

 

 

 

№ 826. All Saints

 

№ 825. IPOs Across ASEAN

Research Gate

 

№ 824. State of the Nation in Pictures

Philippine STAR

 

 

№ 823. Kapwa

In one of her classes Katrin came across the concept of kapwa in a paper written by Dr. Virgilio Enriquez, a Filipino psychologist who advocated for an indigenous psychology rooted in the heritage of Asian people. Suddenly, it all made sense to her; the quirks and idiosyncrasies of Pinoy behavior that were so unlike anything she encountered in Germany, from how Filipinos would always offer to share food or squeeze one more person into an overcrowded vehicle. Even the first EDSA revolution, where thousands massed on the streets to peacefully overthrow the government, was to Katrin a manifestation of kapwa on a grand scale. 

....Jamming with the cosmos is a groovy way of saying “Bathala Na.” In her book, Katrin describes Ba(t)hala Na as a mindset of improvisation and not fatalism, as interpreted by the Americans. “In the folds of unforeseeable events hide infinite opportunities,” she writes. “It recognizes that such situations can teach one to adapt and eventually turn unfortunate events into advantages, making defect into effect.” 

№ 822. Secret Washington Beach: Pacific Beach

 

Pacific Beach

№ 821. The Odyssey

rahalarts

 

№ 820. Space Race 2.0

Statista

On Friday, the bottom part of a rocket that had been launched just minutes earlier descended toward what looked like a stubby drilling derrick floating in the South China Sea. As the rocket stage, known as a booster, slowed almost to a stop and precisely maneuvered into the center of the structure, a grid of wires gently closed around it.

It was a remarkable success for a Chinese government-owned space company. On the inaugural flight of its new Long March 10B rocket, it nailed a critical step toward China’s goal of developing reusable rockets.

The wire-catching technique was also novel. By snagging the booster as it hovered above the platform, engineers eliminated the need to equip the booster with landing legs.

The milestone offered further evidence that China’s space industry, while still trailing that of the United States, may be closing the gap. Reusing rockets instead of discarding them after one launch enables a quicker pace of operation — more like jetliners — and reduces costs for the launching of satellites and other payloads.

But Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, was not overly impressed, noting that Elon Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, first landed a booster more than 10 years ago with its Falcon 9 rocket. The Long March 10B is roughly comparable in size and capability to the Falcon 9.

“It means they are making progress,” Mr. Harrison said of the Chinese, “but not necessarily catching up to where U.S. capabilities are today.”

№ 819. Impossible Places

№ 818. Magnifica Humanitas

INTRODUCTION

1. Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” [1] In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.

2. Founded on Christ, the living stone, we experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with him for the good will be blessed by our heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this reason, we can diligently contribute to every initiative that builds a more just world, and we can call others to collaborate in promoting the integral development of every human being. We wish to engage in dialogue with all men and women of our time, with whom we share in the events, questions and aspirations of humanity. [2] Together with them, we seek to identify new paths for the common good and for promoting a dignified life for all. Indeed, openness to dialogue is an integral part of the Church’s vocation because, constituted in Christ as “a sacrament… of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race,” [3] she recognizes history as the place where the Gospel challenges and directs human experience.

 

Mackay Cartoons

3. In this spirit, Pope Leo XIII published his Encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, the 135 ^th anniversary of which we celebrate with deep gratitude this year. With that document, my beloved predecessor gave impetus to the reflection on society, the economy and politics, which is now known as the “Social Doctrine of the Church.” When some objected that the Church should not waste energy on worldly matters, but instead focus on communicating the message of eternal life, Leo XIII responded with realism and wisdom, saying that the proclamation of the Gospel cannot overlook the concrete lives of people. [4] Many decades have passed since then, and the Magisterium, pastors, theologians and faithful have continued to reflect on social issues in the light of the Gospel. Today, the Social Doctrine of the Church is a legacy of wisdom, where we find principles for thought, criteria for discernment and judgment, and concrete guidelines for action. Founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and in engagement with the sciences, it helps us clearly interpret the challenges of the present and identify appropriate ways for living out a clear Christian witness, with joy and in service to the world. It is not an inert set of concepts, but a living corpus of truth that safeguards and interprets humanity’s vocation to a full and just life. I therefore wish to add my own voice to this living tradition, invoking the help of the Spirit of wisdom, who has dwelt in the world since its beginning (cf. Prov 8:22-31).

The res novae [new affairs]* of our time

4. While Leo XIII spoke in his time of “new things” ( rerum novarum), today we cannot limit ourselves simply to repeating his insightful teachings. Instead, we must ask God for the wisdom to interpret the great trends of our time, particularly technological advances. In recent years, it has become increasingly evident how rapidly and profoundly digitalization, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are transforming our world. Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity. On the contrary, it has formed part of our history since the beginning as “a profoundly human reality, linked to the autonomy and freedom of man.” [5] Over the centuries, technological development has significantly improved the living conditions of humanity. At the same time, each phase of progress has also revealed the ambiguity of tools that can cause harm when not oriented toward the good. Today, however, we find ourselves facing a new situation. The power and prevalence of emerging technologies are interwoven into the fabric of daily life, shaping decision-making processes and deeply affecting the collective imagination: “Never has humanity had such power over itself.” [6] New technologies open up a horizon extending in directions that are imaginable but not yet fully predictable. This complicates the assessment of their potential impact and the long-term effects they may have on both the dignity of individuals and the common good.

5. It now falls to us to face the challenges of our time with clarity of thought and responsibility. It is necessary to establish adequate regulatory tools capable of upholding justice and curbing the distorting effects of technological power. Nevertheless, the issue is not limited to regulation. As Pope Francis warned, we must realistically ask ourselves who holds this power today and how they use it: “It must also be recognized that nuclear energy, biotechnology, information technology, knowledge of our own DNA, and many other abilities which we have acquired… have given those with the knowledge, and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world.” [7] In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation. Today, however, the main drivers of development are private, often transnational, parties that are endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many Governments. Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect, which makes it even more challenging to discern, govern and direct such power toward the common good.

6. For this reason it is necessary to begin a shared discernment process for identifying the spiritual and cultural roots of ongoing transformations. If we focus only on contingencies, we risk letting the succession of emergencies dictate the direction of our path. We are living through a rapid phase of transition, a “change of era,” in which — while some are vying for the future of new technologies and others dedicate themselves to reflecting on the matter — most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best. For this very reason, crucial questions impose themselves on our conscience and can no longer be avoided: Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?

 

Bishops Conference of England & Wales

 

 

Two biblical images

№ 817. Questions of the Day

  

Manila Times

Signs And Wonders

By Diwa C. Guinigundo

President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. could not have chosen more telling words.

Speaking in Tokyo on May 29, he said: “I watched with horror that the Senate has become this.” He was referring to what should have been one of the country’s most important democratic institutions descending into a spectacle of personal loyalties, factional maneuvering, and institutional paralysis.

What has unfolded in the Senate over the past several weeks is no longer merely a political drama. It is becoming a test of whether Philippine democratic institutions can still function credibly amid intense political conflict.

The sequence of events is now familiar: the controversial reorganization of Senate leadership; the dramatic reappearance of a senator who had been absent for months; allegations of attacks on the Senate itself; the arrest of Senator Jinggoy Estrada on plunder charges; the continuing uncertainty surrounding Senator Ronald dela Rosa; and finally, the decision of the former majority bloc to boycott Senate proceedings.

Until Wednesday evening, the majority senators, with the exception of former Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero, refused to attend session. Invoking both the Constitution and Senate rules, the remaining senators, 11 from the minority together with Escudero, constituted a quorum, arguing that the arrest of Estrada and the impending arrest of Dela Rosa reduced the Senate’s effective membership to 22, making 12 senators sufficient to conduct business.

The legal debate is important. But the larger issue is institutional.

The message being sent to the public is that the Senate, constitutionally entrusted with legislation, oversight, investigations, and the confirmation of key appointments, is increasingly unable to perform its basic functions because political factions are placing partisan considerations above institutional responsibility.

That perception matters.

Because while financial markets often appear indifferent to political controversies, they are never indifferent to institutional deterioration.

 

№ 816. Lessons from Lord of the Rings

 

 

A Harvard University Law professor stood at a podium last week and told the graduating class that their credentials were not their qualification. He did it without saying the sentence. He picked a hobbit instead.

The story most people will tell about Benjamin Sachs’s last lecture is that a professor surprised his audience by quoting Tolkien instead of Rawls. That is the charming version. The actual version is that a senior labor scholar at Harvard Law School chose, in front of the next generation of corporate attorneys, to hand them the smallest character in the trilogy as their model. He could have given them Aragorn. He gave them Frodo. The choice was the whole sermon.

 

№ 815. 2026 Mother's Day Movie: Remarkably Bright Creatures

Latter Day Saint Geeks

 

Growing older with Remarkably Bright Creatures

Shelby Van Pelt’s novel was the perfect way to start my next decade of life.

№ 814. Geofencing: Police Power v. Privacy Rights

 

 

Supreme Court Wrangles With Police Use of Cell Location Data to Find Suspects 

Geofence searches allow law enforcement to find suspects and witnesses by sweeping up location data from cellphone users near crime scenes.

 

Medium

№ 813. Waking Up to Quantum Dreams: China

 

 

Inside the China fitness club

How? Jörg Wuttke, a former longtime president of the E.U. Chamber of Commerce in China, calls it “the China fitness club,” and it works like this:

China starts with an emphasis on STEM education — science, technology, engineering and math. Each year, the country produces some 3.5 million STEM graduates, about equal the number of graduates from associate, bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. programs in all disciplines in the United States.

When you have that many STEM graduates, you can throw more talent at any problem than anyone else. As the Times Beijing bureau chief, Keith Bradsher, reported last year: “China has 39 universities with programs to train engineers and researchers for the rare earths industry. Universities in the United States and Europe have mostly offered only occasional courses.”

And while many Chinese engineers may not graduate with M.I.T.-level skills, the best are world class, and there are a lot of them. There are 1.4 billion people there. That means that in China, when you are a one-in-a-million talent, there are 1,400 other people just like you.

As important, Chinese vocational schools graduate tens of thousands of electricians, welders, carpenters, mechanics and plumbers every year, so when someone has an idea for a new product and wants to throw up a factory, it can get built really fast. You need a pink polka dot button that can sing the Chinese national anthem backward? Someone here will have it for you by tomorrow. It will also get delivered fast. Over 550 Chinese cities are connected by high-speed rail that makes our Amtrak Acela look like the Pony Express.

And when you relentlessly digitize and connect everything to everything, you can get in and out of your hotel room fast with just facial recognition. Tech-savvy beggars who carry printouts of QR codes can accept donations fast by the scan of a cellphone. The whole system is set up for speed — including if you challenge the rule of the Communist Party, in which case, you will be arrested fast, given the security cameras everywhere, and disappear fast.

If we don’t build a similar fitness club behind any tariff wall, we’ll get just inflation and stagnation. You cannot tariff your way to prosperity, especially at the dawn of A.I.

I was also in China four months ago. Between then and now, China’s A.I. innovators demonstrated their ability to grow their own open-source A.I. engine, DeepSeek, with far fewer specialized U.S. chips. I could feel the mojo in the tech community. It was palpable. Last month Premier Li Qiang said at the opening ceremony of the National People’s Congress that the Chinese government is supporting “the extensive application of large-scale A.I. models.”

A young Chinese auto engineer who once worked for Tesla here told me: “Now everyone is competing over how much A.I. is being inserted. Now you brag about how much A.I. you insert. Everyone is committed. ‘I will use A.I., even if I don’t know how right now.’ You are preparing for that, even if you are on a simple production line for manufacturing refrigerators. ‘I have to use A.I., because my boss told me to.’”

Attention, Kmart shoppers: When you already have a manufacturing engine as powerful and digitally connected as China’s and then you infuse it with A.I. at every level, it’s like injecting a stimulant that can optimize and accelerate every aspect of manufacturing, from design to testing to production.

Not a good time for U.S. lawmakers to be shunning visits to China for fear of being called panda huggers.

As Han Shen Lin, an American who works as the China country director for the Asia Group, put it to me over breakfast at Shanghai’s Peace Hotel, “DeepSeek should not have been a surprise.” But, he continued, with all the new U.S. “overseas investment restrictions and disincentives to collaborate, we are now blind to China tech developments. China is defining the tech standards of the future without U.S. input. This will put us at a serious competitive disadvantage in the future.”

 

 

№ 812. Railways to Our Future

Railways to Our Future

By: Cielito F. Habito - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:06 AM April 14, 2026

Finally, we’re seeing both the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Transportation (DOTr) publicly agree on a transport philosophy that upholds the primacy of commuters over cars. At least, that’s what DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon and DOTr Secretary Giovanni Lopez both declared on the same stage at the last general membership meeting of the Management Association of the Philippines. It would be a welcome departure from the car-centric approach that appears to have guided land transport planning and policy in our country over the past decades.

Car-centricity may not have been explicit in past government plans or policy documents, but was nonetheless evident in how public investments favored road construction and repair over the wide provision of public mass transport facilities, especially by rail. For instance, I’ve long considered it a mortal sin that our transport authorities deliberately missed connecting the Metro Manila mass rail transit system to the airport, even with the train depot of LRT-1 lying right beside the domestic air terminal. A transport official back then privately admitted to me the simple reason: the taxi industry strongly lobbied against the airport link. It amounted to favoring cars (as taxis) over mass transport. More disgusting was how it put the vested interests of a few (taxi operators) over the greater good of the many (the riding public), in a patently antipeople move.

Car-centricity also shaped the national vision embodied in Ambisyon Natin 2040, which included the average Filipino family’s aspiration to own a private vehicle—no doubt influenced by the prevailing context of a highly inadequate public transport system. This expressed aspiration might not have been so prominent had mass transport not been the punishing ordeal it has commonly been and continues to be. And as seen in most world capitals, central to convenient and extensive mass transport systems is rail transport, of which we have woefully little.

London today reportedly has 491 kilometers (km) of urban commuter rail lines, while New York has 399, Tokyo 337, and Seoul 327. Closer to home, our neighboring Asean capitals, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Bangkok, and Jakarta have 205, 241, 280, and 396 km, respectively. In terms of population density, London has about 28,500 people per km of commuter rail line, New York has 21,300; Tokyo 41,500; Seoul 29,400; Kuala Lumpur 10,300, Singapore 25,700, Bangkok 40,700, and Jakarta 27,000. For Metro Manila, it’s a measly 52 km of rail lines from LRT-1, LRT-2, and MRT-3 combined, for a density of 269,000 people per km. Even just aiming for 40,000 people per km, similar to Tokyo and Bangkok, Metro Manila should have at least 350 km of urban commuter rail lines, about 300 km more than what it has today. But if we aim for the more typical density of 30,000 people per km, we should really have 467 km, or nine times what we have today.

Japan, known to be among the top railway-capable countries worldwide, has long helped us develop our rail transport system, having in fact funded LRT-2 and the rehabilitation of MRT-3. It funds most of the ongoing 33-km, 17-station Metro Manila Subway Project (MMSP) from Valenzuela to Bicutan, branching to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3, thereby belatedly providing a railway link to the airport. Along with it is the 147-km, 36-station North-South Commuter Railway (NSCR) to run from New Clark City to Calamba, Laguna, also partly funded by the Asian Development Bank. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (Jica) has extended 727.8 billion yen in loans (around P300 billion) for MMSP since it broke ground in early 2019, and is contributing 786 billion yen (around P340 billion) for NSCR. Both projects have suffered repeated delays due to persistent and exasperating right-of-way issues. Then came the legislators who infamously shifted budget allocations for foreign-assisted projects to unprogrammed appropriations to give way to their questionable pet projects, thereby impeding budget releases for and stalling these crucial projects further. While both MMSP and NSCR were earlier planned to be partially operational by 2022 and fully operational by 2027 to 2028, DOTr now aims for completion in 2032, with more in the pipeline.

Jica’s assistance toward our railway-enabled future included grant assistance to establish and operate the Philippine Railway Institute, a facility aimed to train over 15,000 personnel to support the coming new rail facilities. This complements Japan’s assistance on the hardware with assured “peopleware” to manage, operate, maintain, and sustain them.

If Dizon and Lopez will be true to their words, Filipino city dwellers can look forward to a future of more livable cities. But don’t hold your breath just yet. 

 

 

 

№ 811. Semana Santa 2026: Marilou Diaz-Abaya

 

 

№ 810. The Adolescence of Technology: Confronting and Overcoming the Risks of Powerful AI

Calvin & Hobbes

 

 

By Dario Amodei

 

January 2026

There is a scene in the movie version of Carl Sagan’s book Contact where the main character, an astronomer who has detected the first radio signal from an alien civilization, is being considered for the role of humanity’s representative to meet the aliens. The international panel interviewing her asks, “If you could ask [the aliens] just one question, what would it be?” Her reply is: “I’d ask them, ‘How did you do it? How did you evolve, how did you survive this technological adolescence without destroying yourself?” When I think about where humanity is now with AI—about what we’re on the cusp of—my mind keeps going back to that scene, because the question is so apt for our current situation, and I wish we had the aliens’ answer to guide us. I believe we are entering a rite of passage, both turbulent and inevitable, which will test who we are as a species. Humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power, and it is deeply unclear whether our social, political, and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it.

In my essay Machines of Loving Grace, I tried to lay out the dream of a civilization that had made it through to adulthood, where the risks had been addressed and powerful AI was applied with skill and compassion to raise the quality of life for everyone. I suggested that AI could contribute to enormous advances in biology, neuroscience, economic development, global peace, and work and meaning. I felt it was important to give people something inspiring to fight for, a task at which both AI accelerationists and AI safety advocates seemed—oddly—to have failed. But in this current essay, I want to confront the rite of passage itself: to map out the risks that we are about to face and try to begin making a battle plan to defeat them. I believe deeply in our ability to prevail, in humanity’s spirit and its nobility, but we must face the situation squarely and without illusions.

As with talking about the benefits, I think it is important to discuss risks in a careful and well-considered manner. In particular, I think it is critical to:

• Avoid doomerism. Here, I mean “doomerism” not just in the sense of believing doom is inevitable (which is both a false and self-fulfilling belief), but more generally, thinking about AI risks in a quasi-religious way.¹ Many people have been thinking in an analytic and sober way about AI risks for many years, but it’s my impression that during the peak of worries about AI risk in 2023–2024, some of the least sensible voices rose to the top, often through sensationalistic social media accounts. These voices used off-putting language reminiscent of religion or science fiction, and called for extreme actions without having the evidence that would justify them. It was clear even then that a backlash was inevitable, and that the issue would become culturally polarized and therefore gridlocked.² As of 2025–2026, the pendulum has swung, and AI opportunity, not AI risk, is driving many political decisions. This vacillation is unfortunate, as the technology itself doesn’t care about what is fashionable, and we are considerably closer to real danger in 2026 than we were in 2023. The lesson is that we need to discuss and address risks in a realistic, pragmatic manner: sober, fact-based, and well equipped to survive changing tides. 

• Acknowledge uncertainty. There are plenty of ways in which the concerns I’m raising in this piece could be moot. Nothing here is intended to communicate certainty or even likelihood. Most obviously, AI may simply not advance anywhere near as fast as I imagine.³ Or, even if it does advance quickly, some or all of the risks discussed here may not materialize (which would be great), or there may be other risks I haven’t considered. No one can predict the future with complete confidence—but we have to do the best we can to plan anyway.

• Intervene as surgically as possible. Addressing the risks of AI will require a mix of voluntary actions taken by companies (and private third-party actors) and actions taken by governments that bind everyone. The voluntary actions—both taking them and encouraging other companies to follow suit—are a no-brainer for me. I firmly believe that government actions will also be required to some extent, but these interventions are different in character because they can potentially destroy economic value or coerce unwilling actors who are skeptical of these risks (and there is some chance they are right!). It’s also common for regulations to backfire or worsen the problem they are intended to solve (and this is even more true for rapidly changing technologies). It’s thus very important for regulations to be judicious: they should seek to avoid collateral damage, be as simple as possible, and impose the least burden necessary to get the job done.⁴ It is easy to say, “No action is too extreme when the fate of humanity is at stake!,” but in practice this attitude simply leads to backlash. To be clear, I think there’s a decent chance we eventually reach a point where much more significant action is warranted, but that will depend on stronger evidence of imminent, concrete danger than we have today, as well as enough specificity about the danger to formulate rules that have a chance of addressing it. The most constructive thing we can do today is advocate for limited rules while we learn whether or not there is evidence to support stronger ones.⁵

№ 809. World History & Economics

 Here's a daily dose of history and economics. 

 This metaphorical shot in the head helps us make sense of the context of the US-Israel & Iran war. We don't really leave the past behind.

№ 808. The Sound of Music

 

 

№ 807. Rule of Law versus Rule of Men (Kings)

 

The Week

 

The British police on Thursday evening released Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, after taking him into custody for several hours, intensifying a long-running crisis for the monarchy over his ties to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The detention and questioning of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, once seen as a dashing war hero and the favorite son of Queen Elizabeth II, was a staggering blow for the monarchy. It was the first time in modern history that a member of the British royal family had been arrested. The last time was in 1649, when Charles I was executed for treason during the English Civil War.

Reddit

№ 806. 2026 Happy Chinese Lunar New Year

The opening sequence in “ Eat Drink Man Woman,” in which a delectable Taiwanese banquet is prepared by a master chef, is guaranteed to make you contemplate the non-buttered popcorn in your lap and cry. Not quite as delicious -- but nonetheless enjoyable—is the repast that follows: Ang (“The Wedding Banquet”) Lee’s amiable family farce about generational tension and, of course, food.

№ 805. International Law

 

 

№ 804. Arthur Rubinstein

 

 

If there was an award for the pianist who came closest to the artistic ideal in the widest repertoire, it would almost certainly go to Rubinstein. Whether playing Fauré or Brahms, Albéniz or Beethoven, Ravel or Schubert, the results were sublime. Yet he is most celebrated for his Chopin. That composer's aristocratic poise and elegance found a perfect match in Rubinstein’s own interpretative genius. 

His golden tone, exquisite sense of timing and sensitivity to phrase and structure were tailor-made for Chopin's nocturnes, waltzes and mazurkas. Yet remarkably he sustained that same level of musical intuitiveness and profound eloquence throughout the more heated virtuosity of the concertos, scherzos, ballades, preludes, sonatas and polonaises. 

There was seemingly nothing that Rubinstein could not play at the highest levels of distinction. This ranged from concertos and solo recitals to forming two ‘million dollar’ piano trios, first with Jascha Heifetz and Emanuel Feuermann and then with Henryk Szeryng and Pierre Fournier, with whom he made outstanding recordings of Brahms, Schubert and Schumann.

Incredibly, as witness sublime video recordings of concertos by Grieg, Saint-Saëns, Chopin, Beethoven and Brahms, he was still playing like an angel in his eighties. Rubinstein was one of the most widely recorded of pianists. That said, his love affair with the gramophone got off to a shaky start. He refused to record for the early acoustic process as he felt it made the piano ‘sound like a banjo’.

№ 803. Villanelle

 

 

№ 802. The Big C

Screenrant

 

№ 801. Rupture in the World Order: PM Carney's Speech

Thank you very much, Larry. I'm going to start in French, and then I'll switch back to English.


[The following is translated from French]


Thank you, Larry. It is both a pleasure, and a duty, to be with you tonight in this pivotal moment that Canada and the world going through.


Today I will talk about a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power, geopolitics, is submitted to no limits, no constraints.


On the other hand, I would like to tell you that the other countries, especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the various states.


The power of the less power starts with honesty.


[Carney returns to speaking in English]


It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.


And this aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable, as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself.


And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.


Well, it won't.


So, what are our options?


In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless, and in it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?


And his answer began with a greengrocer.


Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: ‘Workers of the world unite’. He doesn't believe it, no-one does, but he places a sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persist – not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.


Havel called this “living within a lie”.


The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack. Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.



For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.


We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.


This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.


So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.


This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.


Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.


You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination.


The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied – the WTO, the UN, the COP – the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat. And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy, in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.


And this impulse is understandable. A country that can't feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself, has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.


But let's be clear eyed about where this leads.


A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable. And there is another truth. If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.


Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.


Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty.


They'll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty – sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.


This room knows this is classic risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty can also be shared.

Have you read?
In pictures: World leaders, top CEOs gather at Davos 2026


Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentations. Complementarities are positive sum. And the question for middle powers like Canada is not whether to adapt to the new reality – we must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.


Now Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.


Canadians know that our old comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security – that assumption is no longer valid. And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland, has termed “value-based realism”.


Or, to put another way, we aim to be both principled and pragmatic – principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights, and pragmatic and recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values.


So, we're engaging broadly, strategically with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.


We are calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values, and we're prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given and given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.


And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.


We are building that strength at home.


Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast tracking a trillion dollars of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We're doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade, and we're doing so in ways that build our domestic industries.


And we are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements. We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months. The past few days, we've concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We're negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.


We're doing something else. To help solve global problems, we're pursuing variable geometry, in other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests. So, on Ukraine, we're a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per capita contributors to its defence and security.


On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark, and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland's future.


Our commitment to NATO's Article 5 is unwavering, so we're working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic Baltic Gate, to further secure the alliance's northern and western flanks, including through Canada's unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft and boots on the ground, boots on the ice.


Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.


On plurilateral trade, we're championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, we're forming buyers’ clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we're cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won't ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyper-scalers.


This is not naive multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It's building coalitions that work – issues by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together.


In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.


What it's doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture, on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.


Argue, the middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.


But I'd also say that great powers, great powers can afford for now to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.


But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.


This is not sovereignty. It's the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination. In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice – compete with each other for favour, or to combine to create a third path with impact.


We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together – which brings me back to Havel.


What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?


First, it means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is – a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests, using economic integration as coercion.


It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction, but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.


It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion – that's building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government's immediate priority.


And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence, it's a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

Have you read?
Over 60 heads of state are gathering at Davos 2026. Here’s what they're saying


So Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world's largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital, talent… we also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.


Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but.. A partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.


And we have something else. We have a recognition of what's happening and a determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.


We are taking the sign out of the window. We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation.


The powerful have their power.


But we have something too – the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.


That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us. Thank you very much.

№ 800. Viktor Frankl & Freedom

Viktor Frankl

№ 799. Music Therapy

History of Music

 

№ 798. 2o2@