Canada's revenge: Wildfire smoke over New York City

Democratic socialism, American style: Douthat interviews Bashar Sunkara

Ross Douthat, A Vision of a ‘Society Without Capitalism’, NYTimes, July 16, 2026

Democratic socialists are having a moment. But can they actually remake the Democratic Party — and the American economy — in their image? My guest today, Bhaskar Sunkara [founding editor of Jacobin], WLB, is a longtime democratic socialist, and he makes the case that socialism has a universal appeal that transcends our current politics and will ultimately triumph against capitalism.

Well into the interview, Bill of Rights socialism:

Douthat: So you’re saying that if there’s a socialist contract with America, it does not promise collectivization and a one-party state?

Sunkara: I think we believe in a Bill of Rights socialism.

Douthat: So what is it?

Sunkara: There’s an immediate set of demands that you could call us attempting to bring about doses of socialism within capitalism.

This comes in the realm of decommodification of certain goods, providing them as social rights instead of them being dependent on your ability to pay.

Health care in America is partially decommodified. If you’re elderly, if you’re very poor, if you’re a child, you’re going to have guaranteed access to health care. We want to see that extended.

Same thing with things like Social Security and certain other benefits, or an expansion of the welfare state — not unlike Norway.

I also would go further and say that even within capitalism in the here and now, there are sectors of the economy that I would like to see greater state control of. In the old language of the left, we would call it the commanding heights of the economy, but even things like rail — there are benefits to selective nationalization, particularly of natural monopolies.

That vision right there of socialism within capitalism, could be true of a lot of social democrats.

So beyond that, the question is: Why would you go about calling yourself a democratic socialist? For me, I call myself a democratic socialist because I actually believe in a socialism beyond capitalism.

I actually do believe in an economy built on the idea that workers should control their workplaces and on this more radical vision of a society without capitalism, even if it still has a motor needed for investment and for efficiency gains and growth and so on.

Housing:

Douthat: OK. But those people in Queens who you mentioned, they’re concerned about housing, right? Is the leftward view of what housing policy should be for the Democrats, going forward?

Sunkara: I think everyone can see, across the political spectrum, that there’s a huge problem with housing construction in the U.S.

So Zohran’s policy, for example, in New York, is very heavily built around upzoning and making it easier for developers to build, and I think people agree with that.

But beyond that, I think on the left, we point to successful examples around the world of public housing being done right. We think at least part of the construction needs to be public housing. We also need to maintain and expand existing units.

I think that’s the room for the state to step up and do more things. But I think these solutions are largely, first and foremost, on the supply side. Then beyond that, we do believe in certain stabilizations and other things.

Douthat: Rent stabilization, meaning rent control or —

Sunkara: Rent control, which can be designed well. It could also be designed poorly.

But you could imagine, for example, telling landlords: “We’re going to clear the way. We’re going to allow you to create this big housing development. We’re going to fight against the interests of local homeowners, and you build your big piece of housing. But after 30 years, after you have a reasonable return on investment, that unit is going to have some degree of rent stabilization,” for instance.

That, to me, is a perfectly common sense, economically coherent vision for housing. I know there’s lots of talk on the left and in the Democratic Party about the debate over abundance, but fundamentally, any form of social democracy is grow-give.

There needs to be a motor for economic investment. There needs to be profitability in order to have something to redistribute. The added component that I would say is an important part of a socialist agenda is making sure that there are strong unions in workplaces that can advocate for higher wages even before the state gets involved with redistribution.

A.I.:

Douthat: What about A.I.? Bernie has taken some pretty strong stances, I would say. He has sort of staked out a position as the Democratic politician most open to both doomer narratives about A.I., but also most enthused about the prospect of strong government intervention.

What is the socialist position on the A.I. industry right now?

Sunkara: I think there’s a host of different socialist positions. I lean more on the side of just seeing it as any other technology. Companies are going to invest in new technologies. The economy is going to change. We’re going to need to adapt and figure out how to regulate it.

Obviously, any changes that we do, any regulation we need to do, need to make sense in an international context too.

It doesn’t make sense to tank certain U.S. companies if there’s going to be other companies creating the same disruption that are coming from other parts of the world.

But I think this gets to the level of policy where there’s legitimate debates. I think the idea which has been touted by figures as varied as Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon is of the U.S. government owning a stake in major A.I. companies.

It makes perfect sense, too. But, fundamentally, we have to respond to a dynamic economy in which there’s always going to be new technologies, there’s always going to be new wants and needs, and new goods and services, and we need regulation that’s able to be flexible and adapt with changes. [...]

There needs to be a motor for economic investment. There needs to be profitability in order to have something to redistribute. The added component that I would say is an important part of a socialist agenda is making sure that there are strong unions in workplaces that can advocate for higher wages even before the state gets involved with redistribution.

What of capitalism?

Douthat: But just pulling back, I feel like we’ve danced around this a little bit, so let me just ask it directly: Is democratic socialism compatible with capitalism?

Sunkara: In the long term, no. We’re anticapitalist. We want a world beyond capitalism. But in the short term, while we’re within a capitalist economy, of course, we need firms that are profitable, that are providing employment, that are providing taxation. So I think to govern in the short term as social democrats, we need profitable firms.

But in the long term, you know, I don’t hide my desire that I think the economy should be socialized, even if I think in the socialized economy, there needs to be a role for markets and also a role for worker-controlled firms to be able to meet people’s needs and provide new goods and services.

Douthat: What’s the distinction you make between capitalism and markets then?

Sunkara: Well, I think markets existed before capitalism. Capitalism is a regime of property ownership that says that as an individual capitalist or as a corporation, we own this private property and we use this private property to employ people and to produce goods and services.

And in my vision of a just society, of a socialist society, that private property would be controlled by ordinary workers who would get their financing from public banks, who would still operate with hard budgets. They would still need to meet goods and services and meet their payroll obligations and things like that.

But you don’t have a class of people who, as individuals, control investment decisions.

There's much more at the link.

But what is cross-entropy? | Compression is Intelligence Part 2

Where the loss function for training LLMs comes from.
Job opportunities aligned to this audience: https://3b1b.co/talent
Early views and other perks for supporters: https://3b1b.co/support
Home page: https://www.3blue1brown.com

Manim animations by Aaron Gostein and Grant Sanderson
NanoGPT animation by Clayton Rabideau
3d black-box model by Paul Dancstep
Music by Vince Rubinetti

Timestamps

0:00 - Language trees and zipping
3:02 - Recap optimal codes
5:20 - Defining cross-entropy
8:26 - Intuition and examples
12:59 - Application to language trees
14:55 - Pre-training LLMs
20:38 - What makes this loss function best?
26:13 - Distillation
30:12 - 3b1b Talent
31:35 - KL Divergence

Attention and error predition in thalamocortico circuits

Happy to share our new pre-print "Attention reshapes the information dynamics of thalamic and cortical prediction-error learning" led by the great Juho Äijälä, with @happieheads, @Kai_J_Miller, @dora_hermes, @drrobinince, @ABlenkmann , @TrikBek, Max Garagnani. Thread below👇 pic.twitter.com/dBJBM1VEnE

— Andres Canales-Johnson (@canalesjohnson) July 16, 2026

Follow the link to see the full thread. Here's the article's abstract:

Prediction errors (PEs) drive perceptual learning by updating internal models of the sensory environment, yet it remains unclear how attention reshapes their representation across distributed thalamocortical circuits. Using intracranial stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) from 17 patients performing a roving auditory oddball task under attended and unattended conditions, we quantified PE encoding using mutual information and co-information to capture redundant and synergistic PE representations. Attention modulated PE encoding in both the thalamus and the temporal cortex, but with distinct informational dynamics. Thalamic encoding showed a stable reduction of PE information during distraction, consistent with state-dependent thalamocortical gating. In contrast, the temporal cortex expressed two opposing learning trajectories during attended listening that converged once attention was diverted, revealing distinct cortical learning regimes rather than a uniform attentional effect. Attention further reorganized the informational content of cortical PE representations by altering the balance between redundant and synergistic information. A biologically constrained neural network showed that attention-dependent changes in inhibition and long-range connectivity reproduced these dynamics through Hebbian learning. Together, these findings suggest that attention regulates predictive learning not simply by changing the strength of PE responses, but by reshaping how distributed thalamocortical circuits represent and integrate sensory evidence over time.

Meditation facilities

Killing the NSC with Julia Curlee

YouTube:

Wherein Ben and Mike Feinberg welcome Julia Curlee, former CIA analyst and NSC staffer, to discuss the Trump administration's destruction of the National Security Council.

An interesting discussion of the functioning of a relatively small government agency, roughly 200 people, by examining what happens when the agency was gutted early in the 2nd Trump administration.

Henry Farrell on "The political economy of billionaire derangement"

Henry Farrell, The political economy of billionaire derangement, Programmable Mutter, July 15, 2026.

He opens with two somewhat different quotes about billionaires, Tyler Cowen more or less in favor of them and Tim O’Reilly deeply skeptical of them. He suggests we breed them together:

To be clear: this hybrid would be notably different to Tim’s argument, and likely actively objectionable to Tyler. I alone am to blame. But surprisingly, there is inadvertent support for some of its key elements from Peter Thiel, who is a surprisingly valuable chronicler of the conditions that give rise to billionaire derangement, as well as a living example of it (the Antichrist is here!).2 Here, I’m drawing both on lectures that Thiel gave at Stanford, as summarized by his amanuensis Blake Masters, and the resulting co-authored book, Zero To One. These sources have a lot to say about the connections between entrepreneurship, kingship, and personal eccentricity.

The conclusion I draw is that the forces that Tim identifies, combined with specific aspects of the political economy of Silicon Valley, help explain the derangement of certain Silicon Valley billionaires and their epigones. Old style princes were notorious for their tendencies to deranged behavior, which came not just from their inbreeding, but their power, and the unwillingness and inability of others to contradict or check them. So too, modern princes.

Not too long ago, many people, including Tyler, hoped that the advance of classical liberalism would go hand-in-hand with the growing power of tech billionaires, advancing both causes at once. Now, politically influential tech billionaires have visibly lost contact both with reality and with anything that could plausibly be described as classical liberal values. See the screen shotted quote above. Rather than making snide asides about billionaire derangement syndrome, it might be time for such people to confront what actual billionaire derangement means for the ideological straddle that they have relied on for so long. That is even more so, in a world where markets as well as market-makers are being devoured by the passions.

To summarize the particulars of my theory: Thiel’s lectures and book provide good, if incomplete evidence that the princely passions described by Hirschman didn’t disappear, but went underground. Commerce and power were fused into a new ideology of entrepreneurial virtù that became highly influential among the founder community in Silicon Valley. This combined with Silicon Valley’s (and popular culture’s) tendency to connect genius with eccentricity, not simply selecting people who seemed strange, but compounding their strangeness through self-reinforcing feedback loops. Finally, this all happened in an intimate social environment of founders and funders. Billionaires know each other and measure themselves and their success against those they consider peers, in a dense entangled clique that commingles high degrees of mutual influence with rivalries and jealousies.

Farrell then goes on to quote Thiel’s book at some length, analyzing while going along. And so:

In short then, Thiel - both as reported by Masters and in collaboration with him - suggests that Silicon Valley is a place where being a founder is tantamount to being a king. You have a greater chance of succeeding if you are weird, and if you succeed, your weirdness will likely feed upon itself in feedback loops of positive reinforcement. Finally, it is a closely interconnected social system where the key people are conjoined in a dense tangible clique. They observe each other all the time, and are observed by others for cues of what you need to do to become a made man. [...]

SpaceX perhaps marks a culmination of the kingly ideal, a moment in which, as Tim puts it, someone like Musk can “raise enormous amounts of capital while freeing himself from any restraints from those who provide it, so that he can spend the proceeds on Mars, humanoid robots, artificial intelligence or whatever next satisfies his ambition.” But it is also the moment in which someone who is visibly profoundly disturbed has briefly become the world’s first trillionaire. And it is one in which others want to copy him.

And then a bow to Keynes’s “animal spirits” in the market place:

I’ll finish by noting that this is just one aspect of a greater change. Deranged billionaires like Musk and Thiel are both partly responsible for this transformation, and notable symptoms of it. Still, they are not the whole of it. The reason that the SpaceX IPO temporarily succeeded, even though the numbers make no sense whatsoever, is that investment markets too are ruled by vibes. Tyler’s co-blogger, Alex Tabarrok, devoted years of his life to making the case for prediction markets, arguing that they would distill market wisdom into a more general source of knowledge on a multitude of topics. Now they are here, but all too often it’s spirits, not wisdom, that they seem to be distilling. Even more so for crypto. Matt Levine makes a joke about “Bleebzorx Tokens” to explain the worthlessness of memecoins, and someone else invents Bleebzorx Tokens to make a tidy profit.

There’s more at the link.

Riding the wave (Gen AI is an engineering disaster, not quite)

https://t.co/FJ3nRKbBEp

— Bill Benzon, BAM! Bootstrapping Artificial Minds (@bbenzon) July 15, 2026

Street view with shadows and sun

Feelings for Sale in China

There's a video at the link (NYTimes). Here's a transcript of the voice over:

Visitors to a theme park in central China are lining up for selfies with this cosplayer. While this hiker is paid to guide and carry visitors up one of the country’s most popular mountains. It’s all part of a growing trend among young people here who are increasingly anxious about the future because of declining wages and high youth unemployment.

So many are buying feel-good experiences and products that provide “qíng xù jià zhí” — which means emotional value in Chinese. The phrase is everywhere. Companies use it in ads to sell everything from A.I. pets that provide companionship to blind boxes that bring surprise. Even some local governments are using the term in their annual economic reports.

The trend has fueled a nearly $400 billion market that’s estimated to grow 70 percent by 2029. We found two young Chinese workers who are cashing in on the craze. Their social media posts and videos they shared with us give a glimpse inside the emotional value phenomenon.

College student, Lu Zhaoyu, is part of a group that helps people hike Mount Tai in eastern China. The 20-year-old markets his services with photos of himself, promising “maximum emotional value” all the way up to the summit. He said his clients are usually women in their 20s and 30s who prefer to spend money on their feelings rather than practical things.

A Lang bounced between different jobs before becoming a cosplayer at an amusement park. The park advertises that its good-looking actors and actresses provide a “full emotional experience” for $15 per visitor. The 30-year-old usually spends an hour transforming himself into a warrior from a video game. He said some visitors in the crowd are fans who have seen his videos on social media. A Lang said his goal is to create a moment of joy for each person.

What sets Lu apart from a typical hiking guide are the services he offers his clients such as fresh fruit at a rest stop or champagne to celebrate the hike. Clients pay about $100 for a six-hour trek. Many get exhausted along the way and ask to be carried. Sometimes Lu said he feels like a therapist. Both Lu and A Lang said the job can be emotionally and physically draining. But emotional value can also be a two-way street. “Getting exhausted during the hike is inevitable. But providing emotional value or carrying their bags is the basics of the job.” “When I am tired, I will turn on the livestream and sing to release my emotions.”

Dave Brubeck, "Zen is When"

Dave Brubeck, piano
Bass, Eugene Wright
Drums, Joe Morello
Composer, Bud Freeman, Leon Prober

Please leave door open when not in use

On the pleasure of making music

I recently posted a video in which Adam Neely argued against using AI to make music. In that video he showed the CEO of Suno, Michael Shulman argues, “It’s not really enjoyable to make music now. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of practice.” Hence the justification for an AI program that does all the work for you.

I’m with Neeley on this one. I note further that the idea and practice of being merely a consumer of music, without being able to make your own, is relatively recent. Before the invention of sound recording in the late 19th century and the invention of broadcast media in the 20th, before those things happened the only music was live music. If you wanted to listen to music, you have to be in the presence of live performers. To be sure only a small group ever became full-time professional musicians, but a somewhat larger group became reasonably competent amateurs. And I strongly suspect that everyone participated in some active music-making or associated dance more than is the place today.

Passive listening is a different kind of experience. To be sure, it is now possible for anyone to experience the best possible performances through sound recording and broadcast, and that is surely a good thing. But it’s not quite as good as being there in person. And in either case the pleasure is not the same as making your own music, even if your music is, shall we say, a bit basic.

Wayne Booth makes that point in his book, For the Love of It: Amateuring and Its Rivals (1999), which is grounded in his love of cello playing. Here’s a couple of excerpts:

So what will be the main point here? Well, obviously not the totally, finally inaccessible perfection but the playing itself, good and bad. We usually manage to rise above the distractions and play, for the sake of the playing. While much of the rest of the world is negotiating costs and benefits of a different kind, we are negotiating interpretations—and when things go well, the pay-off is beauty, friendship, and joy. (About the many in the world who can afford neither kind of negotiation—the impoverished, the hungry, the deprived—I'll not say much, and what I say will be said guiltily. To fiddle while much of the world burns is surely wicked, but everyone who has read this far is to some degree already caught up in the wickedness. Will I be able to say any more in my defense than that some kinds of fiddling come closer to redeeming the world than some other kinds?)

Later:

What I hope will harmonize the debating voices is an unqualified celebration of what it means to take on any difficult and complex task for the sheer love of the task itself, with no possibility of future pay-off. In a world filled increasingly with easy pleasures why take on a tough love that requires daily practice, burdens you with a sense of critical failure, and risks leading others to accuse you of wasting your time—and theirs? Or, if you are bored with the easier pleasures, why not instead give yourself more of the pleasure yielded by getting ahead professionally? Steady devotion at the office will get you somewhere, while steady devotion in front of a music stand or learning jazz trombone or gardening—well, won't you just end up about where you began?

And this:

I am an amateur cellist with an uncomfortable vulnerability to that word "lack" in the second definition. I do love to play the cello—especially when others are playing with me; over the years it has come to feel less and less like a mere addendum to life, a pastime, a hobby, and more and more like something beyond even an added luxury: it's now a necessity. But though I "practice" the art lovingly, "for my own pleasure," practice at least an hour a day, I often practice it with little ease and never with any skill remotely resembling "professional."

There’s more at the link.

The idea that we should rest content with having AI generate tunes for us, that ultimately we don’t need humans making music at all because the AIs can do it “better,” that betrays a frightfully shallow conception of being human, of living. It reduces being human to being simply a consumer of experiences, which seems to me to be the ultimate motivation of the fantasy that we’re living in computer simulation, that we’re not doing anything at all but are rather being done to. That’s the (ultimate) triumph of Homo economicus over Homo Ludens.

Miscellaneous flowers

Rick Beato interviews Bill Joel [fascinating!]

YouTube:

In this interview I finally get to sit down with the legendary Billy Joel. We talk about Billy's prolific career as a singer and songwriter, his love of classical music, and his techniques for writing such timeless music. Billy also shares some hilarious stories and demonstrates his unmistakable piano chops.