The AI and the Super Bowl Commercial Bubble Curse

 

 

One of these days, I need to do a serious thread on my take on the capacity and likely impact of LLMs (tldr version: big advance in natural language processing; major productivity boost for coding and a few other fields; but loads of ugly unintended consequences; probably a Langley steam airplane). For now, though, I'm keeping the focus on the AI bubble.

For those of us old enough to remember the dot-com bubble, there are some disturbing parallels. I am always reluctant to make too much of historical precedent—there are certainly some differences here—but the differences themselves aren’t all that reassuring.

The ads of the dot-com Super Bowl, at least those that have lodged in memory, were mainly about establishing brand awareness, be it the notorious sock puppet or the dancing chimpanzee followed by the tagline “we just wasted 2 million dollars.”

The ads of this weekend’s Super Bowl, at least those I got around to watching, seem to be about convincing potential customers that this is a product they would like to use. The difference in tone reflects the fact that while the excesses of the dot-com boom were widely mocked, people didn’t hate the underlying products the way surveys indicate they do AI.

One exception was the Anthropic ad, which seemed to want to start a pissing war with OpenAI. It’s the sort of competitive back-and-forth you might expect in a mature industry, with a company trying to gain an edge over its competition—think about those “I’m a Mac” and “I’m a PC” ads from back in the day. Anthropic and OpenAI, however, are two money-imagining startups that are still raising cash primarily on the assumption that some product they will come up with in the future will be the killer app.

One key similarity between a quarter of a century ago and today is that I suspect both sets of ads are primarily intended to convince investors that not only is this the next big thing, but that the payoff is just around the corner. That corner turned out to be quite a few years later than promised for the dot-com companies. We’ll see how things work out for this generation.

Chris Isidore writing for CNN:

 

If there was an overriding message throughout the Super Bowl ads last night, it’s that artificial intelligence is your friend.

...

Americans have widespread concerns about how AI is changing society, from jobs to social relationships, surveys show. But AI companies, flush with cash from surging stocks, used the Super Bowl not to sell specific products but instead sell a vision of a kinder, gentler AI future.

The ads were about selling peace of mind – the kind people will need to adopt more AI tools and splash out on AI-enabled devices, subscriptions and other fare. Without that buy-in, AI companies could struggle to turn a profit. After hundreds of billions of dollars in investments, that’s a concern that’s already starting to spook markets.

Two-thirds of respondents in a September Marist poll said they “believe AI will eliminate more jobs than it creates.” Members of Gen Z and women were especially likely to feel that way. And about four in 10 people polled said they “rarely or never” use AI tools.

...

In real life, though, some experts worry there could be widespread job loss from AI in the years ahead. Rapid data center buildouts are also prompting concerns that rising electricity and water use will push up Americans’ bills.

These were not the first Super Bowl ads promoting AI services. But they were an overwhelming presence Sunday night, prompting some social media backlash.

...

But the AI companies apparently believed that the reported $8 million they spent for 30 second spots was worth it: In the streaming age, the Super Bowl is the one event a year that not only brings in top viewership but includes viewers willing to watch the ads rather than skip past them.

And the AI industry needs the help winning Americans over.

“Americans are much more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI in daily life, with a majority saying they want more control over how AI is used in their lives,” said Pew Research Center, summing up a recent survey on the topic. “Far larger shares say AI will erode than improve people’s ability to think creatively and form meaningful relationships.”

More thoughts from The Internet of Bugs

When threads collide: Epstein, Musk, and the New York Times.

After I posted last week’s piece on how the New York Times broke the news of Epstein’s first conviction in the most disgustingly sympathetic way possible, the name of the reporter Landon Thomas started popping up in my email and Bluesky feed, and it made me realize I had left a big chunk of the story out of my account.

From Margaret Sullivan:

One of the best investigative reporters I know, Pulitzer Prize-winner James Risen, wrote to me about Landon Thomas, after the Epstein emails raised serious questions about that reporter-source relationship.

“This raises so many questions,” Risen told me. “Did this guy tell his editors he might have stuff on Trump and Epstein? What did they do about it? Did they ignore it?”

We may never know. The Times has said very little so far, despite being pressed. After the Intercept and other news organizations asked these kinds of questions, their spokeswoman declined to get into it, only noting that Thomas left the Times years ago. He departed in 2019 after he revealed to his editors that he had solicited charitable donations from Jeffrey Epstein; the Times put out a statement back then saying his solicitation was “a clear violation” of their ethics policy. But what about all he knew about Epstein and about Epstein’s dealings with Donald Trump? (“Would you like to see photos of donald and girls in bikinis in my kitchen?” Epstein asked Thomas in one recently released email.)

Given what we knew even back in 2019 about the ethical lines Thomas had been crossing for almost two decades (behavior the NYT knew about before they hired him), the idea that soliciting donations was the one that went too far is a bit much. If I were the cynical type, I'd assume that Thomas's bosses were relieved to have an excuse to get rid of him just as their previous coverage of Epstein was about to go under the microscope. 

An email I got in response to last week's post pointed out that Thomas was also the author of the notorious 2002 New York Magazine puff piece, Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery, an article that helped lay the foundation for the highly useful myth of Epstein as a financial genius and all-around brilliant thinker.

He comes with cash to burn, a fleet of airplanes, and a keen eye for the ladies — to say nothing of a relentless brain that challenges Nobel Prize–winning scientists across the country — and for financial markets around the world. 

... 

A former Dalton math teacher, he maintains a peripatetic salon of brilliant scientists yet possesses no bachelor’s degree. For more than ten years, he’s been linked to Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously deceased media titan Robert Maxwell, yet he lives the life of a bachelor, logging 600 hours a year in his various planes as he scours the world for investment opportunities. He owns what is said to be Manhattan’s largest private house yet runs his business from a 100-acre private island in St. Thomas.

 ...

The wizard that meets the eye is spare and fit; with a long jaw and a carefully coiffed head of silver hair, he looks like a taller, younger Ralph Lauren. A raspy Brooklyn accent betrays his Coney Island origins. He spends an hour and fifteen minutes every day doing advanced yoga with his personal instructor, who travels with him wherever he goes. He is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

 ...

At the time, options trading was an arcane and dimly understood field, just beginning to take off. To trade options, one had to value them, and to value them, one needed to be able to master such abstruse mathematical confections as the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. For Epstein, breaking down such models was pure sport, and within just a few years he had his own stable of clients. “He was not your conventional broker saying ‘Buy IBM’ or ‘Sell Xerox,’ ” says Bear Stearns CEO Jimmy Cayne. “Given his mathematical background, we put him in our special-products division, where he would advise our wealthier clients on the tax implications of their portfolios. He would recommend certain tax-advantageous transactions. He is a very smart guy and has become a very important client for the firm as well.”

...

But it is his covey of scientists that inspires Epstein’s true rapture. Epstein spends $20 million a year on them — encouraging them to engage in whatever kind of cutting-edge research might attract their fancy. They are, of course, quite lavish in their praise in return. Gerald Edelman won the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine in 1972 and now presides over the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla. “Jeff is extraordinary in his ability to pick up on quantitative relations,” says Edelman. “He came to see us recently. He is concerned with this basic question: Is it true that the brain is not a computer? He is very quick.” 

 

More than any other journalist, Thomas appears to be the key figure in allowing Epstein to cultivate his image as business genius/philanthropist/charming rouge. This role kicked into higher gear when the first round of accusations came to light.

John Power writing for Al Jazeera. (And yes, I do take this publication with a grain of salt on certain topics, but they don’t seem to have an agenda here, and the details are accurate as far as I can tell.)

A New York Times reporter told Jeffrey Epstein that he could write an article that would define the financier on his own terms as he faced allegations of sexually abusing minors in the months leading up to his 2008 conviction, newly uncovered emails reveal.

After a negative article about Epstein was published in September 2007, then-New York Times journalist Landon Thomas Jr advised Epstein to “get ahead” of more bad publicity by doing an interview that would define the story “on your terms”.

“I Just read the Post. Now the floodgates will open — you can expect Vanity Fair and NYMag to pile on,” Thomas wrote to Epstein in an email dated September 20, 2007, referring to the magazines Vanity Fair and New York Magazine.

“My view is that the quicker you get out ahead of this and define the story and who you are on your terms in the NYT, the better it will be for you.”

Thomas, who left the Times in 2019, urged Epstein to quickly do an interview to prevent the “popular tabloid perception” about him from hardening, and expressed sympathy over his legal troubles.

“I know this is tough and hard for you, but remember jail may [be] bad, but it is not forever,” Thomas wrote.

...

“Remember how for a while my NY Mag piece was the defining piece on you? That is no longer the case after all this,” Thomas wrote to Epstein.

“But I think if we did a piece for the Times, with the documents and evidence that you mention, plus you speaking for the record, we can again have a story that becomes the last public word on Jeffrey Epstein.”

... 

Among other revelations, those emails showed that Thomas let Epstein know that the late investigative journalist John Connolly had contacted him for information for Connolly’s 2016 book Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story.

“He seems very interested in your relationship with the news media,” Thomas wrote to Epstein in an email dated June 1, 2016. “I told him you were a hell of a guy :)”.

 

The Epstein–Thomas correspondence also hit one of the longest-running threads here at the blog: how Elon Musk became the world’s richest man through stock manipulation.

In 2018, Musk was sued by the SEC for a tweet stating that funding had been secured for potentially taking Tesla private. The lawsuit characterized the tweet as false, misleading, and damaging to investors, and sought to bar Musk from serving as CEO of publicly traded companies. Two days later, Musk settled with the SEC, without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations. As a result, Musk and Tesla were fined $20 million each, and Musk was forced to step down for three years as Tesla chairman but was able to remain as CEO.

About that:

Ed Niedermeyer, who wrote the definitive book on Tesla, takes it from here. 

finally doing a little of my own perusing of the Epstein Files, and I'll be darned if Elon Musk's personal elite influence monger Juleana Glover wasn't keeping ol' Jeff E apprised of all the latest developments in Tesla's stock pump narrative

— e.w. niedermeyer (@niedermeyer.online) February 4, 2026 at 10:58 AM

Glover to Epstein: "Tesla is becoming an Energy company" www.justice.gov/epstein/file... Glover to Epstein: Model 3 teardown shows 30% profit margin (lmao) www.justice.gov/epstein/file...

[image or embed]

— e.w. niedermeyer (@niedermeyer.online) February 4, 2026 at 11:01 AM

Welp, looks like Elon Musk and Jeffery Epstein were definitely in touch around the time of the "Funding Secured" faux Saudi Takeover Why did Tesla suddenly need as much as $10b in cash? Investors sure weren't ever told! Nobody was, other than Elon's pedo buddy. Very cool!

[image or embed]

— e.w. niedermeyer (@niedermeyer.online) February 4, 2026 at 11:06 AM

We will get into the New York Times’ coverage of that story another day.

 

In the war on data, even the CIA isn't safe

As lots of people have pointed out, when trying to attack the truth, lying is often less effective than eliminating sources of trustworthy information.

Harmeet Kaur writing for CNN:

Taylor Hale was in the middle of teaching a Western geography lesson on Wednesday afternoon when his sixth-grade students informed him that the online reference they usually consulted was gone. He’d instructed them to compare the gross domestic products of Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, and so they turned to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook. But instead of finding the usual index of countries, they hit a blue webpage announcing that the Factbook was no more.

After decades of serving as a reliable, authoritative public repository of basic information about countries, their economies, and their people, The World Factbook disappeared from the internet on February 4 with no advance notice. Teachers, students, librarians, researchers, and curious citizens in general were abruptly cut off from a reference they had taken for granted.

“The CIA Factbook is not bulletproof perfect, but it’s way better than a lot of other sources out there and it’s free,” Hale, a social studies teacher in Oklahoma City, said. “It was always there, and now it’s not.”

Before this week, teachers like Hale routinely directed their students to The World Factbook for school assignments, international travelers used it to assess security risks and vaccine recommendations, and journalists relied on its data to add context to their reporting.

John Devine, the government information research specialist for the Boston Public Library, recalled a patron who was particularly curious about population statistics. Over the years, the city’s librarians found that The World Factbook was “the singular best source for this” — the CIA updated its numbers annually, and no other entity offered data that was as accurate year after year.

“It’s a tough loss,” Devine said. “We’re going to have to find things from other sources. Again, how well can we trust them? How well are we going to be able to get data on developing or even barely developing countries?”

Originally called “The National Basic Intelligence Factbook,” the Factbook began in 1962 as a classified publication for government and military officials. An unclassified version followed in 1971, and in 1975, it became available to the public in print. It was renamed “The World Factbook” in 1981, and in 1997, The World Factbook went digital.

The CIA’s announcement that the Factbook was shutting down came quietly, with no warning and no explanation of the change, and the agency declined to comment on the record for this story. Instead, it posted an obituary of sorts, on a webpage titled “Spotlighting The World Factbook as We Bid a Fond Farewell.”

...

It also follows the loss of other US government information, once considered relatively reliable and trustworthy. Since President Donald Trump came into office again, he has directed US government health websites to be taken down or modified, imposed his views on what should and shouldn’t be displayed at the Smithsonian Institution and ordered the National Parks Service to remove references to slavery, among other directives.

...

“It’s so hard to use corporate or private company resources, whether they’re talking about international data or banking or currency exchanges or whatever, because they have a vested interest to lie,” Hale said. “I can go debunk stuff, I can go redact stuff, but I don’t want the kids exposed to the lie in the first place.”

Alexi Lenington, a high school social studies teacher in Texas, likewise lamented the loss of The World Factbook as a central, agreed-upon authority. “It was just raw data, so nobody could accuse me of having an agenda or anything, which is important if you’re teaching in Texas,” he added.

...

News organizations are also feeling the loss. Lizzie Jury, director of CNN’s editorial research team, said the research desk recently did away with subscriptions to other databases because similar information was available through the Factbook, which she called “the gold standard for country statistics.” On Thursday, she checked Britannica’s World Data to see if it could serve as an alternative but found that it, too, used The World Factbook as one of its sources.

 

When you're trying to weather a scandal, it helps to have the NYT on your side.

In order to understand, let alone judge, people's attitudes around a past event, you need to start by figuring out not just what information was available, but how widely disseminated it was and what space in the popular mind it occupied. When trying to get a handle on that context, you should probably start with how the mainstream press, particularly the paper of record, covered the story. 

If you want to explain how people continued to associate with Epstein after that first conviction, possibly the best place to look is how the New York Times broke the story. The article also spells out in painfully embarrassing detail how complicit the paper of record was in whitewashing and enabling the serial pedophile's crimes, and how hypocritical and self-serving it has been with its retrospectives.

When evaluating an article, what is included is often less important than how it is framed — and often, even more significantly, when it is presented. In particular, this last point often makes it impossible to assign blame for really egregious examples. We know from leaks within the organization that many of the most widely and deservedly criticized aspects of NYT articles came from unnamed editors rather than the reporters whose names appeared in the bylines.

Lots of publications (and the New York Times is arguably the worst offender here) like to burnish their reputations by selectively quoting old stories on a subject, leaving out the central context both within the article and in the coverage from competitors. That's how the NYT, which effectively buried the Pam Bondi scandal in 2016 until the Washington Post and other papers forced them to address it, can depict itself as having broken the story.

The primary purpose of journalism is to inform its audience. Therefore, any evaluation of reporting has to take into account how that audience consumes the news. While there are readers who carefully pore over every line beginning to end and make a genuine effort to make up their own minds and to understand what they've read, it's reasonable to assume that considerably more skim the story, read the first few paragraphs, or passively let themselves be led to the writer's conclusions.

With that established, what impression would most NYT readers have come away with when they first learned about the Epstein arrest?

For starters, most probably wouldn't realize just how disturbing even that initial round of details was. They would have to get six paragraphs in before finding out about this pertinent bit of information.

But Mr. Epstein also paid women, some of them under age, to give him massages that ended with a sexual favor, the authorities say. 

But it gets worse.

There's been a great reluctance in the coverage of this story to make certain uncomfortable but essential distinctions. Hopefully almost all of us can agree that statutory rape is wrong, but we need to acknowledge that some cases are far worse than others. Unknowingly having sex with a 17-year-old is quite different than deliberately procuring a 14-year-old.

Readers would have to wait ten more paragraphs to learn the age of the girl who filed that first complaint.

The legal drama began in 2005, when a young woman who gave Mr. Epstein massages at his Palm Beach mansion told the local police about the encounter. She was 14 at the time, and was paid $200.

The police submitted the results of their investigation to the state attorney, asking that Mr. Epstein be charged with sexual relations with minors. 

I have just quoted every time the article mentioned the fact we were talking about under-aged girls. Only those readers who were paying close attention and made it at least halfway through the article would have any idea just how bad the scandal was.

But what was emphasized might be even worse than what was downplayed. The compulsion to sympathize with rich people — to see things from their side and lend them support and comfort — is deep in the DNA of the New York Times and is prominently on display here. While the victims were barely an afterthought, Epstein is depicted as introspective and remorseful, a decent guy who fell victim to temptation, trying to do better in the future and manfully standing up to a challenging and even traumatic turn of events.

Think I'm exaggerating? Judge for yourself.

“I respect the legal process,” Mr. Epstein, 55, said by phone as he prepared to leave his 78-acre island, which he calls Little St. Jeff’s. “I will abide by this.” 

... 

He has paid for college educations for personal employees and students from Rwanda, and spent millions on a project to develop a thinking and feeling computer and on music intended to alleviate depression. 

...

People from all walks of life break the law, of course. But for the rich, wrapped in a cocoon of immense comfort, it can be easy to yield to temptation, experts say. 

...

 Sitting on his patio on “Little St. Jeff’s” in the Virgin Islands several months ago, as his legal troubles deepened, Mr. Epstein gazed at the azure sea and the lush hills of St. Thomas in the distance, poked at a lunch of crab and rare steak prepared by his personal chef, and tried explain how his life had taken such a turn. He likened himself to Gulliver shipwrecked among the diminutive denizens of Lilliput.

“Gulliver’s playfulness had unintended consequences,” Mr. Epstein said. “That is what happens with wealth. There are unexpected burdens as well as benefits.”

...

His lawyers say Mr. Epstein never knew the young women were under age, and point to depositions in which the masseuses — several of whom have filed civil suits — admitted to lying about their age. ["She was 14" -- MP]

...

As it became clear that he was headed for jail, Mr. Epstein has tried to put on a brave face.

“Your body can be confined, but not your mind,” he said in a recent interview by phone.

... 

 Looking back, Mr. Epstein admits that his behavior was inappropriate. “I am not blameless,” he said. He said he has taken steps to make sure the same thing never happens again.

For starters, Mr. Epstein has hired a full-time male masseur (the man happens to be a former Ultimate Fighting champion). He also has organized what he calls a board of directors of friends to counsel him on his behavior. 

This by no means closes the book on the New York Times' complicity in this story. Lots of questions remain to be answered about what various people at the paper knew and when they knew it. It does, however, provide us with a useful tool for understanding how such damaging revelations could have such little impact on the social standing of the wealthy and prominent. 

P.S. After posting this, someone pointed out that the reporter, Landon Thomas, had a bit of a history with his subject. More on that later.  

A quick midweek film review by Bob Chipman

Pretty much covers it. 

If you're in the mood for something a bit longer from Mr. Chipman and you still haven't gotten around to it, I still recommend the Hop-Along Cassidy video essay.

"because a 'stock' no longer refers to a unit of ownership in a company so much as it is a chip at a casino where the house constantly changes the rules."

This is taken from an enormous (19,000-word), highly recommended post by Ed Zitron. There is much here that merits comment, but I wanted to single out this section, and in particular the quote in the title, because it reflects a shift I've observed in my lifetime in the way people think about stocks and investments.  

Analysts have, on some level, become the fractional marketing team for the stocks they’re investing in. When Oracle announced its $300 billion deal with OpenAI in September — one that Oracle does not have the capacity to fill and OpenAI does not have the money to pay for – analysts heaved and stammered like horny teenagers seeing their first boob:

John DiFucci from Guggenheim Securities said he was “blown away.” TD Cowen’s Derrick Wood called it a “momentous quarter.” And Brad Zelnick of Deutsche Bank said, “We’re all kind of in shock, in a very good way.”

“There’s no better evidence of a seismic shift happening in computing than these results that you just put up,” Zelnick said on the earnings call.

These are the same people that retail and institutional investors rely upon for advice on what stocks to buy, all acting with the disregard for the truth that comes from years of never facing a consequence. Three months later, and Oracle has lost basically all of the stock bump it saw from the OpenAI deal, meaning that any retail investor that YOLO’d into the trade because, say, analysts from major institutions said it was a good idea and news outlets acted like this deal was real, already got their ass kicked. 

And please, spare me the “oh they shouldn’t trade off of analysts” bullshit. That’s the kind of victim-blaming that allows these revered fuckwits to continue farting out these meaningless calls.

In reality, we’re in an era of naked, blatant, shameless stock manipulation, both privately and publicly, because a “stock” no longer refers to a unit of ownership in a company so much as it is a chip at a casino where the house constantly changes the rules. Perhaps you’re able to occasionally catch the house showing its hand, and perhaps the house meant for you to see it. Either way, you are always behind, because the people responsible for buying and selling stocks at scale under the auspices of “knowing what’s going on” don’t seem to know what they’re talking about, or don’t care to find out.

 
Obviously, there will be exceptions to the following, but in general, when I was a kid, people thought of stocks primarily as owning a small part of a business, mainly so that you could share in the profits in the form of dividends while hopefully seeing the stock price at the very least outpace inflation. Later on, we got growth companies like Walmart, Apple, and Amazon, which didn't pay dividends, but that was okay because they were taking those profits and investing them back into the companies on things like infrastructure and research and development. We might not be getting quarterly checks, but the companies we partially owned were becoming more efficient and offering better products and more market share.

In the 21st century, however, especially with the rise of the meme stock, the fundamental sense of ownership seems to have largely gone away. You buy because “number go up.”

Sure, we have grandiose narratives, outrageous promises, and financial analysts and journalists cranking out a great sea of numbers, but I think those are mainly just feeding the Keynesian beauty contest taken to its absurd limits. I'm sure that some trusting souls actually believed in Zuckerberg's metaverse and Marc Andreessen's Web3, and today believe in Elon Musk's robot utopia, but I suspect most investors only believe that other people will believe them.

And, yes, I know this makes me sound like just another grumpy old man, but I do not believe this will end well. 

Elon doesn't think things through

[As embarrassing as the fluffing is, I suppose we should be happy Grok isn't up to something worse.]

 Elon Musk does deserve what we have to call “credit,” for lack of a better word, for his role in all this. His comments about the Epstein files, made at the height of the Trump–Musk feud, played a non-trivial role in getting this ball moving. Musk also deserves credit for shooting himself in the foot in the most satisfying way possible.

Mike Pearl writing for Gizmodo:

 

“No one pushed harder than me to have the Epstein files released and I’m glad that has finally happened,” Elon Musk

Sorry but “misinterpreted”? Even if you do your absolute damndest to read this guy’s freshly released Epstein emails in a positive light, what you get is the story of a tech tycoon stating unambiguously that he wanted to attend an absolute rager on a sex criminal’s private island.

“What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Elon Musk asked Jeffrey Epstein on on Nov. 25, 2012. 

In 2019, Musk told Vanity Fair that in their past interactions, he had detected that Epstein was “obviously a creep.” Indeed, it wouldn’t have taken much sleuthing to pick up on this attribute of Epstein’s back in 2012. He already had a conviction on his record at the time for soliciting prostitution, and it was also widely reported in the media that the prostitution conviction stemmed from a generous plea bargain, and that the charges Epstein had been facing included sexual relations with minors.

So with that in mind, here’s what Musk and Epstein wrote as they attempted to make plans in 2012 for Musk to visit Epstein’s island with British actress Talulah Riley, Musk’s wife at the time (typos and other text issues are left intact. I don’t want to be accused of misinterpreting):

Epstein: you are welcome to stay or just come for the day, plenty of rroom i will=send heli to get you

Musk: Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity th=s year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hi= the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is=much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what=l’m looking for.

Epstein: Understood, , I will see you on st Barth, the ratio on my island might m=ke Talilah uncomfortable

Musk: Ratio is not a problem for Talulah

It may be true that Musk declined one or more invitations to visit, but he also tried to make plans to visit multiple times. In addition to the aforementioned change, he emailed Epstein on December 14, 2013 saying he was going to be in the Virgin Islands “over the holidays,” and asked “Is there a good time to visit?” In my opinion it sort of undermines the inherent morality of rejecting offers to be taken to Epstein’s island if you also repeatedly attempt to visit Epstein’s island.

This all raises the obvious question: why in the hell, given what Musk should have known was in the Epstein files, would he bring this up in the first place?

I have no special knowledge here, but I have spent over a decade now following the misadventures of Musk and the other tech saviors of greater Silicon Valley, and based on that, here is my take. Elon Musk is vindictive and childish, lacking impulse control and displaying a level of narcissism that often qualifies as a messianic delusion. Add to that, along with Donald Trump, he has often proven himself to be one of the luckiest sons of bitches in recorded history.

I don't think that most commentators realized how hot and deep feelings ran during the feud. It is essential to consider the context of the New York Times exposé, which, among other things, confirmed that the man was an out-of-control drug addict. That article was obviously based not just on leaks but on actual recordings taken in the White House. Musk's enemies in the administration clearly dropped the dime on him, possibly with the permission of Trump himself.

Musk has a long history of lashing out at even minor slights and holding grudges for decades. I assume most of you remember his absurd overreaction when he was criticized by one of the actual heroes of the Thai cave rescue. Those more familiar with the biography will remember the twenty-year-and-counting vendetta against the actual founders of Tesla and a proclivity for totally irrational rage firings, often based on nothing more than employees crossing their CEO's line of sight when he happened to be angry.

Add to his humiliation from the New York Times piece the possibility of chemically induced mood swings and a history of getting away with countless lies and shady deals, and it's not difficult to imagine the world's richest man not realizing the consequences of his actions. 

Tesla to transition out of the making of real things in order to focus on vaporware

Hadas Gold writing for CNN:

On Tesla’s earnings call on Wednesday, Musk laid out a literal replacement of Tesla cars by robots – announcing Tesla would discontinue the Model S and Model X in favor of making more of its Optimus robots.

“We’re gonna take the Model S and X production space in our Fremont factory and convert that into an Optimus factory … with the long-term goal of having 1 million units a year of Optimus robots in the current SX space in Fremont,” he said.

It’s the quintessential, science-fiction dream of the future: Musk says Tesla’s Optimus robots will do everything from cleaning your house to performing surgery.

He’s called Optimus the key to eliminating world poverty, making human work optional and reaching Mars. And he claims they’ll be on sale by the end of 2027.

“Every human on earth is going to have their own personal R2-D2, C3PO,” Musk said in November, referring to the personal robots from Star Wars. “But actually, Optimus will be better than that.”

But critics say these are fever-dream distractions from Tesla’s core automotive business. And plenty of companies, like Boston Dynamics and Figure, are already deep into the humanoid robot business.

Musk’s own success and pay are directly at stake. Tesla must deliver one million Optimus robots within 10 years for Musk to fully realize an almost $1 trillion Tesla pay plan approved by shareholders late last year.

For those of you just joining our program, the humanoid robot boom is a sub-bubble of the AI boom, only sillier. While there's plenty of absurdity to be had in the dealings of OpenAI and the rhetoric around large language models, these algorithms are genuinely impressive and, at the moment, do, at the very least, represent the cutting edge of natural language processing.

The surge of investment and even more over-the-top promises being made about these C-3PO-style robots runs counter to the opinions of pretty much every roboticist who isn't somehow on the payroll. Engineers tend to look down their noses at naive biomimicry. It is telling that very few years ago only perhaps two or three dozen researchers were working in the field at all, and they seemed to be approaching it more as an engineering challenge and something interesting to do rather than a serious attempt to create something useful.

That all stopped more or less overnight when Elon Musk brought out a dancer in a robot suit and said he was about to revolutionize the industry. Despite the basic concept being as flawed as it had ever been, the announcement opened the floodgates of capital and hype.

Even if you accept the absurdity of bipedal humanoids soon dominating the labor market, Tesla is nowhere near the leading player in the field. It's probably not top five. If you count Chinese companies, it's probably not top ten.

Even in its current incarnation, Tesla is wildly overvalued, but compared to what's being proposed, it is the very model of rational valuation.

As if Mike Johnson didn't have enough to worry about...

Unfortunately, though the thought of the porn obsessed hypocrite getting, if you'll pardon the expression, exposed, the victims here (many of them minors) haven't helped suppress the Epstein files or turned a blind eye to war crimes or [too long a list to enumerate]. They just made the mistake of trusting a tech company with some of the most personal data imaginable.

Emanuel Maiberg writing for 404:

An app that purports to help people stop consuming pornography has exposed highly sensitive data, including its users’ masturbation habits. Some of the data exposed includes the users’ age, how often they masturbate, and how viewing pornography makes them feel. According to the data, many of them are minors. 

An example of the personal data of one user said they were “14,” that their “frequency” of porn consumption was “several times a week,” with a maximum of three times a day, and that their “triggers” were “boredom” and “Sexual Urges.” This user was given a “dependence score” and listed their “symptoms” as “Feeling unmotivated, lack of ambition to pursue goals, difficulty concentrating, poor memory or ‘brain fog.’”

We’re not naming the app because the developer has not fixed the issue, which was discovered by an independent security researcher who asked to remain anonymous. The researcher first flagged the issue to the creator of the app in September. The creator of the app said he would fix the issue quickly, but didn’t. The issue is a misconfiguration in the app’s usage of the mobile app development platform Google Firebase, which by default makes it easy for anyone to make themselves an “authenticated” user who can access the app’s backend storage where in many instances user data is stored.

Overall, the researcher said he could access the information of more than 600,000 users of the porn quitting app, 100,000 of which identified as minors. 

The app also invites users to write confessions about their habits. One of these read: “I just can't do this man I honestly don't know what to do know more, such a loser, I need serious help.”

When reached for comment by phone, the creator of the app told me he had talked to the researcher but that the app never exposed any user data because of a misconfigured Google Firebase, and that the researcher could have faked the data I reviewed. 

“There is no sensitive information exposed, that's just not true,” the founder told me. “These users are not in my database, so, like, I just don't give this guy attention. I just think it's a bit of a joke.”

When I asked the founder why he previously thanked the researcher for responsibly disclosing the misconfiguration and said he would rush to fix it, he wished me a good day and hung up.

After the call, I created an account on the app, which the researcher was able to see appear in the misconfigured Google Firebase, showing that user information is still exposed. 

This Google Firebase misconfiguration issue has been known and discussed by security researchers for years, and is still common today. 

 

The Musk Credibility Market

 David Ingram writing for NBC:

 There’s a popular saying among fans of tech billionaire Elon Musk: Never bet against him.

But in the booming world of online prediction markets, some people are not only betting against Musk, but also bringing in big paydays doing so.

On the prediction market websites Kalshi and Polymarket, some bettors are making tens of thousands of dollars by wagering that Musk will fall short on his many ambitious — but so far unrealized — plans, including a robotaxi service in California and a third political party in the United States.

Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has for years issued sweeping public pronouncements on social media, podcasts and earnings calls. His track record is notoriously spotty, with his unfulfilled promises about self-driving cars becoming a meme in their own right. His car service in California still has humans in the driver’s seats, and his political party idea appears dormant. And yet he also oversaw the creation of reusable, self-landing rockets and the meteoric rise of Tesla.

Now, the accuracy of his bluster is getting tested in real time as prediction markets grow in popularity.

David Bensoussan, a Polymarket user whose account is No. 51 on the site’s all-time profits leaderboard (what many call a “whale” for their sizable bets) as of Friday, said he didn’t believe Musk when, during a rift with President Donald Trump last summer, he threatened to form a new political party. So, he bet nearly $10,000 that Musk wouldn’t follow through. He made a 10% return when Musk didn’t.

Bensoussan said he’s not a fan of Musk and takes some pleasure in winning bets against those who may have been seduced by the tech baron.

“He does have a solid fan base, and so if I can help separate them from some of their money, I’m always happy to do that,” he said in a phone interview from Europe, where he’s based.

 The Ingram piece is sharp and well reported, but there are a few points that, at the very least, need to be emphasized.

When we talk about examples of why you shouldn’t bet against Elon Musk and limit ourselves to reality-based incidents, pretty much all of them come from either early in the development of SpaceX or refer to the stock price of Tesla.

It’s possible that no company in history has better demonstrated the principle that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Over the past few years, the company has reached an insane valuation totally unmoored from any business fundamentals.

Other than market cap, the overwhelming majority of the claims Elon Musk has made about not just his two main companies but about XAI, Twitter, the Hyperloop, the Boring Company, DOGE, Optimus, etc., have been so far off the mark as to suggest either deliberate lying or a lack of any real relationship with the truth.

It's true that lots of traders have lost money shorting Tesla, but if you were betting against the actual claims behind Musk's enterprises, the odds have been remarkably good. 

The War on Data -- part [I've lost count]

 Natalie Alms writing for Nextgov/FCW:

The federal statistical system is facing “unprecedented strain, uncertainty and transformation” in the face of staffing losses, funding pressures and threats to statistical integrity, according to a report from the American Statistical Association released in early December. 

“Immediate action must be taken to halt the severe decline in the federal statistical agencies’ ability to meet their basic mission,” it reads. 

Most of the 13 statistical agencies have lost from 20% to 30% of their staff since fiscal 2024, according to the report, as the Trump administration has sought to shrink the size of the federal workforce. 

One of the most extreme examples is the National Center for Education Statistics at the Department of Education, which terminated all but three employees in March, the report says. The organization produces data like the congressionally mandated Nation’s Report Card, meant to show what K-12 students know in subjects like math and science. 

Other statistical agencies also saw workforce losses. The workforce at the Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics at the Social Security Administration, for example, is now about half its former size. 

 

"ICE > MN" -- even for this administration, you seldom encounter the quiet part this loud

Snapshots from a historic moment.

It's hard to know where to start with this degenerate hogwash. But that last line "ICE > MN" captures it. The ICE agents are superior to the whole state. That's their mentalty and model.

[image or embed]

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm.bsky.social) January 24, 2026 at 5:30 PM

 

Comer on Fox right now urging Trump to pull ICE out of Minneapolis to *punish* Minnesotans — will prove to the state how good it was to have ICE there! This is really some 5-D chess

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell.bsky.social) January 25, 2026 at 7:44 AM

Pulling out the guard always has potential unexpected consequences. Publicly keeping distance from ICE is key.

Minnesota National Guard members have arrived at a federal building and were directed to distribute donuts, coffee, and hot chocolate to anti-ICE protesters. Guard members were issued reflective vests so they would not be mistaken for federal agents.

[image or embed]

— Olga Nesterova (@onestpress.onestnetwork.com) January 25, 2026 at 12:55 PM

Speaking as an old Ozarks boy, you shouldn't underestimate the potential for 2nd amendment issues to drive a wedge into the Trump coalition. 

What the Trump Admin is telling you. -Don't record ICE -Don't carry a gun around ICE -Don't ask ICE for a warrant. So that takes out the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.

— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter.bsky.social) January 24, 2026 at 6:32 PM

Having Bessent talking about this may represent an all hands on deck moment within the administration or it may just be poor message discipline.

1. Wasn’t at a protest 2. Was disarmed when they shot him while he was face down 3. New gun rights rule: the second amendment is when conservatives can carry guns everywhere, but if anyone else has a gun we can kill him on sight bsky.app/profile/atru...

[image or embed]

— Adam Serwer (@adamserwer.bsky.social) January 25, 2026 at 9:15 AM

 

For the full impact, look up the Reload on Wikipedia.

Chief Strategist for Rand Paul.

[image or embed]

— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) January 24, 2026 at 1:14 PM

So far the attempt to control the narrative seems to be floundering. 

This is a very good and tough interview by @kristenwelker.bsky.social of the execrable Todd Blanche on @meetthepress.com Also very tough (online) home page display by @nytimes.com Change in MSM tone. Seriously worth watching the whole segment. www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...

[image or embed]

— James Fallows (@jfallows.bsky.social) January 25, 2026 at 8:15 AM

CNN's Dana Bash grilling Bovino as well. And WaPo and WSJ analyses! I hope this new stance/moment lasts. youtu.be/-VBJx116hqk?...

[image or embed]

— S (@vidiot.bsky.social) January 25, 2026 at 8:20 AM

No one has been righter on the political impact of Trump’s immigration terror campaign than Elliott. When know-it-all pundits were demanding Dems shut up about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, he pushed back with hard data and has been utterly vindicated every day since. Dems need to listen to Elliott.

[image or embed]

— David Nir (@davidnir.com) January 24, 2026 at 9:28 PM

From June:

Immigration was a winning issue for Trump in 2024, but no issue is so popular that it can't be turned toxic by sufficient evil, overreach, and incompetence. talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-b...

[image or embed]

— markpalko.bsky.social (@markpalko.bsky.social) June 16, 2025 at 6:08 PM

Silver can be problematic, but you can't accuse him of having and anti-Republican bias, so it's difficult to dismiss this analysis. 

Trump is losing normies on immigration

 

Of course, not every commentator has a feel for the moment. 

What a day to post this.

[image or embed]

— Joe Stieb (@joestieb.bsky.social) January 24, 2026 at 3:53 PM

Without diminishing the outrage at the shooting, it's important to remember this is one of many horrors going on in the twin cities. 

Where's your Ed at? Right here.

Ed Zitron has become the leading voice of doom for the AI bubble. He's sharp, combative, knowledgeable, diligent, and he writes faster than Stephen King back in the height of the author's cocaine period. He has become essential reading for anyone following the tech boom that is now the primary driver of the American markets and a major driver of the K-shaped economy. 

This recent Guardian profile gives a good general overview. His blog alternates between free and pay-walled posts. Both tend to run long (very long if you follow the links). He's also a prolific podcaster. Abrasive, mocking and profanity-laden, but given the subjects he has immersed himself in, that may be the only way to stay sane. 

Part One: NVIDIA Isn't Enron - So What Is It?



Part Two: NVIDIA Isn't Enron - So What Is It?

Excellent discussion of Enron's creative use of mark-to-market accounting 

Part Three: NVIDIA Isn't Enron - So What Is It?




And here's an interview with Empires of AI author Karen Hao

Early seventies socially relevant DC has, as a rule, not aged well

There are some exceptions (particularly from Dennis O'Neil), on the whole though...

 The Brave and the Bold #94
February-March 1971
 

The trope of the youth movement  rising up to suppress, imprison, or straight out massacre everyone over thirty-five was extremely common in the late sixties and early seventies and even made it to the covers of mainstream comics. The subgenre is largely forgotten now, but the anxiety it reflected had a great deal to do with the rise of Reagan a few years later.

The title of this comic was an obvious at the time reference to arguably the definitive youth paranoia movie. 

Monday, March 7, 2022

"You say you want a revolution"

This was going to be part of an upcoming post but I decided it worked better freestanding. 

Back in the late sixties there was a surprising popular genre of apocalyptic dystopias inspired by fears of the youth movement. Countless examples in episodic television (three or four from Star Trek alone). The 1967 novel Logan’s Run (but not the 1976 movie which dropped the political aspects of the story). Arguably films If and Clockwork Orange (though in this case, not the book, which is more a part of the post-war panic over juvenile delinquency). Corman’s Gas-s-s-s. Certainly others I’m forgetting. 

Though not the best in the bunch, the most representative was Wild in the Streets.

Wild in the Streets figures prominently in Pauline Kael's essay "Trash, Art, and the Movies": [emphasis added]

There is so much talk now about the art of the film that we may be in danger of forgetting that most of the movies we enjoy are not works of art. The Scalphunters, for example, was one of the few entertaining American movies this past year, but skillful though it was, one could hardly call it a work of art — if such terms are to have any useful meaning. Or, to take a really gross example, a movie that is as crudely made as Wild in the Streets — slammed together with spit and hysteria and opportunism — can nevertheless be enjoyable, though it is almost a classic example of an unartistic movie. What makes these movies — that are not works of art — enjoyable? The Scalphunters was more entertaining than most Westerns largely because Burt Lancaster and Ossie Davis were peculiarly funny together; part of the pleasure of the movie was trying to figure out what made them so funny. Burt Lancaster is an odd kind of comedian: what’s distinctive about him is that his comedy seems to come out of his physicality. In serious roles an undistinguished and too obviously hard-working actor, he has an apparently effortless flair for comedy and nothing is more infectious than an actor who can relax in front of the camera as if he were having a good time. (George Segal sometimes seems to have this gift of a wonderful amiability, and Brigitte Bardot was radiant with it in Viva Maria!) Somehow the alchemy of personality in the pairing of Lancaster and Ossie Davis — another powerfully funny actor of tremendous physical presence — worked, and the director Sydney Pollack kept tight control so that it wasn’t overdone.

And Wild in the Streets? It’s a blatantly crummy-looking picture, but that somehow works for it instead of against it because it’s smart in a lot of ways that better-made pictures aren’t. It looks like other recent products from American International Pictures but it’s as if one were reading a comic strip that looked just like the strip of the day before, and yet on this new one there are surprising expressions on the faces and some of the balloons are really witty. There’s not a trace of sensitivity in the drawing or in the ideas, and there’s something rather specially funny about wit without any grace at all; it can be enjoyed in a particularly crude way — as Pop wit. The basic idea is corny — It Can’t Happen Here with the freaked-out young as a new breed of fascists — but it’s treated in the paranoid style of editorials about youth (it even begins by blaming everything on the parents). And a cheap idea that is this current and widespread has an almost lunatic charm, a nightmare gaiety. There’s a relish that people have for the idea of drug-taking kids as monsters threatening them — the daily papers merging into Village of the Damned. Tapping and exploiting this kind of hysteria for a satirical fantasy, the writer Robert Thom has used what is available and obvious but he’s done it with just enough mockery and style to make it funny. He throws in touches of characterization and occasional lines that are not there just to further the plot, and these throwaways make odd connections so that the movie becomes almost frolicsome in its paranoia (and in its delight in its own cleverness).

It's easy to be dismissive of these fears fifty plus years later, but the revolutionary rhetoric of the movement was often extreme and was punctuated by the occasional bombing, bank robbery, etc.

But probably the biggest mistake people made when predicting the impact of the sixties youth movement was taking them at their word, believing that their commitment to radicalism (or even liberalism) would outlast the end of the Vietnam War. The post-war generation would change the country, but I doubt anyone in 1969 would have guessed how. 

 

Acknowledging what these people are while being realistic about what they can and can't do

The tendency of pundits and commentators has been to dramatically underestimate just how bad the intentions of the administration may be. Despite what is now a massive accumulation of evidence, supposedly savvy people remain far too reluctant to acknowledge how far Trump, Miller, Noem, Vance, et al. would be willing—indeed, eager—to go.

At the same time, there is an equally persistent tendency to grossly underestimate the gap between intention and capability.

A commenter on Bluesky offered the perfect analogy:

“if the president says he wants to blow up the moon, you should be very scared about what he might accidentally blow up in pursuit of the moon and everything downstream of his diminished mental state, but the ball is in your court to tell me how he’s actually going to blow up the moon.”

The definitive example here is the recurring claim that Trump will cancel the 2026 election and/or run for a third term. Jamelle Bouie (probably the New York Times’ best surviving pundit) has been on top of this for months.

the question to ask about this is, okay, he wants to cancel the midterms. how does he get the VA state board of elections to cancel the midterms? how does he get the georgia board of elections to do it? how does he convince republican house members to quit their jobs and give up their paychecks?

[image or embed]

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) January 15, 2026 at 8:29 AM

Bouie realizes that Trump can do terrible things with respect to the election, just not mist of the terrible things he would like to. 

Along similar lines, we hear a lot about the administration looking for an excuse to occupy Los Angeles,* but far less discussion of how they would actually manage to put a metropolitan area with roughly twenty times the population of Minneapolis under military control—particularly given that ICE has reliably turned tail whenever it lacked a clear numerical advantage.

Just to be clear, what we've seen from around the country has been horrifying, but it seems mainly to be masked gangs trying to harass and often terrorize residents. I don't want to understate what's going on, but I doubt that an unpopular administration which has alienated the military could manage an extended occupation of LA, NYC, or Chicago, let alone all three at once. 

That said, this gap does not always work in our favor. If you are counting on TACO, it’s worth remembering that in high-stakes, fast-moving, complex situations, the person bluffing or making empty threats can still lose control of events. The most disturbing scenario here is Greenland.

* Remember: the appropriate unit here is the county.