26 October 2026

Water Witch Revisited

I was in my early 30s working as an associate attorney in a small but well established Wheat Ridge law firm. My children hadn't started first grade yet. I hadn't started this blog yet. I had no real peers, just long time office staff and bosses. The Internet wasn't what it is now, and I didn't have my first cell phone yet.

Lunch breaks were lonely and I needed something to give me a mental break from work. So, I'd grab lunch away from the office and I started writing chapters of a fictional story by hand with pen and paper. I'd write scenes that took place on the same date starting in the moderately distant future of the year 2030, more than a quarter of a century away.

I didn't really have a firm outline for the plot. I'd write what came to me that day and tried to fit it into the same future timeline for the year 2030. At first, I wasn't even sure who the main character would be. It was about world building and character building first, and plot second. I was inspired somewhat by a serial novel being published in one of Denver's two daily newspapers at the time, called "Confluence Park."

Looking back at it now, with the year 2030 just four years away, I still like what I wrote, although we certainly aren't on that timeline and it could use some copy editing. I got to about a hundred and twenty pages, with twenty-eight installments grouped into nineteen chapters, typed them up, and eventually saved them to a private blog on the same Blogger host as this blog and its sister blog. 

But, I lost the plot as it swirled away in too many directions that I couldn't figure out how to tie up, I moved onto a new job as a professor (perhaps my favorite job of all time), and the project stalled. A few months before I was laid off from my job as a professor, I started this blog and poured my time into it, averaging multiple posts a day, in an era before social media was really a thing.

Like any fiction, it was influenced as much by the time when it was written, not long after 9-11, as by realistic predictions of the future.

In my fictional metro Denver of 2030, Highland's ranch had become a slum full of Muslim refugees from the Nigerian civil war between Northern and Southern Nigeria in which the U.S. was playing an active role. The fear of terrorism from foreigners in Colorado was pervasive and was being addressed by various branches of the U.S. military, including the Colorado National Guard and the U.S. Navy which was taking a leading role in U.S. involvement in the Nigerian civil war.

The characters were living ordinary lives and finding their places in it. One group of characters were members of the family of an economically marginal lower middle class white property manager in the Highland's ranch slum: a mean drunk patriarch, and overworked CNA mom twenty years younger than her husband, a rebellious older teen daughter with a very serious boyfriend that her parents did not approve of, and a fourteen year old middle school aged daughter who was recruited to by a confidential informant looking for terrorists among her tenants. Another character was a U.S. Navy Officer stationed in Denver to head up counterterrorism operations. Yet another was a young adult woman who made ice sculptures for an event company, who was an orphan who grew up in the Eastern Plains who was a low powered hereditary witch with little formal training who migrated to the big city for work and who ended up being the main character. She also volunteered for a dive rescue team. There was a young man who worked in a fuel cell powered electric motorcycle dealer's shop, and his aunt who had faded unicorn tattoos and listened to this oldies music called grunge. There was a young very academic minded Muslim woman who'd let the high school space club and had fallen for a devoutly Catholic boy but had parents who had arranged a marriage for her that would derail her college plans, pared with her father who had been an Islamic law professor in Nigeria but was now a businessman in Denver, and a brother who she goes to the same high school with who has been targeted by some suspicious characters. 

It had airships, was in the process of transitioning from internal combustion to electric vehicles, was experiencing climate change with Denver Water restricting what it made available to the suburbs that it resold the water from its water rights to and wildfires raging in the mountains. It had a pair of half-mile high skyscrapers erected in downtown Denver in remembrance of the World Trade Center. One plot point involved a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility finally being opened and nuclear waste being shipped from nuclear power plants in the east across the rockies, and creating a target for terrorists. China had just put the first men on Mars. All teens got shots for AIDs, syphilis, HPV, and warts, and teen girls almost all got contraceptive implants. Video calls were a thing.

Some of my predictions weren't so far off. Others were, but weren't necessarily meant to be predictions so much as they were to play with ideas and concepts and possibilities that weren't likely but were interesting and still believable enough.

25 October 2026

A Generation Of Cultural And Technological Change

What has changed in daily life and the large culture in the 32 years since I finished my education (law school in my case), and joined the "adult world"?

* Checks as a payment system have become dramatically less common. I probably write less than half a dozen checks a year, and I doubt that my children write even that many. People are increasingly paid for their work with direct deposits rather than with checks. We pay most of our bills via auto payments, or phone authorized payments, or payments authorized online via a website, or with credit or debit cards presented in person. Increasingly, other payments to households, like investment distributions and mutual insurance company dividends are made that way too. Casual money exchanges between friends and family and to people like lawn mowers providing household services are increasingly done with person to person through apps like Zelle, rather than with cash or checks. I spent a semester class in law school mostly learning about how checks worked at the nuts and bolts level and most of that knowledge is now obsolete.

* Cash was on a strong trend towards a decline, but the state legalized marijuana industry that was shut out of the federally regulated banking industry, prevented it from declining as much as it would have otherwise, both due to people needing cash to buy it, and people being paid in cash wanting to spend it. Widespread undocumented immigration has also probably helped cash, as has an increasing recognition that non-cash transfers siphon money off to big business financial companies.

A few countries have basically gone cashless.

* Tolls on toll roads are paid via a transponder and an account, or with license plate recognition and billing that can be paid with a credit or debit card online, instead of transferring money at a toll booth. Parking is increasingly paid for with credit or debit accounts, or via an online app as well.

* Lots of goods that used to be purchased in brick and mortar stores are now ordered online and delivered, creating a surge of delivery jobs, and making it tough for the brick and mortar retail sector. Even things that used to be delivered, like take out food, is now often ordered via an app or a website instead of by phone interacting with a person.

* Cheap international shipping and online retailing have dovetailed to drive "fast fashion" where ultra-cheap clothing can be purchased directly from abroad without the intervention of a U.S. based importing brick and mortar retailer middleman. Fast fashion has also boosted thrifting, where people can buy lightly used second hand clothing that was donated or sold for a pittance compared to retail. 

* The Trump tariffs mucked this up a little, but the reality is that domestic clothing manufacturing had almost completely vanished well before the 1990s, as did domestic manufacturing of electronic retail goods and lots of other things (steel, for example). Removing the middle man is still cost effective, even with tariffs that are also paid by brick and mortar importing retailers.

* Communications with businesses that involve dealing with an actual person, like customer service and making delivery orders, are now frequently done in apps or websites with online chatbots (my son is employed doing the software engineering for them), or with offshore call centers (or just offshore call takers who work from their cell phones at home). When I was staying in a hotel on the Las Vegas strip a few years ago, even calls about housekeeping and room service that would historically have been handled by people at the front desk were handled by an offshore call center in the Philippines.

* Many states, including Colorado where I live, and Washington State, where my sister-in-law's family live, have largely replaced in person voting with mail-in ballots. And despite the name, increasingly, the mail-in ballots are delivered to 24/7 drop boxes run by local clerk's offices, that are available once the mail-in ballots are distributed to voters by mail. This has been especially true this year as President Trump has threatened to use the USPS to interfere with mail-in ballot delivery. One of the Baltic nations, Latvia maybe, has transitioned entirely to online voting.

* Snail mail is waning, in favor of email, text messaging, and other online messaging apps. We still get a few bills by mail - our water and sewer and trash bills, our gas and electric bill, some of our insurance bills, property tax statements, bills from our dentist and health care providers, a rarely used credit card statement, and our photo radar tickets. But increasingly our bank statements, our credit card bills, our phone bill, and our investment account statements come online and more are sure to follow.

At work, the vast volume of copies of court filings delivered to other parties in a lawsuit, which it took a couple of full time employees in an eleven lawyer law firm to send out every day, and then sort and distribute when they were received, are now filed and delivered via e-filing (apart from a tiny trickle of audio and video file exhibits that are delivered on USB drives to the court and send to other parties via a cloud based data transfer app). This has also meant that court deadlines to file things can now be met at minutes to midnight and not by 4:00 p.m. or so, in time to copy and mail them, and to hand deliver them to the courthouse clerk. 

We still get junk mail advertising goods and services of all kinds and providing coupons, but now, at least half of the advertising communications that I receive are via email, or more annoyingly and often illegally, via text message and robocall.

The United States Postal Service is steadily losing parcel delivery market share to third-party parcel delivery services like UPS, DHL and Insta-cart, to in house private parcel delivery (mostly from Amazon, but also from grocery store delivery services).

Younger people don't even know how to properly address a letter or what to do with stamps. Denmark discontinued its letter delivery service this year.

Certain legal notices and tax returns are still sent via certified mails (although tax returns are now overwhelmingly e-filed, and refunds are increasingly direct deposited).

The demise of snail mail has been hastened by slower delivery times and lower reliability as volumes fall, despite surging prices for stamps. Few newer homes even have home mail delivery, replacing it with collective mail receiving boxes for an apartment complex or subdivision consolidated in one place.

The demise of the U.S.P.S. has also put hundreds of thousands of postal workers, predominantly men, and predominantly veterans, with well-paying, lower skilled, union jobs and good benefits, out of work, retiring early, and dried up those job opportunities for newly discharged veterans and less skilled workers.

* Faxes are virtually obsolete and are used mostly for tax information and medical information because fax transmissions are more secure than email and texts from third-party interception.

* Steaming services have displaced almost all of the video rental business, a huge share of broadcast and cable TV, and a significant share of movie theater attendance. They've even made a big dent in broadcast radio (although the switch from analog to digital broadcast radio and TV was virtually invisible from a consumer prospective). Entertainment and news content is increasingly asynchronous, so you don't have to tune in exactly at the moment it is made available, as you used to have to with broadcast radio and TV and cable TV.

* Streaming has made global popular culture much more accessible.

* The advent of widespread videoconferencing has been huge. This together with cloud based computing, and the extra push that the COVID pandemic created, has made remote working (at least part of the time in a "hybrid" position) has swept the world of office workers. I am allowed to work remotely two days a week, although, in reality I am an old timer who only does so once couple of weeks for a specific reasons like dog sitting my daughter's dog while she is away or being at home to receive someone doing home maintenance or because I expected the weather on my commute to be bad. Lots of my meetings with opposing counsel in lawsuits, witnesses, clients, and co-workers are done remotely via videoconference. My daughter works remotely four days a week. My son-in-law works remotely one day a week.

Depositions and ordinary non-evidentiary court hearings are now routinely conducted by videoconferencing. Court hearings are mostly live streamed for the general public and interested parties to watch, vastly reducing the amount of travel to depositions and short hearings that lawyers have to do. During COVID, even some U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments were conducted via videoconference.

And, it isn't just work - events like birthdays are often celebrated with a family videoconference. My daughter's college graduation, during the COVID lockdown, was held remotely. At the last funeral I attended, of the mother of a family friend, half of the guests and speakers participated remotely and half were there in person. Many churches offer the chance to attend Sunday services online. Civic and political groups sometimes have online meetings or hybrid meetings where some people involved participate online and some are in person. 

* Many schools have replaced snow days with remote days. Some students, especially at the high school and college level, attend some or all of their classes remotely. Many school districts, especially in rural areas, have switched to four day a week schedules.

* Videoconferencing and online retailing has also made a big impact on the real estate market. Demand for office space is cratering everywhere. Retail space is in a slump. But residential real estate has gotten a boost in demand (until a recent rapid surge in interest rates that have made it unaffordable for buyers who need mortgages to do so, before home sellers have responded by lowering their prices) with many office workers feeling the need for more space to use as a home office. In between, flexible co-working spaces for hybrid workers who don't want to work in their homes has emerged as a small but important office space sector.

* Electric cars aren't predominant, but they are now common. Government tax credits helped this along at first, and high gas prices and expanding charger networks and more rapid battery charging have also helped. A car charger is now expected in newly built home garages. So far, however, gas stations haven't been too hard hit and many have installed charging stations of their own. Electric cars are slowly, but surely, however, reducing demand for gasoline and diesel (and for the services of car mechanics because they require far less maintenance).

* Lots of services that used to be provided by people are now handled heavily by kiosks. Full service gas stations barely exist, and the gas pump is basically robotic. Grocery stores have kiosks that handle basic DMV functions. Cash withdrawals and a fair amount of business cash deposits are done at ATM machines. Postage can be purchased at kiosks. Before they vanished almost entirely, video rentals could be done at kiosks. Tickets at in person movie theaters and museums that aren't purchased online are often sold at kiosks. Fast food restaurants now take orders for dining in mostly at kiosks. Grocery stores handle a big share of their sales through self-check outs. At airports, luggage is checked and physical boarding passes (where they aren't just downloaded to a smart phone) are handled at kiosks. Kiosks issue tickets and receive payments to let you out at parking garages. Large medical facilities have you check in via kiosks. Some rental car companies use kiosks heavily.

Airports and places like the Las Vegas strip, are testing pilot projects in having automated vending machines deliver hot food, and not just cold or room temperature pre-packaged snacks.

* The kiosks, and chatbots, and offshored customer service lines, and electronic payment and messaging systems, and online retailing, are wiping out vast numbers of low and medium skilled jobs, in a way similar to the way that offshored manufacturing eliminated low and medium skilled manufacturing jobs, outside the delivery sector.

* We are starting to see drone delivery systems and self-driving Waymo taxis cut the need for jobs that used to require humans to deliver things and people. It will take time, but self-driving long haul trucks may slash the need for hundreds of thousands of truckers, leaving that to the last mile delivery drivers.

* Very short distance driver's jobs (rickshaws and big city style cabs and now illegal cab ride-sharing services) are being cut into by rental scooter and e-bike services.

* Lawn mowing robots and vacuuming and mopping robots may make a little dent in lower skilled jobs doing these tasks. My cousins who are dry land farmers in Eastern Colorado have self-driving tractors that they trained to go up and down the rows of their fields tilling, sowing, and harvesting.

* Ukraine has led the world in a revolutionary way, at replacing front-line soldiers jobs with drones.

* The trend towards increased automation has not run its course. Self-driving vehicles, AI taking over low, medium, and high skill non-physical tasks, robots that don't replace human workers but increase their productivity and the skill needed for the jobs that are being eliminated, and more are continuing to make an impact and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

* More affordable solar and wind power technologies, in addition to environmental concerns disfavoring utility based coal power plants, have put coal as a fossil fuel into a death spiral, and provided a more affordable way to power an increasingly electronic world. Improved and more affordable solar panels have also decentralized the power grid.

* Improvements in heat pumps and electric hot water heating and insulation, have made a bit of a dent in demand for natural gas (offset my utility generation of electricity with natural gas as a substitute for coal) and heating oil.

* Reduced coal consumption has reduced freight rail and barge transportation demand.

* We have turned the corner on some environmental issues. Forest cover is starting to be regrown in many places where forests were cleared for farms, like New England. Amazon deforestation has slowed. Coal sourced pollution is plummeting - less air pollution, less coal waste, less strip mining, outside Wyoming. Lead and asbestos have virtually vanished from new build things and gasoline, and are steadily being removed from older houses and water pipes. We generate more GDP (inflation adjusted) per energy input than we used to. We've cut down on water wasting in the arid west and are continuing to make progress on that. The air is a lot cleaner than it was in the 1970s and even in the 1980s, apart from wildfire smoke. Chlorofluorocarbons that were destroying the ozone layer were phased out worldwide and the ozone layer recovered. The aerosol dispenses they were used in are now scarce. 

* The reality of climate change is now indisputable, even though many folks are resistant to taking the steps to curb it. It is driving droughts, extreme weather like more hurricanes and in different places, snowless ski resorts, wildfires, and higher temperatures that change the biodiversity of places towards those neighboring to warmer places. Glaciers are melting and disappearing entirely and sea levels are rising.

* A large share of household and business solid waste is being diverted from landfills to recycling and compositing, which makes household trash duties more complicated but has become a part of life.

* We bring out own bags to the grocery store reducing that waste flow a little.

* Organic foods have grown very significantly in market share, although they aren't dominant.

* The share of people who are non-religious has surged, especially among younger people (who are also more liberal than older people even when the older people were their age). This has been widespread but most marked among white Catholics and white mainline Protestant denominations. The white Christians who have not become non-religious are more conservative, however, often much more conservative than mainline Protestant clergy.

* Schools at all levels are seeing lower enrollments as the cohorts of children get smaller due to falling birthrates, something that is especially noticeable now that Millennials, the Baby Boom echo generation, have made there way through the system and are having fewer  kids than their parents did, and a growing proportion of children who are in school are children of immigrants, are mixed race, or are otherwise non-white. As a result school districts in most places are closing school buildings that aren't full. The pressure is most stark in rural areas which have continued their relentless secular trend towards depopulating.

We are starting to see small liberal arts and religious colleges not just downsize, but start to close, as the rate at which people are going to college has stopped growing rapidly, and as the cohort of college aged people has shrunk.

* While professional football is as popular as ever, middle school and high school football programs have grown far smaller. Rural schools that have football increasingly play in leagues that use smaller teams like seven a side, since they don't have enough players to field full sized teams.

* Soccer and lacrosse have grown in popularity.

* The study of Latin, Greek, and the humanities more generally has plummeted in high schools and colleges, and social sciences that aren't perceived as useful in getting a job are down, although economics and psychology are hold on better. These disciplines are being squeezed out by business majors and to a lesser extent, STEM fields.

* Adolescents and young adults are smoking less, using hard drugs less, having sex less, getting pregnant less often, committing fewer crimes, starting to drive later, working part-time jobs while in school less often, and in general, are less independent than Gen X was, for example. 

* Young people are getting married later, having kids later, not getting married at all more often, having kids at all less often, who are marrying tend to be closer in age than they used to be. Interracial marriages are more common (and are especially common for Asian American and Hispanic young women). People are marrying people of the same socio-economic background more often, and are much less likely to marry someone of a different political party. Marriage rates are rising and divorce rates are falling for college educated couples, while marriage rates are falling and divorce rates are rising for non-college educated couples. Weddings are trending smaller in the U.S.

* Housing in economically healthy urban centers, health care, child care costs, and higher education have all gotten much less affordable. Household goods have gotten cheaper. Young adults have much less of an ability to afford higher education without big debt loads, to own homes, and to have kids than the Boomers did, and even than Gen X did.

* There are fewer blue laws. In Colorado, banks and car dealerships are pretty much the only businesses uniformly closed on Sundays (although online options and ATMs have made this less consequential in banking). Most retail businesses are open on Sundays now, including liquor stores, and wine and beer can now be purchased in grocery stores in Colorado.

* NIMBY is being pushed back by the YIMBY movement in ongoing political battles over land use, but everyone hates the sudden surge of data centers which are sucking up a huge share of business construction and investment resources, to great ready for an AI future that the general public is ambivalent about.

* Duplexes and townhouses are gaining market share in new construction relative to condos and single family homes. Apartment buildings are being made much more often than architecturally identical condos. Single family homes are being held as rental units more often and are even being built in the first place for that purpose.

* People are trying to make more productive use of roofs in buildings, as decks, as solar panels sites, as gardens.

* Acceptance of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals has risen profoundly in the last three decades, and acceptance of transgender people has also surged but is in flux and has been made into a political football by MAGA Republicans who want to scapegoat them for political gain.

* Election fraud is become a predominantly conservative Republican thing because they are being told, falsely, that everyone and especially immigrants are doing it.

* A global anti-immigrant movement and anti-globalist movement has emerged, mostly as an extension of past racist movements (which are also resurgent). Neo-Nazi and far right movements are resurgent in response to the stagnation of working class, native born, whites with little education, who the economy doesn't need anymore.

* The anti-vax movement has emerged.

* Medical advances have continued. Cancer death rates are falling as one improvement or prevention after another is devised. More things can be vaccinated against. Opioid overdoses can be counteracted. A seriously effective class of weight loss drugs is being developed. Near sightedness can be cured with laser surgery. Gene therapy can cure certain conditions. Surgeries are increasingly less invasive and more effective. More conditions have effective treatments. Access to healthcare is a huge problem in the U.S. but the value that healthcare can add has steadily grown. More medical advances are around the corner.

* Diet and exercise trends have come and gone and there is a declining consensus on these things, even though there is a growing consensus that appropriate exercise and a good diet are important.

* Marijuana legalization has gone mainstream and has more or less fully run its course in many states.

* Abortion rights have recently been dramatically curtailed in red states, although this extreme shift is losing steam and being reversed in some cases as ill-effects of this policy are becoming evident, and as traveling to states where abortion is legal and the use of abortion pills and Plan B contraception (which is not abortion but eliminates the need for it) has limited the effectiveness of these restrictions.

* Fashion has gotten more casual. Litigators only wear suits to hearings and depositions now, rather than to work every day. Many business people, and transactional lawyers, and politicians and top government officials often wear jackets without ties. Business casual has to a great extent replaced the suit among mid-level office workers. People don't dress up to shop as much. Trench coats are rare.

* For reasons not easy to determine, exterior and interior design for buildings has gotten more corporate and more gray and beige and black and white and metallic, with color drained away, and whimsy and originality suppressed. Even cars and trucks are increasingly white, black, and gray in lieu of colors.

* Everyone has high quality audio-video recording equipment and the ability to share it with the world on the Internet in their pocket. Door bells routinely have cameras. Surveillance cams that can be monitored in real time and tracking devices are ubiquitous. Ankle monitors for people on probation and parole are common place.

* Apps have replaced maps and stand alone GPS navigation systems.

* Cars often have keyless entry and starting by key fob.

* Many businesses, almost all hotels, and some apartments have electronic swiping or codes in lieu of mechanical keys.

* Office work isn't paperless, but it does use far less paper and most information storage is electronic rather than on paper, and increasingly the information storage is in the cloud rather than local.

* Software is increasingly an ever updated subscription rather than a piece of digital consumer property that you own.

* Incandescent light bulbs of all kinds have been almost completely replaced by LEDs (light emitting diodes), which generate less heat, last vastly longer, and use far less electricity for the same amount of light. They are as rare now as natural gas lighting systems were before LED lighting became widespread.

* Manned space exploration mostly ceased for a generation and is only recently showing signs to restarting at a meaningful level.

24 October 2026

Random Bits

* Today, I learned that there is a genre called "HFY" which means "Humanity, Fuck Yeah!", that flips the trope of advanced and superior aliens to portray humans an exceptional and lauds our species' positive traits against the space opera foil of other more established interstellar aliens types who lack those traits. I'd read stories in this genre many times before but never realized that it was a genre.

* A psychology tiktok discussed how the easier learning stays the less it sticks in the long run. It recommends focusing on testing yourself, closed book, on what you can recall, spacing study sessions weeks apart, intertwining concepts and types of problems rather than studying them in blocks of the same thing, restating concepts you've studied in your own words, and focusing on connecting new facts to existing frameworks and related concept. It cites:

Bjork, R.A. — "Desirable difficulties" framework 
Bjork, R.A. & Bjork, E.L. (1992) — New theory of disuse 
Roediger, H.L. & Karpicke, J.D. (2006) — Testing effect study
Karpicke, J.D. & Roediger, H.L. (2008), Science — Retrieval practice study 
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008) — Learning styles literature review 
Rohrer, D. et al. — Interleaved vs. blocked practice studies 
Chase, W.G. & Simon, H.A. (1973) — Chess expertise study

* In the not new, but still true department:


* One of the truly striking things about the 2026 election is how high the quality of the Democratic candidates is and how low the quality of the Republican candidates is. The Democratic candidates are moderately better than average. The Republican candidates are truly pathetic. As a New York Times opinion column explains:
In race after race, Democrats have managed to recruit and advance candidates who are well positioned to capitalize on changing political circumstances. Even if he were not facing off against Ken Paxton, an experienced but still strikingly weak candidate, James Talarico would still be an impressive recruit. He is a natural communicator — whose seminarian background and personal faith have been a great asset in winning over Texas voters — and he has proved to be both nimble and aggressive, able to hold Paxton’s feet to the fire despite facing an onslaught of cash from outside groups and actors, like Elon Musk.

You could say similar things of Adam Hamilton in Kansas, perhaps the surprise candidate of this cycle, who is running a competitive race against the Republican incumbent, Roger Marshall. Hamilton is a religious leader — the founder and senior pastor of the Church of the Resurrection, the largest United Methodist congregation in the United States — with broad appeal in a state that is, like Texas, known for its deep religious feeling. With his moderate politics, Hamilton has successfully presented himself as a bipartisan figure, with support from prominent Republicans in Kansas. It also helps that Marshall, a doctor, has struggled in the face of revelations that he took harsh and punitive action against his patients, dragging them to court for trivial amounts of money.

Other Democratic candidates, such as Josh Turek in Iowa, Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Troy Jackson in Maine, have also successfully capitalized on the Republican Party’s worsening electoral position. And even those Democrats who might be a little more progressive than their electorates — Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan — show a great deal of political talent and are well-positioned to win.

As for the Republicans, the opposite appears to be true. There are a few candidates in the field who may well outperform the fundamentals, like the Iowa Senate nominee Ashley Hinson. Michele Tafoya in Minnesota also seems to be keeping up with her opponent. But beyond them, Republicans are working with candidates who are just not up to snuff. In Georgia, Mike Collins has been marred by his associations with white nationalists and other extremists, and is headed for a crushing defeat in his race against the incumbent, Senator Jon Ossoff. Darline Graham in South Carolina is barely ahead of her Democratic opponent, and again, this is South Carolina. The aforementioned Ken Paxton is such a lackluster candidate that he may well deliver the Texas Republican Party its first statewide defeat for federal office since 1988.

Perhaps the most striking example of a candidate ill-equipped for a competitive race is Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican nominee for governor of Ohio. Ramaswamy ran unsuccessfully for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, then returned home to Ohio to try to lead the party there. Perhaps the fact that Republicans were not anticipating a competitive year is how Ramaswamy managed to win the nomination. Either way, he is currently poised to lose to the Democratic nominee, Amy Acton.

In apparent desperation, the Ramaswamy campaign commissioned an advertisement featuring Amy Acton’s mother. The two have not seen or spoken to each other since 1978. As a child, Acton testified against her stepfather, who was charged with sexually abusing her. Acton’s mother took her husband’s side, and the two fled the state. In the advertisement, Acton’s mother calls her daughter a liar, someone who “lies about her past.” The evidence says otherwise. To give one example, documents released by Mahoning County officials in Ohio corroborate Acton’s claim that she lived in a tent as a child.

The Ramaswamy camp, which includes fellow Ohioan JD Vance, thinks the ad is effective. But it’s been condemned by people on both sides, including the state’s Republican governor, as crude, craven and cruel. There is a chance, as well, that it blows back on Ramaswamy, undermining his campaign in the critical final stretch of the election. It is the kind of move that a more seasoned and competent candidate might have avoided. As it is, Ramaswamy’s gambit may well drag down the entire statewide ticket. 
* Then there is this (extracted from this Facebook reel):


* The U.S. Supreme Court has really, really failed us in these last couple of years. They were the part of the system that was supposed to prevent so many of the abuses of Trump 2.0. And, the lower trial and intermediate appellate courts, on balance, did much better.

* Is our system broken? It certainly isn't perfect. But the midterms, if the Democrats make an unprecedented surge to gain control of both houses of Congress, and those elections are honored, and Democrats in control of Congress manage to exert significant power, could show that it isn't completely broken. The basic design feature of a democracy is that is the party in power screws up in an unpopular way, that voters will replace them and deprive them of power. Voters get to do so every two years in the U.S., which is a shorter reaction time than in parliamentary systems where a prime minister can lose the confidence of parliament on very short notice and lose power, but the U.S. makes up for it a little by having strong federalism and powerful courts to slow down serious misconduct and bad policy at the top. If we survive this crisis for now, does that show that our system works? Or are we just hitting a temporary respite from a decline driven by a broken system?

* Another feature of a Democratic party majority in Congress, is that it changes the logic of political succession. It puts a Democrat right after the Vice President in the line of succession. If Trump, who is not a very healthy man and 80 years old, were to die or be so disabled that he couldn't function, or was removed via the 25th Amendment, then J.D. Vance would be President, and J.D. Vance couldn't fill the Vice Presidency without cooperation from a Democratic Party controlled Congress. And, in the absence of a Vice President, the Democrat who is elected to be Speaker of the House would be next in line for the Presidency. While most Presidential assassinations aren't attempted by rational people (although there have been three apparent Presidential assassination attempts so far, one of which can close to being successful, so far in Trump 2.0), rationally, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to assassinate a President when the next dozen people in the line of succession are just as bad. But, if either J.D. Vance or Trump ceases to hold their current office, then the nation is just one assassination away from a complete flip of control of the Executive branch to a politically dramatically different alternative, a Presidential assassination makes a rational political sense at a fairly narrow immediate level, and the list of people or organizations with an incentive to do it then (many of them powerful and well-organized), gets longer than the line at the DMV. To be clear, I'm not advocating that anyone assassinate anyone (and an assassination isn't even necessary, just circumstances that cause two elected officials to vacate their offices). Undermining the norm against assassinating politicians (which is stronger in the U.S. than in many countries), opens up a huge can of worms that poses an immense risk of ending democracy in the medium term, even if it stops a despot in the short term. I'm just observing that the political logic for someone to do so changes dramatically. And, since the system that was supposed to deal with this situation in the constitution (impeachment) has proven to be completely inadequate (since it requires a two-thirds majority support in the U.S. Senate which has shown itself to be entirely partisan in its behavior, and a two-thirds Senate majority is almost impossible to achieve), there is strong pressure from the system to find other ways to remove grossly of the rails officials.

* Prediction markets are tolerably accurate at predicting things in many domains.

* What would a society where inheritance and nepotism in business and wealth succession were largely gone, in analogy to ending monarchy and aristocracy, look like? One recent study in historical economics suggests that the impact wouldn't be all that large, but it has limitations that make me doubt it (it is based largely on the impact on inheritance amount and likelihood based upon random variations in family size).

23 October 2026

The 5th Circuit En Banc Decision On Pre-Hearing Immigration Detention

One of the key issues in immigration law is whether someone detained for being an undocumented immigrant pending a removal hearing in which that person has statutory grounds upon which they could not be deported, who is detained in the interior of the U.S. rather than at the border, and has long standing ties to the U.S. as a resident of the U.S. is entitled to a bond hearing that evaluates their dangerousness and flight risk.

The second Trump administration has taken the position that an undocumented immigrant who awaits a removal hearing may be detained indefinitely, no matter how long the hearing is delayed, no matter where they were detained or how long they have been in the U.S. or what grounds they have to not be deported, and that these individuals have no right to a bond hearing to give those individuals an opportunity to be released before their removal hearing. (The Trump Administration has also explicitly told private contractors operating immigration detention centers that the conditions of confinement should be cruel, but that is a story for another day.)

Thirty years of prior practice of the Executive Branch, prior to Trump 2.0, under the immigration statute adopted in 1996 and since amended in ways largely immaterial to this question, have held that there is a right to a bond hearing to assess whether someone awaiting a removal hearing is dangerous or a flight risk, while that removal hearing is pending (and at a time when the government has not established before an immigration judge that they are entitled to deport someone). This was also the prevailing practice pre-1996, including in the pre-1907 period which the majority mischaracterizes, as a dissenting opinion notes. As explained at page 136 of the Slip Opinion in a dissenting opinion:

The Government and the majority repeatedly cite the Supreme Court’s footnote in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), that “prior to 1907 there was no provision permitting bail for any aliens during the pendency of their deportation proceedings.”  Id. at 523 n.7.  That sounds significant, but, prior to 1907 this country simply did not detain persons potentially unlawfully present in the interior except in extraordinary circumstances and under narrowly drafted laws; and, when it did so, the general rule was that bail would be available.  See Nash, supra, at 1540–41, 1564–76.4  In other words, the practice of seeking out people unlawfully present in this country in the interior en masse is an invention of modern immigration law.  The practice (challenged here) of seeking out persons unlawfully present in this country in the interior and subjecting them to detention without meaningful process or the possibility of bail—that is, to what was long understood to be the statute applicable at ports of entry, § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than the interior detention statute, § 1226(c)—is a recent invention of the Department of Homeland Security in the last year or so contradicting its almost three decades old practice.   

Nine of the eleven numbered geographic circuits of the U.S. Courts of Appeal (ignoring the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which doesn't have jurisdiction over these cases) have held that there is a right to a bond hearing under the applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedents (admittedly, most of which were decided before the current ultra-conservative majority arose in the U.S. Supreme Court, and the current U.S. Supreme Court often shows little regard for its prior precedents or a lower court near consensus). There does not appear to be a case on point out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

So did a 2-1 decision of a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit, and three U.S. District Courts who ruled in favor of the people seeking bond hearings that the government appealed to the 5th Circuit. So did 7 of the 17 judges of the 5th Circuit in a sua sponte review en banc in an 159 page set of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions announced today of that 2-1 decision in the case of Rodriguez v. Vergara (and two other cases consolidated with it).  

Just counting noses in the 5th Circuit who have considered this case (including the trial court judges in these cases), 10 judges ruled that there is a right to a bond hearing and 10 judges ruled that that there was not. It also bears noting that even the current extremely conservative U.S. Supreme Court reverses decisions of the 5th Circuit more than any other U.S. Circuit, generally, in a less conservative direction than its decisions. 

The 5th Circuit en banc majority relies heavily on a U.S. Supreme Court case involved sex offender registration for a general principle (a circumstance where dangerousness is a presumptively present in almost every case), which is Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 8 (2003), rather than prior U.S. Supreme Court immigration cases on point, in a very strained analogy.

The only other U.S. Court of Appeals denying bond hearings is that 8th Circuit (which is also very conservative, although so is the 11th Circuit that went the other way), and the 8th Circuit which also followed a related 5th Circuit precedent, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), cert. sought and neither granted nor denied at this point, in which the 5th Circuit make a minority interpretation of the relevant immigration statute. See Slip Op. at pg. 100 (in a dissenting opinion). See also Slip. Op. at pg. 141 (in a dissenting opinion) ("On appeal, only this court in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (and the Eighth Circuit, following us) has accepted the Executive Branch’s statutory arguments for its recent about-face.  See 166 F.4th 494, 502–05 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1132–36 (8th Cir. 2026).").

District judges reportedly have rejected the government's position in more than 9,300 rulings (see also page 154 of the slip opinion), relying especially upon Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and three certiorari petitions are pending. As noted at page 144 of the Slip Opinion: "The Supreme Court thus far has not accepted certiorari in the sole petition to squarely pose the due process question.  See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Putra v. LopezCampos, No. 25-1415 (U.S. filed June 22, 2026), https://perma.cc/8TXG-9S4J.  Rather, it first will assess the full statutory picture. See Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104, 2026 WL 2942994 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2026) (granting certiorari)." 

Another key recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, which the en banc majority in the 5th Circuit today and the dissenters in the same decision disagree upon the meaning of is DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against someone who was just 25 feet across the U.S. border regarding their immigration law rights. The majority pretty clearly misreads this decision as applying to immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade and have strong ties to U.S. citizen children, which the decisions plain language seems to contradict.

A footnote on page 133 of the slip opinion linked above, to a dissenting opinion, sums up the circuit split:
The majority’s holding places our court in a minority position among the circuits. See Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 188 F.4th 1, 29 (1st Cir. 2026); Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61, 96 (2d Cir. 2026), cert. granted sub nom. Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26104, 2026 WL 2942994 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2026); Buele Morocho v. Warden Phila. FDC, No. 261150, 2026 WL 2546223, at *10 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2026); Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, No. 257044, 2026 WL 2661092, at *21 (4th Cir. Sept. 10, 2026); Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713, 735 (6th Cir. 2026); Cirrus Rojas v. Olson, 183 F.4th 909, 931 (7th Cir. 2026); Padilla v. United States Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, No. 24-2801, 2026 WL 2822044, at *19 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2026); Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1251 (10th Cir. 2026); Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. Mia., 175 F.4th 1258, 1285 (11th Cir. 2026). 

Without today's en banc ruling, the 8th Circuit's ruling in Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928, 933–34 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding that a lawful resident alien could be detained pending removal for over a year as long as “deportation remain[ed] a possibility”) would have been a solitary outlier.

The circuit by circuit analysis is a little complicated, because all immigrations cases funnel up to the national Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which like the courts it reviews is an Article II court of the executive branch that is not judicially independent, and then from there to the U.S. Court of Appeals Circuit in which the case arose at the immigration trial court level. As explained at page 154 of the Slip Opinion:

Article II IJs generally are not bound by Article III district court precedent, just that of courts of appeal.  The BIA has stated that it, “as well as Immigration Judges, [is] bound to follow [BIA] precedent, the Attorney General, and the circuit court of appeals with jurisdiction over the geographic region where a case occurs.”  Matter of Garcia, 28 I. & N. Dec. 693, 695 (B.I.A. 2023); see Matter of Anselmo, 20 I. & N. Dec. 25, 31 (B.I.A. 1989) (noting that the BIA has permitted intercircuit nonacquiescence, but “has not followed a practice of nonacquiescence in decisions of a circuit court in cases arising within the jurisdiction of that circuit”).   

But, habeas corpus review starts in a U.S. District Court (an Article III independent trial court) in a collateral attack on immigration court decisions and proceeds in the usual way to the relevant U.S. Court of Appeals Circuit.

Today's 5th Circuit en banc decision is in my view, clearly wrong under existing precedents, and affects many hundreds of thousands of people in a highly material way. There is little doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually chime in, and it is not at all clear how it will resolve the issue, since it involves a signature position of the Trump administration which the current U.S. Supreme Court has upheld in all but the most extreme instances of overreach.

20 October 2026

All Of Our Problems Are Solvable

Our fundamental mantra when we started was our belief that all of our problems are solvable and we’re the ones to solve them.
- Denver Mayor Mike Johnston

Two Weeks

In two weeks we will learn if the People have woken up and started to right the ship sent off course by Trump 2.0, or if the end in nigh. The polls and pundits are pointing in a hopeful direction, as is the early voter turnout, but this is hardly a sure thing.

It's also exhausting to fight, and yet also exhausting to see sanity, decency, and our country go down the toilet with a new horror almost every day.

And, even if the good guys win, decisively, we still have to endure the two month lame duck session of Congress and untold other mischief to ignore the results, and then have to count on the officials elected actually using their power to the fullest.

All hope is not yet lost, but we aren't "there yet" either.

Part of the deeper question is also whether Trump 2.0 has finally discredited MAGA at a deeper level, with its failed "policies" if you can call them that, and broken the cult. Polling suggests that at least a lot of Republicans and 2024 Trump voters who don't identify as MAGA are finally breaking ranks.

18 October 2026

A Conjecture About Sleep

Evolutionarily, sleep is very expensive. It takes us out of commission and makes us vulnerable a third of the time or so every day.

The amount of sleep that someone needs varies. Some people need nine hours a night to function. Other people need six. So there is a range of sleep need in the general population, and is needing more sleep was en evolutionary disadvantage, the selective fitness advantage of having more sleep would cause people who needed less sleep within the range of variation to increase their share of the gene pool, and the people who need more sleep within the range of variation to decrease their share of the gene pool. But the amount of sleep people need has stayed fairly stable for tens of thousands of years or more.

And, there are ways in nature that we observe that people wouldn't need so much sleep. Lots of grazing animals, like antelope, have one half of their brain asleep and one half of their brain awake at one time, much of the time. So, even though each half of the brain gets sleep similar to humans, the time that both halves of their brains are asleep is much smaller. So we know that being completely asleep in both halves of your brain at the same time isn't an anatomical necessity (although maybe having both halves of your brain working at once when you are awake is more important to humans because of the way that they use their brains than it is for grazing animals).

What selective fitness advantage are people getting from needing more sleep?

Here's a personal conjecture. A hypothesis.

If you are completely vulnerable for a third of each day, you can't afford to be a loner. You need to live in a community where you trust other people to look after your safety when you are asleep. You need a community with at least several adults who can watch over the community when you are asleep and you need enough adults awake at any one time to be a credible deterrent to whatever threats your community faces.

People who sleep a third of the day are forced to live in communities like this, a minimum viable group size. People who sleep little or at all aren't forced to live in communities like this and may prefer to be loners and to not have to deal with the demands of social life that has costs of its own.

But there is a large fitness premium for living in decent sized communities relative to being a loner, far beyond the benefits is just having someone to look out for you when you are vulnerable while you are asleep.

So maybe one of the big evolutionary benefits of needing a lot of sleep is that it forces most people to live in at least modest sized communities, which increases their selective fitness in all manner of ways.

11 October 2026

U.S. Immigration Law Reforms

How could we reform U.S. immigration law?

Here are twelve suggestions:

1. Establish a ten year statute of limitations on deportability.

2. Decriminalize illegal entry to the U.S. (currently a misdemeanor that takes a disproportionate share of the U.S. District Court criminal docket).

3. Abolish ICE. Transfer deporting detained criminals to the U.S. Marshall's service. Transfer general immigration enforcement to the FBI.

4. End the Article I immigration court system and replace it with a right to judicial review in Article III U.S. District Courts. Article I immigration courts do not provide meaningful judicial review because they are not independent.

5. Eliminate border control officer discretion to deny entry without cause at ports of entry. They could still deny entry with cause, subject to judicial review in an expedited summary procedure.

6. Create a right to counsel in deportation proceedings.

7. Appoint a guardian ad litem and counsel for every unaccompanied minor in immigration proceedings.

8. End lawful permanent resident status. Everyone entitled to that status (and everyone already holding that status) would be made a U.S. citizen. We don't need a second class citizen category.

9. End denaturalization. If someone is made a U.S. citizen by fraud, they should stay a U.S. citizen and be prosecuted criminally for the fraud.

10. Have Congress and not the President set immigration quotas. Eliminate any legal authority to cap refugee admissions.

11. End all deportations to countries that someone has never lived in.

12. Ban private prisons for immigration detentions, and mandate minimum standards for conditions there the keep families together and are not punitive.

09 October 2026

People Don't Usually Use Guns With A Primary Goal Of Killing People

Just a short observation: People don't usually use guns with a primary instrumental goal of killing people permanently.

I'm not talking about firing squads, suicides, or hunting, where killing someone or something is indeed the purpose, or accidental discharges of firearms. 

I'm talking about intentional uses of firearms justified or criminal, against people other than the person using the gun, both in civilian settings and in war. And, I'm not talking about menacing, threats, or deterrence. I'm talking about actually and intentionally shooting other people with firearms, i.e. gun homicide, whether or not it is legally justified.

Of course, firing squads are hardly the only practical means of executing people sentenced to death. Firearm suicides would ideally be prevented in every case because, even if there are circumstances where suicide should be legally allowed, firearms are not a desirable tool to achieve that end. And, by definition, no one wants people to be kill with an accidental discharge of a firearm.

The vast majority of the time, shooting someone with a firearm is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Sure, there are times when someone uses a gun to kill someone because they want that person to be dead permanently, in essentially a non-judicial version of a firing squad execution. And, almost always, extra-legal execution that is not simply for the purpose of incapacitating someone to achieve some other end is a crime, even when this is done by members of the military. If it is equally possible and reliable to incapacitate someone rather than to kill them, such as when enemy soldiers surrender in war, it is criminal or a war crime, to kill them instead.

Far more often than having a goal of extra-judicial execution, someone uses a gun to incapacitate someone. The fire a gun at someone to prevent them from harming them or someone else, to prevent them from interrupting the commission of a crime, to prevent someone from arresting you, to prevent a kidnapping you or some other serious crime, to prevent them from getting in the way of their advance, to protect a boundary or location, to prevent someone from escaping from prison, or to prevent someone from escaping being arrested or stopped.

When law enforcement and the military use firearms to kill people, arresting or taking prisoner the person who they shot while disrupting their actions in progress, would almost always be preferable. The same is true of civilians using firearms in self-defense. This is also true of a large share of criminals who shoot someone in furtherance of a crime like robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or rape, or criminals who shoot members of law enforcement or civilians using firearms in defense of themselves or others or property.

People mostly shoot other people with firearms because firearms make it possible to incapacitate someone immediately when it is not practicable to incapacitate them in any other way.

If we had Star Trek-style ray guns that could be set to "stun" rather than "kill" and were just as effective at incapacitating someone immediately as a firearm was, that would satisfy the goals of firearm users who actually shoot other people with firearms the vast majority of the time.

Non-lethal weapons aren't there yet. There are many situations where the imperative of incapacitating someone outweighs the value of their own life, and non-lethal weapons aren't an adequate substitute to achieving that end. But ultimately, this is a technology problem. If we could develop that kind of technology, it would be vastly more desirable than our existing firearms in the vast majority of circumstances where they are used for their intended purpose.

One can also imagine AI and technologies like "smart bullets" improving the accuracy of firearms in a manner that makes shooting a person in a way that incapacitates them without killing them just as easy as shooting to kill.

Indeed, even against animals, the only accepted use of large caliber ammunition against an animal is to incapacitate a large bear or a large herbivore that presents an immediate threat, and not to kill it for food. Bear and larger than moose herbivore killing for food is almost completely banned, outside some rare, regulated Safari hunting, mostly in rural Africa.

Really, the only time that firearms are legitimately used for the express and intended purposes of killing what is being shot permanently, for which there aren't already superior alternatives, is hunting game. And, that rarely calls for ammunition in excess of 22 to 30 caliber bullets or shotgun pellets (which are not armor piercing or hollow point bullets), which are not automatic weapons that fire multiple shots per pull of the trigger, and do not require large magazines of ammunition. And, in these applications, long guns (i.e. rifles or shotguns) rather than handguns, are almost always preferable, because they are much more accurate at longer ranges.

In essentially every circumstance other than conventional hunting rifles and shotguns to hunt animals for food or trophies, a Star Trek-style stun gun would better meet the legitimate legal objectives of the user than a firearm. Indeed, if a Star Trek-style stun gun could incapacitate animals that are being hunted as effectively as hunting rifles and shotguns do, and the hunter then killed the animal only after it was incapacitated, that would be no worse for legitimate hunters than the status quo. If a Star Trek-style stun gun that was this effective did exist for humans, this is plausible because in most cases, because deer are about the same weight as an average human or smaller, and other animals are the same or smaller in weight, leaving only adult male grizzly bears, elk, and moose as typical animals that are larger than humans. A moose is only five or six times the weight of a heavier human man, an elk is smaller than a moose, and a grizzly bear is only three to four times the weight of a heavier human man, so the Star Trek-style stun gun wouldn't have to be that much more powerful to handle every animal in the wild in the Americas short of a bison, and pretty much everything except elephants, rhinos, hippos, and the very largest wildcats (almost all of which are endangered species) outside of the Americas.

Legally, the case for allowing private ownership of firearms, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia, which is the governing theory of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is that an individual right to bear arms exists to permit people to use them in furtherance of a "natural right" to self-defense of their persons, of others, and of their homes (not the political insurgency theory that the language of the Second Amendment hints at), and the existence of equally effective non-firearm technology that could achieve that end would undermine this justification.

Again, we don't have that technology yet. But this suggests that we invest far, far too little resources into developing non-lethal weapons (really less lethal weapons, since no weapon is non-lethal in all circumstances, even if designed to be), since actually killing someone is so rarely the actual primary goal for which a firearm is used. Replacing firearms (as would be possible in almost every legitimate case) with non-lethal/less lethal weapons that are equally effective at incapacitating someone, would save tens of thousands of lives each year in the United States alone, and would save hundreds of thousands or millions of lives each year in warfare.

The Victorians

Imagine living in a world where 40% of your heads of government and 30% of cabinet members went to the same middle school and high school. The author quoted below hypothesizes that the socialization of the national elite in boarding schools, that were apparently well-enough run, was critical to the success of the 19th century U.K. which was very social class bound. 

Query if the mechanism might have instead been freeing up elite parents to focus on their adult roles rather than on raising their children.
The elites of Victorian Britain operated differently. Their schools and universities were not terribly academic and had very little STEM. As adults, they got up late, drank a lot, and spent a remarkable share of their waking hours partying. They loved feasting, sports, holidays, dancing, and dressing up. Contrary to their stodgy reputation, they were probably a lot of fun. . . . 

Most socially elite Victorian boys began formal education at the age of seven or eight, spending about five years in a ‘preparatory school’ before passing on to a ‘public school’ (which, to the enduring confusion of international observers, is a kind of elite private school). There was a hierarchy of public schools, with the nine ‘Clarendon schools’ at the top, and just one, Eton College, clearly at the apex. About 30 percent of nineteenth-century cabinet ministers and 40 percent of prime ministers were Old Etonians.

Most students at both preparatory and public schools were boarders, meaning that elite Victorians were generally sent away from home by the age of eight and spent their childhoods more with peers than with family. In this respect they were distinctive even in their own time: elite families in continental Europe and the United States were far more likely to keep their children at home and educate them at small local private schools. It is plausible that this contributed to the lack of subnational loyalties in the British elite, in contrast to the distinct elites of, for example, the Southern United States, Catalonia in Spain, or Hungary in the Austrian Empire.

From Samuel Hughes, in Works in Progress. 

06 October 2026

The Decisive Benefit Of Weak Psychic Powers

In fiction, often psychic powers are portrayed as extreme, ultra-powerful abilities. But even very modest powers could provide a profound advantage.

Take psychokinesis, the power to physically manipulate things with your mind. Suppose that your psychokinetic power is very weak. You have a range of just ten centimeters. You have a strength and coordination comparable to that of a single hand of first grader.

What can you do with that?

You can open locked doors that don't require a key to unlock from the inside. You can shock someone in your close proximity by socking them in the nose or ears or poking them in their eyes. You can trigger the car alarm on someone else's keys when you are near them, or pick pocket their keys or wallet. You can retrieve jewelry that has fallen into a drain or a sink. You can turn cut the power to a car by pressing a start button or turning a key in the ignition from the passenger's seat. You can zip up or button the back of your dress that you can't reach with your hands. You could pull the trigger on a concealed firearm without moving your hands towards it. You could create a distraction by opening a faucet.

Take telepathy, who can communicate silently with their mind. Suppose that you are a very weak telepath. You have to be touching someone for it to work. You can't communicate outright words or images, only vague urges or strong feelings.

What can you do with that?

You could easily determine if someone is living or brain dead, or if they are human or a robot. You could tell if they were seething with rage inside despite having a calm and civil demeanor. You could manage your relationships better. You could help someone understand you when you can't speak even if you can't be very specific.

Consider pyrokinesis, the power to create or manipulate fire with your mind. You are weak. You have a range of perhaps ten centimeters, and can only make a little spark.

What can you do with that?

Sure, you can light a cigarette or a candle or gas stove, when your matches are wet and you don't have a lighter. But you could also trigger pretty much any fuel tank to explode. You could start a wildfire in the vicinity of flammable materials like dry grass. You could squelch the trigger to a stick of dynamite. You could use it to signal a coded message as you flicked it on and off. You could burn the inside of someone's mouth, or singe or ignite their greasy hair, or create the equivalent of a cigarette burn in some unexpected place to distract them so they'd unhand you.

Consider the ability to see into the future, but very weak. Only within the range of your senses and only for a few seconds in advance.

What can you do with that?

This is essentially the main edge that the Jedi have in Star Wars, allowing them to be just a little bit ahead of people that are fighting them. It could allow you do avoid all manner of accidents. It could prevent you from being betrayed by someone at the last minute, or just prevent you from doing something embarrassing. It might allow you to defuse a bomb by foreseeing what happens if you cut the red wire. It could be very useful on game shows. You could win every time at rock-paper-scissors, or could allow you to know whether to call heads or tails in a coin flip.

You can imagine similar ways that other psychic powers, even if extremely weak, could be game changing.