Iran’s regime survived the war and is now savvier, ruthless and more hard-line: After months of strikes by the U.S. and Israel, the Iranian regime has emerged emboldened, contradicting Trump’s claim of accomplishing “regime change.” - "Those in charge now, experts said, are part of a postrevolutionary cohort who are less extreme in their religious views but equally ruthless in their willingness to use brutal force to maintain control.
"Their understanding of the United States has less to do with the hostage crisis of 1979 than their front-row view of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts that went on for years but ended with the United States having achieved few of its core aims.
"The new group’s more sophisticated grasp of American pressure points may account for Iran’s strategy of launching retaliatory strikes against Persian Gulf allies of the United States, as well as its halting of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which yielded major economic leverage."
How Metro got its groove back: Ten years ago, WMATA was in dismal shape. Now, people are lining up to rep the transit system with pride. - "A plan initiated by WMATA and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the DMVMoves initiative, would instead have the three jurisdictions agree to contribute a total of $460 million annually, and grow 3% each year. Virginia included its share in its budget and Maryland pledged to do so next legislative cycle; the agency is waiting for D.C. to do the same."
As Christians are attacked in Israel, government shows little concern: Christians are being targeted by hostility and violence and say their attackers feel emboldened by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government. - "When an earlier wave of harassment targeting Christians made headlines in 2017, Itamar Ben Gvir, then a settler activist and lawyer, gave a radio interview to defend spitting at Christian monks and churches as 'an ancient Jewish tradition.'"
Why Everyone Is Suddenly Talking About ‘Universal Basic Capital’: The policy could provide a much-needed hedge against a future AI dystopia—but only if it’s designed the right way. - "If the U.S. government owned huge portions of, say, OpenAI and Anthropic, it would have a strong incentive to do everything in its power to make sure those firms were financially successful. That might mean gutting labor or safety standards that would delay the technology's rollout, ignoring anticompetitive acts, or providing favors in the form of cheap loans or lucrative government contracts. If the AI sector turned out to be a bubble, as many fear, the companies could likely count on a government bailout. 'The federal government is really the only entity powerful enough to be a real check on these companies,' Samuel Hammond, the chief economist at the Foundation for American Innovation, a center-right think tank, told me. 'If they become joined at the hip, that check goes away. It can easily become a form of regulatory capture.'
"These problems could be avoided with carefully constructed restrictions to mitigate conflicts of interest. Norway, for instance, has been a global leader in the transition away from fossil fuels and toward green energy despite the fact that its fund is seeded by oil revenues. But America isn't Norway. Although Sanders calls for the wealth fund to be managed by an 'independent commission,' the idea of a massive new state-run enterprise maintaining operational independence from political actors in the Trump era is laughable. (Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could remove the leaders of "independent agencies" at will.) A sovereign wealth fund would functionally hand Trump a giant pot of money that he could use to enrich himself and his family, hand out favors to political allies, and force business leaders to bend the knee. It would also give him control over how the technology is developed and deployed. This would radically alter the balance of power between Washington and Silicon Valley. Earlier this year, Anthropic refused to allow the U.S. military to use its technology for domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons. That kind of decision would no longer be possible if the government owned a controlling stake in the company. 'We've already seen what happens when Trump is able to tell TV stations who they should have as a late-night host or how to run their news shows,' Dean Baker, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told me. 'Do you really want to see what happens when we give him the power to run large chunks of corporate America?'"
How Britain Became as Poor as Mississippi: A case study in self-sabotage - "The country's downward slide has been consistent in one respect: As Britain has become more and more aware of its diminishment, it has retreated ever more fully into a defensive crouch. Politics have become zero-sum, descending into fights over who has robbed whom. Suspicion has fallen, above all, on immigrants, whom both major parties have turned against. There is still an enduring strain of British exceptionalism, quieter and more understated than the American version, which suggests that by retreating inward, Britain can make itself great again. Astonishingly, or perhaps predictably, it is growing stronger as the country's problems get worse.
...
"Britain suffers from a housing crisis significantly worse than America's. The problem cannot even be blamed on zoning, because Britain does not have a zoning regime to speak of. Rather, every attempt to build is a painful, ad hoc negotiation with local government councils and NIMBY residents. As a result, housing costs per square foot are among the highest in Europe. In the words of one report, 'Our housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy.' France has roughly the same population as the U.K., but almost 50 percent more homes. And yet, since the financial crisis, the U.K.'s rate of housing production has only fallen."
