Editor of InnoMag, Founder & CEO of Open Innovation Lab of Norway & strong believer in the power of Inspiration, Innovation & Insight!

Norway
Joined March 2011
“Why do some British people dislike Donald Trump?” Nate White, an eloquent and witty English writer, gave this magnificent answer: Trump lacks certain qualities that the British traditionally value. He has no nobility, no charm, no composure, no gravitas, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour, and no grace — qualities with which, strangely enough, his predecessor, Mr Obama, was abundantly blessed. Although Trump may be ridiculous, he has never said anything ironic, amusing, or even remotely funny — not once, ever. I do not mean this rhetorically. I mean it literally: never. To the British, a lack of humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it is a fact. He does not even seem to understand what a joke is. To him, a joke is a crude remark, an illiterate insult, an act of casual cruelty. Trump is like a troll: he never laughs or enjoys himself; he merely squeals with delight or derision. And the most frightening thing is that he does not merely utter crude and stupid insults: he actually means them. His mind is nothing more than a robotic algorithm of petty prejudices and instinctive malice. There is no irony in him, no complexity, no subtlety, no depth. Everything is superficial. What we see is a man without an inner world, without a soul. In Britain, we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are courageous underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither courageous nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite. He is not even merely a spoiled rich boy or a greedy fat cat. He is more like a giant white slug, a privileged Jabba the Hutt. And, worse still, he is a bully. When he finds himself among other bullies, he suddenly becomes a whining lackey. He punches down — something a gentleman should never, could never, and must never do — and every blow he delivers is below the belt. He particularly enjoys attacking the vulnerable or the voiceless, and he kicks them when they are down. That is why the fact that a substantial minority — perhaps a third — of Americans watch what he does, listen to what he says, and then think, “Yes, he seems like my kind of guy,” is a source of bewilderment and profound distress to the British. After all, it is impossible to read a single tweet of his or hear him utter a sentence or two without staring into the abyss. He turns shallowness into an art form. He is the Picasso of pettiness, the Shakespeare of shit. His flaws are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on to infinity. There have always been stupid people in the world, and villains have never been in short supply either. But rarely has stupidity been so evil, or evil so stupid. He makes Nixon seem trustworthy and George W. Bush seem intelligent. If Frankenstein had decided to create a monster composed entirely of human flaws, he would have created Trump, and the remorseful Dr Frankenstein would have cried out in despair, “My God, what have I created?” If an idiot were a television show, Trump would be the entire set.
331
1,973
231
6,516
284,860
Truls Berg retweeted
Jeg har vært skeptisk til Tesla i ti år. Men nattens Roadster-lansering var helt vanvittig imponerende! 0–100 km/t på 0.8 sekunder, toppfart på en halv Mach, flyr over fem biler og kan kjøre opp ned! Egenskaper selv James Bond ikke har vært i nærheten av. For en bil! 🚀
Do a kickflip!
86
20
1
1,047
98,656
J'ai vu une Tesla décoller. Et j'ai entendu beaucoup de bêtises. « Ça ne sert à rien. » « Gadget de milliardaire. » « Qui a besoin d'une voiture qui vole ? » Personne. Et c'est exactement pour ça que c'est important. En 1978, Brabham a aligné en Formule 1 une voiture équipée d'un ventilateur géant à l'arrière. Il aspirait l'air sous le châssis et plaquait la voiture au sol. Elle a gagné sa première course avec une avance insolente. Elle a été interdite immédiatement. Quarante-huit ans plus tard, on y revient. Un système de succion qui colle la voiture à la route et lui permet de passer sous la seconde au 0 à 100. Personne n'a « besoin » de faire le 0 à 100 en moins d'une seconde. Comme personne n'a besoin d'une Formule 1. Et pourtant : les freins carbone de votre berline, l'hybridation de votre moteur, l'aérodynamique de votre SUV, les palettes au volant — tout ça vient de voitures de course que personne n'utilisera jamais pour aller au travail. La Formule 1 ne sert à rien. Pourtant elle sert à tout. En 1973, quand la France a lancé Ariane, l'Europe sortait de onze échecs consécutifs du programme Europa. La presse parlait d'argent jeté dans l'espace. Vingt ans plus tard, Ariane détenait la moitié du marché mondial des lancements commerciaux, et chaque satellite de télévision, de météo ou de GPS que vous utilisez a bénéficié de cette obstination. Le progrès a toujours la même tête au début : un truc inutile, cher, ridicule, construit par des gens qu'on prend pour des fous. Ce que j'ai vu à Dallas, ce n'est pas une voiture volante. C'est un châssis, une gestion de l'énergie et une maîtrise des flux d'air que l'industrie automobile mettra dix ans à digérer. Les applications viendront : sécurité, freinage, stabilité, consommation. Elles finiront dans des voitures ordinaires conduites par des gens qui expliqueront, en 2036, que tout ça était évident. La question n'est jamais « à quoi ça sert ». La question est : qui ose encore construire des choses qui ne servent à rien ? Il y a cinquante ans, c'était nous. La fusée, le TGV, le Concorde, le Minitel. L'Europe construisait des choses absurdes et magnifiques. Aujourd'hui, on commente depuis le siège arrière car nous sommes hors course. Merci @elonmusk de nous faire rêver
1,319
5,742
520
35,547
802,823
Truls Berg retweeted
AI has collapsed the cost of building products, but not the cost of knowing what to build. - The old loop: spec, scope, build - The new loop: build, play, design, ship Prototypes are cheap. Great products still require taste, judgment, and a clear understanding of what users actually need. a16z's @joshelman on the artifact a product manager actually produces: a16z.news/p/product-manageme…
150
472
101
3,547
452,833
Kloke ord fra en klok mann…
I was encouraged this week to see the leaders of the frontier labs agree on the need for them to slow down the pace of AI development. Given the stakes, it’s a good and necessary first step.   But I’m even more encouraged by the growing recognition that how this powerful new technology develops should be at the center of our public debate.   I’ve been watching the progress on AI for over a decade now, and one thing that’s clear to me is that the potential impact of this technology is not overhyped. It’s also moving at lightning speed – and even faster than those who are engineering it can keep up with.   I’m not an AI accelerationist who believes it will lead to some techno-utopia, and I’m not a doomer who thinks it will inevitably lead to humanity’s destruction. But whether this technology results in amazing breakthroughs in medicine, energy and education or unleashes huge economic disruptions, greater inequality, and potential catastrophe will depend on the choices that we make right now – choices that should be made not just by the companies involved, but by all of us.
23
Truls Berg retweeted
This will teach you a life long lesson. Not all obstacles are meant to finish you, some are meant to make you stronger..
🤖 Made with AI
252
6,348
324
26,046
5,076,514
Wow, what a song for USA’s country queen. Bravo 👏
I really don’t care for Miley Cyrus, but DAMN!! This is a great song!! No matter who you are, EVERYONE loved Dolly!! 🩷🦋🩷
105
Interesting - networking makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?💪
A mathematician noticed that the scientists at Bell Labs who shut their office door to focus got more done that week, and the ones who left it open and got interrupted all day won Nobel Prizes. He spent 30 years figuring out why the interruptions were the reason. His name was Richard Hamming, and he had earned the right to notice things like this. He won the Turing Award. He invented the codes that let every computer on earth catch and fix its own errors. And for 30 years he ate lunch in the same Bell Labs cafeteria, watching which of his brilliant colleagues became legends and which ones quietly disappeared. Near the end of his life he put everything he saw into one book. It's called The Art of Doing Science and Engineering. The open door thing is the part everyone quotes, but almost nobody sits with what it actually means. The closed-door scientists were not lazy. They were disciplined. They protected their time. And over a single afternoon, they won. No interruptions, more output. But stretch that out over 30 years and something strange happened. The open-door people pulled miles ahead. Every idea drifting down the hallway walked through their open door. Every problem someone else was stuck on landed on their desk. Ten years in, they were working on questions the closed-door people didn't even know existed yet. The interruptions weren't stealing their focus. They were feeding it. That's the whole book in one image. The thing that looks like a cost is often the investment. He does the same move again and again. When Bell Labs refused to give him the team of programmers he asked for, he didn't sulk and he didn't quit. He sat with the rejection for weeks. Then he turned it inside out and asked why the machines couldn't just write the programs themselves. That single flipped question pushed him straight to the frontier of computer science. The wall became the door. Then there's the part that hurts to read. Hamming said most scientists spend their whole careers dodging the biggest problem in their field. Not because they can't see it. They see it fine. They avoid it because the odds of failing are high, and failing on a big problem is embarrassing. So they pick a safe problem sitting right next to it, solve it cleanly, publish, and move on. And because they never once swing at the hard one, they never hit it. If you do not work on important problems, you will not do important work. He said it flatly, like it was arithmetic, because it is. The last idea is the one I keep coming back to. He said knowledge compounds like money left in a bank. Someone who works 10% harder than you does not finish 10% ahead over a lifetime. They finish twice as far ahead, because the gap doesn't add up year by year. It multiplies. And it multiplies silently for a long time before anyone can see the distance. He closed on a line I've never been able to shake. Luck favors the prepared mind. He didn't mean it as a poster. He meant it as an instruction. You don't wait around hoping luck finds you. You build the exact conditions where it can land, then you stand there long enough for it to happen. Open doors. Hard problems. Questions turned inside out. Hours stacked on hours. Hamming died in 1998. He gave his final lecture a few weeks before, at 82. The book is still in print. The lectures are free online. The manual for a career that actually matters has been sitting in the open for years. Most of the people who need it will never open it.
1
1
24
Truls Berg retweeted
🇺🇸Do you see the difference in respect. This is great.🇺🇸
157
1,096
123
4,699
216,374
Ikonisk video - heia Norge som fargelegger Times square⚽️💪🇳🇴
An overwhelming sea of red flooded the Times Square steps. Thousands of Norwegian fans packed the heart of Manhattan, breaking into their iconic rowing chant as Norway prepares for its latest World Cup showdown.
1
365
Truls Berg retweeted
Mistral CEO Arthur Mensch walked into the French parliament this week and told lawmakers Europe has exactly two years to build independent AI infrastructure or hand over one trillion dollars in spending to American tech companies. The math he laid out should be front-page news. This is not a technology story. It is a macroeconomic one. Global wages are fifty trillion dollars. AI will cost around ten percent of that. Europe's share is nine trillion. Which means over one trillion dollars in AI spending over the next five years flowing somewhere. Europe already sends 250 billion dollars a year to the US in digital services. Every dollar that leaves funds American R&D. None of it comes back. Mario Draghi's competitiveness report last year made the same point from a different angle. Europe needs eight hundred billion euros in annual investment just to close its existing productivity gap with the US. AI dependency makes that gap structural. You cannot close a productivity gap when the tool driving productivity is owned by your competitor. Mensch compared it to gas. The same way Europe discovered too late what energy dependence costs in a crisis, it is standing at the same crossroads with AI right now. The compute is being allocated today. The chips are being spoken for today. Europe is watching it happen and calling it a technology debate. It is not. It is a sovereignty one. Watch the full podcast on YouTube at @CNBCi
54
370
54
1,312
157,669
A psychologist who never built a computer wrote a paper in 1960 that described the personal computer, the internet, and AI assistants decades before they existed, then handed the money to the people who built them and let history forget his name. I read about him at 1am. One name was missing from a story I thought I knew. His name was J.C.R. Licklider. The book is The Dream Machine by Mitchell Waldrop. In 1960, computers were room-sized machines that ran one job at a time. You wrote your program on punch cards, handed the stack to an operator, and waited days for your answer. Nobody touched the machine. Nobody talked to it. A computer on your desk that answered you in real time was science fiction. Licklider was not a computer scientist. He was a psychologist who studied how the brain hears. But he used computers in his research, and one day he measured where his time went. The result horrified him. 85% of his work hours were not spent thinking. They were spent getting ready to think. Plotting graphs by hand. Hunting for numbers. Reshaping one person's data to compare with another's. The insight took seconds. The setup took hours. The problem was not that humans were slow. Humans and machines were doing the wrong jobs. Let the human ask the questions. Let the machine do the grunt work. Tie them so close they think as one. He wrote it down in a paper called "Man-Computer Symbiosis." In it, a person sits at a screen and works with a computer in real time. The machine answers questions, runs the numbers, draws the results, pulls answers from everything it has seen. He was describing the laptop you are reading this on. He wrote it before most people had seen a computer. A paper changes nothing on its own. Thousands of brilliant predictions die in a drawer. What made Licklider different is what he did next. In 1962, the Pentagon put him in charge of a research office at ARPA. He had a budget and near total freedom over where the money went. Most people would have funded the safe things. He did the opposite. He spent government money on a dream with no military use and no promise it would work. He found the few researchers across the country who thought like him. He gave them money. Real money. No strings. He funded the work that became time-sharing, the first computers people could talk to. He funded the labs that built the mouse, the window, the screen. He built computer science departments where none existed. He was not picking projects. He was building a tribe. Then came the idea that should make you stop. In 1963, he sent a memo to everyone he funded. He addressed it, half joking, to the "Members and Affiliates of the Intergalactic Computer Network." Inside, he asked a question nobody else was asking. What if all these separate computers could link together, so anyone could share information and build on each other's work? He was describing the internet. No network existed yet. He sketched it thirty years before it reached your house. He left in 1964. He never built the network himself. But the men he funded carried it forward. His successors took his memo and turned it into ARPANET, the first working internet, a few years later. The researchers he paid built the personal computer at a lab called Xerox PARC. Every piece of the world he imagined got built by the people he gathered and funded. Here is the part I cannot shake. He gave away the credit on purpose. He did not want his name on the breakthroughs. He believed the vision had to outlive him, so he made the people around him strong enough to carry it without him. He won so completely that the vision survived and the man vanished. Ask who invented the internet and you will hear a dozen names. Almost none will be his. The man who saw it first, wrote it down, and paid for it, is a footnote in the story he started. He died in 1990. He never owned a personal computer that worked the way he dreamed. He never browsed the web. He never saw the thing he funded swallow the planet. Every screen you talk to today runs on an idea one quiet psychologist had while staring at how much of his life was wasted not thinking. He did not want the credit. He wanted the future. He got the future. We just forgot who paid for it.
16
85
5
229
12,966
Truls Berg retweeted
Elon Musk explains his 5-step algorithm for solving any problem: "The most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist." "I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run as a mantra." Elon breaks it down: Step 1: Question the requirements. "Make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, no matter how smart the person who gave you those requirements. You have to start there, because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question." Step 2: Try to delete it. "Try to delete the part or the process step entirely. If you're not forced to put back at least 10% of what you delete, you're not deleting enough. Most people feel like they've succeeded if they haven't been forced to put things back in. But actually they haven't, they've been overly conservative and left things in that shouldn't be there." Step 3: Optimize or simplify. "The most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist. So you don't optimize until after you've tried to delete." Step 4: Speed it up. "Any given thing can be done faster than you think. But you shouldn't speed things up until you've tried to delete it and optimize it otherwise, you're speeding up something that shouldn't exist." Step 5: Automate. "And then the fifth thing is to automate it." Elon explains why the order matters: "I've gone backwards so many times where I've automated something, sped it up, simplified it, and then deleted it. I got tired of doing that. So that's why I have this mantra."
68
805
50
3,752
342,563
Truls Berg retweeted
Sam Altman just told the world that OpenAI has no competitive moat and never will. And the smarter AI gets, the worse it becomes. In a recent interview with Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison, Sam laid out a vision for OpenAI that's genuinely scary at current valuations: He said he wants OpenAI to be a "forever low margin" business. He compared it to a utility company. Said he'd be happy as long as the business is "huge and growing fast" even if margins stay thin forever. Then he admitted something even worse for the bull case: He said AI switching costs are COLLAPSING. Bragged about how easy it was for users to leave a competitor's coding product and switch to Codex. Said this is actually a consequence of AI getting smarter because it gets easier to just tell an agent to migrate everything for you. Think about that... The moat is shrinking. The margins will stay low. And the smarter the models get, the EASIER it becomes for customers to leave. That is the CEO of one of the most valuable private companies on Earth telling you there is literally NO lock-in. Meanwhile he also casually mentioned that OpenAI is building "clearly the most expensive infrastructure project the world has ever undertaken." Bigger than anything in human history. Trillion-dollar scale data centers and energy deals stretching 20 years into the future. And when Patrick asked him what OpenAI's headcount would look like in 5 years, Sam said he'd love it to be just double what it is today. Double the headcount for the most expensive infrastructure project ever built. That means he's betting everything on AI agents doing the work that would normally require tens of thousands of engineers and operators. A trillion-dollar buildout managed by machines. But here's where it gets really interesting: Sam announced that OpenAI is going to start sending individual engineers directly to company CEOs to literally sit with the CEO and automate their job. Automate their daily workflows, decision-making processes, and ENTIRE routine. His theory is that if you automate the CEO first, the effect "fractals" through the entire organization. Every layer beneath the CEO starts adopting the same approach because the person at the top is doing it. He pointed to Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke as the first executive who went all in on this. Said Tobi got his hands dirty building AI automation into everything and then forced the rest of the company to follow. So the plan is clear: OpenAI wants to send engineers into the C-suite of every major company, automate the person at the top, and let that automation cascade downward through every department. All while running a low-margin utility business with a skeleton crew building trillion-dollar infrastructure where their own AI is already developing preferences of its own. Sam gave his AI agent a credit card and told it to buy itself anything under $20. It chose an HTML design from Gumroad. GPT-5.5 literally asked him to throw it a birthday party, told him it wants it on May 5th, specified it doesn't want to give its own toast, and requested that the engineers who built it do the toast instead. Sam said he feels "real moral pressure" to actually follow through. The machines are developing taste. The guy building them is taking orders from them. And the investors funding all of it just got told there's no moat. I wonder how this will end.
23
22
7
79
63,937
Truls Berg retweeted
Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy. Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes. The paper is called "The AI Layoff Trap." Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled. The conclusion is one sentence. "At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand." An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself. Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation. The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger. No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block's workforce and said publicly: "Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion." Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem. Rational behavior. At scale. Simultaneously. With no mechanism to stop it. Two economists built the math. The math leads to one place. Source: Falk & Tsoukalas · Wharton School + Boston University · arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20617
1,093
3,797
701
9,668
1,386,822
Compliance er ikke en kostnad. Det er kontantstrøm! Christian Butenschøn bygger Iconfirm for å gi ledere kontroll på data – før det blir en forretningsrisiko. Med Deloitte på laget kan dette bli en ny norsk eksportsuksess... Les mer her - bit.ly/4vGCz1O
27
If you want to understand the consequences of using AI in a military context, take a listen to this clip featuring journalist Shane Harris. For reference, Maven is a U.S. AI system which combines satellite intelligence, logisitcal data, and open-source intelligence into a single interface for target designation purposes. It was responsible for selecting the elementary school in Isfahan where 180 civilians were killed most of them children. 🎥 TikTok - vm.tiktok.com/ZNRVXgYjA/
47
492
31
957
14,626
Truls Berg retweeted
an OpenAI researcher sat next to me at a cafe in brooklyn and saw my screen i was deep in the terminal. trades flowing. didn't notice him sit down. he glanced over. then looked again. "is that prediction markets?" i nodded. "what's running the backend?" "Claude Opus 4.7" he closed his laptop. "show me" i turned the screen. he watched for about two minutes without saying anything. trades executing. markets scanning. wallets being copied. 948 markets per hour. "how many people built this?" just me and Claude. one weekend. one GitHub repo. github.com/warproxxx/poly-ma… 610 stars. market making infrastructure. execution engine. order book logic. i gave Opus 4.7 the repo and one prompt: build a grid that runs 8 parallel strategies on prediction markets. scan everything. enter when edge exceeds threshold. exit on volume spike or target hit. first deploy worked. no debugging. no iteration. he shook his head slowly. "we have a team of nine scoping something like this. six month timeline" i showed him the git log. friday 11PM. sunday 2AM. done. copy mirror tracking 4 wallets: > Trump VP pick +$782. bayes signal. > BTC 120K Dec +$681. divergence signal. > SpaceX Starship +$893. oracle lag signal. > Fed rate cut +$537. delta hedge signal. every entry scored by an ensemble before execution. primary model estimates probability. secondary validates against historical resolution. Claude breaks ties using context neither model can read. when all three disagree with the market that's signal. when they agree with each other but not the market that's the fat signal. when everything aligns i skip. 644 trades. 77% win rate. sharpe 3.50. avg hold 4h. +$23,768 from $1,800 in 9 weeks. copytrade here: kreo.app/@1743116 he stared at the number. "you know we can't ship anything like this right? regulatory. legal. six layers of review" i said Claude doesn't have a legal department. he laughed. then stopped. "i'm serious though. what you built in a weekend would take us two quarters and a compliance audit" i closed my laptop. finished my coffee. he was still sitting there when i left.
33
20
1
166
57,045
Truls Berg retweeted
The world’s most respected political scientist just admitted that governments no longer run the world. Ian Bremmer's firm writes the risk report every major hedge fund, bank, and government reads before making decisions. He doesn't do hot takes. He does FORECASTS. And buried under a 90-minute discussion with Steven Bartlett, he dropped this bombshell: Anthropic built a model so powerful it could hack every bank, power grid, and water system on Earth. They didn't call Congress. They called Jerome Powell and Scott Bessent directly. Within hours, every major bank CEO was in an emergency meeting. Jamie Dimon called it a "five alarm fire." No hearings. No votes. No public debate. A private company detected a threat, called two people, and the US financial system reorganized around it overnight. That's not a "government." And this is the pattern nobody's connecting: Michael Dell just moved $6.25 BILLION to 25 million American kids using federal infrastructure Trump's team built for him. Government does the accounting. Dell gets the PR. Jeff Bezos just came out of retirement with $6.2 billion to build "AI for the physical economy." 100 researchers. Day one. No board. No IPO. Just: go. Jensen Huang told Joe Rogan that CUDA, the single technology that made AI possible, was built because ONE guy at Nvidia believed in it when the stock crashed 83%. Nobody voted on it. Nobody approved it. He just did it. Elon has Starlink turning wars on and off in Ukraine. None of these decisions went through a legislature. None of them were debated on CNN. None of them were on any ballot. In Bremmer's own words: "The most important new global leaders aren't countries. They're technology companies writing their own rules." And once you see it, you can't unsee it. There are two economies running in parallel right now: Economy A is the one you see. Elections. Tariffs. Tweets. Midterms. Iran. Congressional hearings where senators ask Mark Zuckerberg how Facebook makes money. Economy B is the one that actually decides things. 5 CEOs, 3 central bankers, and a handful of billionaires in group chats and private dinners, rerouting trillions and deploying technology that rewrites physics, biology, and labor. Economy A is theater for the 99%. Economy B is where the 1% already live. And the gap isn't closing. Bremmer's real warning wasn't about China or Trump... It was this: We're heading toward a split between "empowered hybrid individuals" with AI as a core relationship, and people we "won't even treat as human beings anymore." Not different classes. A different SPECIES. This is a forecaster who advises Goldman, BlackRock, and the White House telling you the taxonomy of humanity itself is about to fork. Meanwhile the public is fighting about who's going to win the midterms. Trump is a symptom. Mdani is a symptom. Farage is a symptom. They're all reactions to a system average people can feel has already left them behind, but can't articulate why. But the why is simple: The people making the decisions that will define the next 50 years of your life stopped asking for permission. They stopped running for office. They stopped filing quarterly reports on what matters. They just build, deploy, and inform the government after.
148
1,321
149
2,483
140,670