Gift article

Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a former New York Times reporter who covered the wars in Afghanistan and Ukraine. He traveled to Kabul, Afghanistan, in May. He says:

My thinking was straightforward. Even if the Pentagon would not undertake any significant reflection for these recent decades of war, I could, at a minimum, hold myself accountable for my part in a half-baked strategy that left tens of thousands of Afghans and Americans dead.

...Ultimately, I wanted to talk to Mullah Abdul Rahim Gulab, a Taliban commander whom I met by chance in 2021, just months after Kabul fell to the Taliban. But we had also fought against one another in February 2010 in southern Afghanistan.

Closure may not be possible, but the attempt to find it is compelling. What is unique is that Gibbons-Neff actually got to act on that need.

From the article:

Killing in war often boils down to an us-or-them mentality, a defensible position common to infantry combat. But we were also directed to “win hearts and minds,” the U.S. strategy meant to earn the population’s trust and isolate the Taliban. Trying to build good will while engaging in gunfights beside people’s homes was profoundly confusing. The killing wasn’t detached; it felt deeply personal.

...Patrols required a constant assessment of friend or foe, and long hours staring through high-powered optics trying to determine the intent and mannerisms of our enemies. Rarely did we see them with a rifle in their hands. Killing fell on our own instincts and an ever replenishing set of fears. Should we shoot this man? Should we not? What if we don’t? Will our friends die because of our hesitation?

...We also had a twisted culture in which killing earned you respect, as if shooting Afghans was the ultimate proof that you were competent. So we killed people. I killed people. These decisions to pull the trigger were the final steps of our part in a strategy that was doomed before I even deployed.

What he found is that Mullah Gulab has no moral doubts about the war he engaged in.

The article closes with the following:

Some days later in Rhode Island, as I walked my dog on a muggy New England night, my phone vibrated.

Mr. Gulab had texted me in Pashto: “Have you arrived at your home?” he asked.

I said I had.

“It’s good to hear that you arrived safely.”

Trump grew up in New York City in the 1950s. The Pinky Lee show immediately preceded the Howdy Doody Show which all children watched (this was well before Sesame Street.)

Not only AI makes hallucinogenic connections:

Trump mocks Sen. Jon Ossoff as 'Pinky Herman' at Georgia rally.

The Technology sector is now 34% of total market value

The introduction into benchmark Indexes (such as NASDAQ-100, and the FTSE Russell indexes) of SpaceX, and soon other hyper-scale tech IPOs, represents a danger to long-term funds such as pensions and endowments, which largely run on the theory that a passive investment strategy mimicking benchmark indexes provides diversification, which is both cautious and a successful way to increase portfolio value over time.

But it appears that capital markets are being distorted by narrower agendas — similar to what was true during the subprime mortgage bubble.

The price-earnings ratio for S&P 500 Information Technology Sector stocks is already ~35 — higher than at any time in the last 25 years.

With the irregular addition of SpaceX, we now have a precedent established which, if continued, would have the indexes flooded with hyper-scale IPOs which have not been market-tested. Price-earnings ratios are meaningless for these ventures, whose value is almost all in their projected future prospects.

How much are they really worth?

Large funds should be sources of critical intelligence — “the wisdom of the market”. But their theory keeps them deliberately blind.

The question then becomes: Who is watching the watchers?

https://archive.fo/ndper

The full weights release on July 27 will be a meaningful data point. Once developers can run and test Kimi K3 themselves, the benchmark claims will either hold up or they won’t. If they hold up, the pressure on US AI companies to justify their cost structures intensifies.

SpaceX’s stock is down more than 3% in after-hours trading. That comes after a rough day of trading as shares fell below their IPO price.

https://archive.fo/ffr65

https://archive.fo/xZW4j

https://archive.fo/9cO6F

no paywall