Let's Know Things

The podcast tackles critical topics like planetary defense against asteroids and highlights the potential collision risk posed by asteroid 2024 YR4. It discusses the DART mission, which successfully tested asteroid deflection, and reflects on past events like the dinosaur extinction caused by an asteroid impact. The conversation also delves into the origins of the Moon, theorizing how a Mars-sized object named Theia may have collided with Earth. Lastly, an intriguing exploration of a sci-fi novel featuring AI and black magic adds a creative twist to the discussion.

Dive into the tumultuous world of U.S. protectionism! The discussion highlights tax hikes and tariff strategies aimed at both allies and adversaries. Delve into the madman theory of negotiation and its surprising implications. The impact of these protective measures on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China uncovers both the intended benefits for domestic industries and the unintended costs for consumers. Explore how these policies are shaping the economic landscape and affecting American households amidst ongoing global competition.

This week we talk about OpenAI, the Stargate Project, and Meta.We also discuss o1, AGI, and efficiency.Recommended Book: The Shortest History of Economics by Andrew LeighTranscriptOne of the bigger news items these past few weeks, in terms of the numbers involved, at least, was an announcement by US tech company OpenAI that it will be starting a new company called the Stargate Project, which will boast a total $500 billion-worth of investment, the first $100 billion of which will be deployed immediately.All that money will be plowed into artificial intelligence infrastructure, especially large-scale computing clusters of the kind required to operate AI systems like ChatGPT, and the funds are coming from OpenAI itself, alongside SoftBank, Oracle, and MGX, with Arm, Microsoft, and NVIDIA also involved as technology partners.It’s a big, beefy enterprise, in other words, and the fact that this has been in the works since 2022, it’s official announcement seemingly held back so that newly returned US President Trump could announce it as part of his administration’s focus on American infrastructure and AI dominance, didn’t dim the glow of the now-formal announcement of what looks to be a truly audacious bet on this collection of technologies, doubts about the players involved having the money they’ve promised ready, notwithstanding.That said, this is far from the only big, billions and tens of billions-scale wager in this space right now.Last year, Microsoft announced a $30 billion infrastructure fund, in collaboration with BlackRock, and earlier in January of 2025, Google’s CEO said that his company would spend about $80 billion on the same, separate from their commitment to Stargate.Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently divulged that the company would spend somewhere between $60-65 billion on capital expenditures, mostly on AI, in 2025—that’s up about 70% from 2024 spending.And last December, xAI CEO Elon Musk announced that his company had just raised a fresh $6 billion to build-out more compute infrastructure; and his role at the head of that company is assumed to be part of why he trash-talked the aforementioned Stargate effort, though there’s also a long-simmering animus between him and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and the fact that everyone seems to be trying to get in good with Trump—which is probably part of why many of these announcements are happening right now: Trump is in the position to king-make or cripple their respective efforts, so whomever can get in good with him, or best with him, might have an advantage in what’s become a very expensive knife-fight in this most rapidly burgeoning of tech investment loci.There’s a reason there’s so much money flowing to this space, announcements aside, right now, too: the chatbots that’ve emerged from the GPT, LLM era of AI systems are impressive and useful for many things, and AI powered bots could even replace other sorts of user interfaces, like search engines and apps, with time.But there are also some more out-there efforts that are beginning to bear fruit.AI is helping Google’s DeepMind team discover new materials at an astonishing rate—including both the discovery and the testing of their properties, stage.AI systems are also being used to accelerate drug discovery and trial design, and a company (backed by OpenAI’s Altman) is trying to extend human life by a decade using exactly this process.Meta has a new tool that enables real-time speech and text translation between up to (depending on the type of translation being done) 101 different languages, and we’re even seeing AI systems meant to detect and track small, otherwise overlooked infrastructure issues, like potholes, at a local level.And to be clear, this is far from a US government and US-based tech company effort: government agencies, globally, are scrambling to figure out how to regulate AI in such a way that harms are limited but research, investment, and innovation isn’t hampered, and entities all over the place are plowing vast wealth into these projects and their related infrastructure; India’s Reliance Group recently announced it will build what could become the world’s biggest data center, planned to go into operation within two years—a project with an estimated price tag of somewhere between $20-30 billion. And that, all by itself, would more than triple the country’s data center footprint.So this scramble is big but also global, and it’s partly motivated by the gold rush-like desire to be first to something like artificial general intelligence, or AGI, which would theoretically be capable of doing basically anything a human can do, and possibly better.That could, depending on the cost of developing and running such a system, put a lot of humans out of work, scrambling the world and its economy it all sorts of ways, and causing untold disruptions and maybe even havoc. That chaos could be very good for business, however, for whomever is able to sell this new commodity of labor to everyone else, replacing most or all of their employees with digital versions of the same—each one cheaper than a comparable human would be to perform the same work.What I’d like to talk about today, though, is a challenge to the currently dominant theory of operation in this industry, and why a new family of AI models is sending many of the tech world’s biggest players into a panic.—A lot of the news coming out of the AI world, at the moment, is focused on what are called agents, or agentic AI.An AI agent is a system that can operate with agency: it can do things on its own. So you could have one of these systems, something you might engage with like a chatbot, but one capable of taking complex instructions, and you could tell it to find the best e-bike for your use case, and it would then take your info, your context, your needs into consideration, do a bunch of research, and maybe even buy and set up the delivery of the bike for you, with limited check-ins required on your part.A truly agentic AI would operate as sort of a personal assistant, capable of doing anything a human personal assistant would be able to do—sans the physical body, of course—though that could come later.This is generally seen as a step on the path toward AGI, and perhaps even AI superintelligence, which would be AGI that’s massively smarter and better at everything than any human, all of which also moves these things from the realm of “tool to be wielded by humans”, toward something more like a robot that can do all the things it’s supposed to do, without a human present; a different category of product and service.This type of AI, with this level of capability, is generally considered to be really expensive to make—to train, in the industry parlance—and to use, because of how much computing power is required to run the code required to leverage these sorts of smarts.In 2020, ChatGPT-3 cost somewhere between $2-4 million to train. Its successor, ChatGPT-4, which was deployed in 2023 cost more like $75-100 million.That’s a lot more money. The model is a lot more powerful, granted, but the scaling laws that have seemed to be at play in this space, the increase in cost between generations of AI, have suggested that getting another capability leap comparable to what we saw between ChatGPT-3 and 4 would cost something like a billion dollars, and even that might give us a jump, but not the same staggering growth in performance that we saw between those generations.The are arguments to be made that the size and type of dataset matter, here, and that the culling of said datasets, and how the models are tuned to use the data and respond to things are also vital, perhaps as much or more so than the initial training.Companies like OpenAI have also figured out all sorts of ways to wring more performance out of less training and compute, including things like allowing the AI to reference other sources—basically doing a web search or checking wikipedia and similar references, in addition to knowledge that already exists in its training dataset—or allowing them to “think” longer, giving them more time to work through a problem or task, which tends to lead to better results, even with weaker—in terms of training and compute power—systems.Ultimately, though, most of these companies seem to be assuming that more money churned into more infrastructure and compute capability will be necessary, to make these things better at doing science and solving global problems, at maybe running military campaigns-scale issues, but also at replacing humans as employees—creating more agentic, ultimately, they hope, AGI-level systems.So that’s a big part of why there’s so much money sloshing around in the AI world right now: all these companies want to build the biggest, baddest model, they would love to develop AGI and put everyone out of work, and they assume that more money will equal more potency, so if they don’t start building now, they risk being left behind in a couple of years when all their competitor’s snazzy new assets are available and powering their AI systems—which could allow their competitors to get there first, and there’s a general assumption that it’s important to be first or close to first on this, as truly AGI-level, or beyond AI could theoretically allow them to refine their own systems faster, which could secure them a permanent lead over their opposition, moving forward.Though the US is generally considered to be in the prime position in that particular race, so far, China has been investing a lot in this space, as well, and many of their investments have been similar to those of their Western competitors; dropping lots of money on the issue, building big infrastructure, and so on.They’ve been hindered quite a lot by Western, especially US, sanctions, though, and that’s made it more difficult, not impossible, but more time-consuming and expensive for them, to get the highest-end chips optimized for AI systems, like those made by NVIDIA.This has forced them to take some different approaches to their international peers, and while many of those approaches still involve huge price tags and build-outs, some of them have instead focused on a less-celebrated aspect of the industry: that of smaller models that are a lot more efficient, achieving gains that are out of proportion to their training and operating costs.Case in point are the new DeepSeek R1 models, which are a collection of AI models that were cheap to make, released free for public use and editing, and which seem to beat OpenAI’s o1 reasoning models—which are very much not free, and which were a lot more expensive to develop—on some of the most widely used performance benchmarks.These models apparently cost something like 3-5% what OpenAI spent on its o1 model, a mere $5.6 million, and again, they’re free to use, but also open source, so anyone who wants to build their own business or new AI atop them can do so; and their API costs are more than 90% lower than o1’s, so it’s also a lot cheaper to use these models for development purposes than OpenAI’s options.This isn’t the first time a Chinese company has taken a look at what folks are doing in the west and then massively undercut their efforts by amplifying the efficiency many fold. Also, again, there’s a constraint on Chinese companies’ ability to get the latest and greatest AI hardware, which incentivizes this path of development, and they also have a super competitive tech industry in China, which tends to force a lot of their sub-industries, like batteries and solar panels, to iterate rapidly and push costs as low as functionally possible.This family of models was made as kind of a side project by someone who’s been competing within that somewhat brutal evolutionary context, and the rest of the world, by comparison, just hasn’t had the same forcing functions influencing its development path—so this level of efficiency with this level of performance has been, up to this point, unheard of. And as a result, these DeepSeek models have sent the US and other western tech industries into a tizzy.And it makes sense that these people would be panicking: they have spent, and are intending to continuing spending heavily on next-gen AI infrastructure, and this type of model, trained for basically nothing, demonstrating this level of performance? It calls all those investments into question, even to the point that some commentators—without evidence, so there’s no reason to believe this is the case—have wondered out loud if this might be some kind of psyop by China to kill the US’s AI industry, basically making it look like a bad investment, if these kinds of results can be achieved so inexpensively elsewhere.Again, that’s almost certainly not what’s happening here, but these models have reportedly landed like a live hand grenade in the offices of the US AI industry, with folks in big tech companies frantically trying to figure out how DeepSeek does what it does, and then surreptitiously copying whatever they can to try to get ahead of this, build their own version of the same and maybe work those findings into their planned investments.Meta in particular has apparently been on edge about this, as they’ve tried to own the free, open AI model space with their Llama family of AI models; which have been generally well received, but apparently DeepSeek’s earlier model, v3, was already messing with their heads, surpassing what they were able to do with llama, and this new family, the R1 family, has them worried they won’t be able to hold onto that position, and might not even be able to compete, despite their tens of billions of dollars worth of investment.What’s more, something this effective and efficient can be run by a lot of companies that would otherwise have had to rely on entities like OpenAI and Meta, which have the computing infrastructure—all those big buildings they’re constructing at a frantic rate and high cost—to handle the larger models.Non-AI companies that want to use these systems, though, could theoretically just buy their own, smaller setup and run their own AI, in-house, which would alleviate some security concerns related having all that stuff processed off-site, but it would also almost certainly be cheaper over the long-term, compared to just paying someone like Google or OpenAI for their services, forever.All of this has resulted in a fair bit of volatility in the US stock market, which has been heavily reliant on AI-oriented tech stocks for growth over the past year, with NVIDIA in particular taking a hit, due to the possibility that heavyweight chips might not be vital to creating high-end AI systems.There are downsides to DeepSeek, of course, perhaps most obviously that this model, having come from China, is laden with censorship about exactly the sorts of things you would expect: Tianammen Square, China’s government and it’s many well-documented abuses, and so on. There could be more issues, too, that the folks who look into such things will discover after spending more time with this family of AI, though thus far, the response has generally been very positive, even with those caveats.Either way, this challenges the assumption that the US or any other country can stifle another nation’s, or group’s, AI ambitions with hardware sanctions.It also suggests that, if this general approach could be replicated, we may see a lot more models that are cheap and easy to run, but which are also effective enough for a lot of those next-step, higher-end utilities. And that would allow AI to spread a lot more quickly, more people being able to wield more powerful tools, while also potentially doing away with many of the moats—the defendable, unique value propositions—these larger tech companies assumed they would have by building and controlling the pricy infrastructure they assumed would be necessary to spin-up AI systems of that calibre.Show Noteshttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/story/ai-meets-materials-discovery/https://semianalysis.com/2025/01/23/openai-stargate-joint-venture-demystified/https://openai.com/index/announcing-the-stargate-project/https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/24/stargate-will-use-solar-and-batteries-to-power-100b-ai-venture/https://www.ft.com/content/4541c07b-f5d8-40bd-b83c-12c0fd662bd9https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/23/trump-staff-musk-conflict-00200311https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/24/technology/elon-musk-xai-funding.htmlhttps://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/22/trump-had-phone-call-with-openais-sam-altman-last-week.htmlhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/https://apnews.com/article/trump-ai-artificial-intelligence-executive-order-eef1e5b9bec861eaf9b36217d547929chttps://restofworld.org/2025/global-ai-regulation-big-tech/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-spending-ai-facebook-data-centers-9452a88fhttps://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-invest-up-65-bln-capital-expenditure-this-year-2025-01-24/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-23/billionaire-mukesh-ambani-plans-world-s-biggest-data-center-in-india-s-gujarat?embedded-checkout=truehttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-24/apple-enlists-company-veteran-kim-vorrath-to-help-fix-ai-and-siri?embedded-checkout=truehttps://www.ft.com/content/25a473ea-9f87-474a-8729-bc5287df853ahttps://spectrum.ieee.org/machine-translationhttps://techcrunch.com/2025/01/24/elevenlabs-has-raised-a-new-round-at-3b-valuation-led-by-iconiq-growth-sources-say/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-24/vc-lightspeed-bets-big-on-ai-megadeals-backing-anthropic-xai-mistralhttps://www.ft.com/content/7dcd4095-717e-49f8-8d12-6c8673eb73d7https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/technology/ai-test-humanitys-last-exam.htmlhttps://every.to/chain-of-thought/we-tried-openai-s-new-agent-here-s-what-we-foundhttps://www.platformer.news/openai-operator-ai-agent-hands-on/https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/23/openai-launches-operator-an-ai-agent-that-performs-tasks-autonomously/https://www.axios.com/2025/01/19/ai-superagent-openai-metahttps://blog.google/technology/google-deepmind/google-gemini-ai-update-december-2024/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/01/china-is-catching-up-with-americas-best-reasoning-ai-models/https://www.macrumors.com/2025/01/27/deepseek-ai-app-top-app-store-ios/https://www.statista.com/chart/33114/estimated-cost-of-training-selected-ai-models/https://sherwood.news/tech/a-free-powerful-chinese-ai-model-just-dropped-but-dont-ask-it-about/https://www.axios.com/2025/01/17/deepseek-china-ai-modelhttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/technology/deepseek-china-ai-chips.htmlhttps://archive.ph/WMUbbhttps://x.com/pmarca/status/1882719769851474108https://venturebeat.com/ai/tech-leaders-respond-to-the-rapid-rise-of-deepseek/https://archive.ph/vDsQ4https://archive.ph/CrbGOhttps://x.com/nealkhosla/status/1882859736737194183https://x.com/samfbiddle/status/1882882950368473161https://x.com/samfbiddle/status/1882884223008493887 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

The podcast delves into the chaotic aftermath of the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, resulting in significant casualties on both sides. It discusses the urgent humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with millions displaced and in dire need. The conversation shifts to the roles of Qatar and Egypt in facilitating ceasefire negotiations and the complexities of a proposed three-phase peace plan. Lastly, it highlights the precarious post-ceasefire situation, where tensions with Hezbollah and potential further conflicts loom over the region.

This week we talk about the Pacific Palisades, Hurricane Katrina, and reinsurance.We also discuss developed property values, arsons, and the cost of disasters.Recommended Book: The Data Detective by Tim HarfordTranscriptNatural disasters, whether we’re talking about storms or fires or earthquakes, or some combination of those and other often related issues, like flooding, can be incredibly expensive.This has always been true, both in terms of lives and material damage caused, but also in terms of raw currency—the value of stuff that’s destroyed and thus has to be rebuilt, replaced, or in some rare cases partitioned off so that similar things don’t happen in the future, or because the space is just so irreparably demolished that it’s not cost effective to do anything with the land, moving forward.The four most expensive natural disasters that we’ve been able to tally—so this doesn’t include historical disasters that are far enough back that we can’t really quantify the damage, due to an inability to directly compare, or insufficient data upon which to base such quantification—the top four that we can line up against other such disasters and compare the numbers for are all earthquakes.The earthquake in Japan in 2011 that, in addition to causing a lot of damage unto itself, also caused the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant tops the list, with a cost at the time of around $360 billion, which would be nearly $490 billion in today’s dollars.The second most expensive natural disaster is also an earthquake in Japan, this one hitting a region called Hanshin in 1995, causing about $200 billion worth of damage in mid-90s money, which would be about $400 billion, today, and the third was an earthquake not too long ago, the 2023 quake that struck along Turkey and Syria’s border, causing something like $160 billion in damage.The fourth costliest natural disaster hit China in 2008, causing around $130 billion in damage, which is about $184 billion in today’s money.These disasters also caused a lot of casualties and deaths; about 20,000 people died in that most-costly, nuclear-incident-triggering quake, while nearly 88,000 were killed in that fourth-most-costly, Chinese one.The Great Hanshin quake, in comparison, lead to somewhere around 6,000 deaths: which is still just a staggering human loss, but it’s an order of magnitude less than in those other comparable disasters; which hints at the trend we see with these sorts of events—the scale of wounded and killed doesn’t necessarily correlate with the scale of costs associated with damaged and destroyed infrastructure and other assets.The costliest natural disaster in US history, as of the first week of 2025, at least, was Hurricane Katrina back in 2005, which all but destroyed the city of New Orleans and much of the surrounding area, causing around $125 billion in damage, which is equivalent to about $195 billion, today, but it only led to around 1,400 deaths: again, all of those deaths absolute tragedies, and any disaster that causes that many deaths is an historical event. But looking at the raw numbers, that’s a shockingly low figure compared to the sum of the monetary damages tallied; it’s actually remarkable as few people died as they did, looking at this storm and it’s impacts through that lens.What I’d like to talk about today is another natural disaster, this one ongoing as I record this, that looks primed to take the record of most-costly, in terms of money, US natural disaster from Katrina, and some of the implications of this disaster.—Part of why disasters in the US, natural or otherwise, tend to result in fewer fatalities than those that occur elsewhere is that the US is a very wealthy country with relatively high-quality and widely dispersed infrastructure.There are quibbles to be voiced about that claim, as many recent reports indicate that said infrastructure isn’t terribly well maintained, and that the country’s healthcare setup and relatively low pay and support for the sorts of people who save lives and rescue victims in the midst of such disasters raise questions about how long this will continue to be the case; some of these high-quality systems are somewhat fragile, in other words, and won’t always perform at the level they arguably should.That said, in general, when need be, US government institutions—federal and regional—are capable of throwing money at issues until they mostly go away, and they have a lot of decent resources to leverage when need-be, as well. Americans in general also have reasonable amounts of resources to call upon, on average at least, when they need to flee town and stay elsewhere for a while until a storm subsides, for instance.This is all on average, and we tend to see the gaps in that generality when disasters hit, and Katrina is a perfect example of this disaster illuminated dichotomy, as a lot of the country’s least well off people, who have arguably been let down by the system and their government in various ways, were unable to do what everyone else was capable of doing, and were thus stuck in ramshackle and dangerous accommodations, and in some cases weren’t rescued because of the nature of the infrastructure that was meant to help protect them, but which was ultimately incapable of doing so. Other people were shuttled by those entities to other parts of the country while the disaster was being handled, and some were never brought back—it was all a pretty big scandal.Looking at the averages, though, the US tends to experience disasters that are more expensive in terms of money than lives because there’s more costly infrastructure in place, more valuable assets owned by pretty much everyone, compared to many other nations around the world, at least, and folks are generally capable of getting out of the way of stuff that might kill them—at least when we’re talking about things like storms and fires.Case in point is the ongoing, as of the day I’m recording this, jumble of wildfires that are menacing, and in some cases demolishing, parts of the Greater Los Angeles area in Southern California.As of the day I’m recording this, a day before this episode goes live, there are two primary fires still spreading, designated as the Eaton and Palisades fires, those names based on the regions in which they started to flare out of control, and several smaller ones called the Kenneth, Hurst, and Lidia fires.The Palisades fire is currently the largest, having burned about 24,000 acres, followed by the Eaton, which has consumed around 14,000 acres. The Kenneth, Hurst, and Lidia fires have burned around 1,000, 800, and 400 acres, respectively.That’s…not huge. Tens of thousands of acres is a decent sized plot of land, definitely, but for comparison, the Smokehouse Creek Fire that burned through parts of Texas and Oklahoma in 2024, and which became the largest wildfire in Texas history, consumed more than 1,100,000 acres.The Park Fire, which plagued Northern California in mid-2024, is the state’s largest-ever arson-caused fire, and it consumed nearly half a million acres.So a total of just of 40,000 acres or so for this new collection of fires is piddly, within that context.The difference here is that both of those other fires consumed mostly, though not entirely, undeveloped land. And such land, while not value-less, is not the same kind of asset, in terms of dollars and cents, as heavily developed, with homes and businesses and electrical cables and roads and other such infrastructure, land tends to be.These new, Southern California fires are smaller than those other, big-name wildfires, then, but they’re also consuming some of the most expensive real estate, and the properties and other assets build atop that real estate, in the world.As of right now, the Kenneth and Lidia fires are completely contained, and the Hurst is getting there. The Eaton and Palisades fires, the two largest of the group, are still mostly uncontained, however, due in part to wild and dangerous winds that are making containment efforts difficult, in some cases preventing aerial efforts, and in others making conditions extra risky for people on the ground, due to the dynamic and quick-moving nature of things.Given all of this, and again, given that these fires are burning homes worth tens of millions of dollars, located on coastal land that’s in some case worth around the same, it’s perhaps no surprise that analysts are already projecting that these fires could cause something like $50 to $150 billion in economic losses; and for comparison, the aforementioned Camp Fire in Northern California, which also consumed some fairly expensive homes and real estate, in addition to the undeveloped park land it consumed, only tallied about $30 billion in damage, all told, while the fires that hit Hawaii in 2023 added up to just $5.7 billion.Of that $50-150 billion total, it’s estimated that around $20 billion will be covered by insurance, which represents a staggering loss for those without any, or without the proper insurance, but also potentially represents a huge loss for residents of California, as the state has an insurance of last resort scheme called the FAIR Plan, which is a privately run, but state-created entity that serves those who can’t find insurance via conventional, private insurers. And often, though not always this means those customers are in areas that are too expensive or too risky for traditional insurance companies to operate in.In practice, that usually means insurers of last resort have a portfolio full of risky bets, and the plans they offer are more expensive than usual, and tend to provide less coverage and benefits than the conventional stuff.In these sorts of situations, though, we have a whole lot of risky bets than have suddenly come up snake eyes, this FAIR Plan suddenly having to pay out billions of dollars to their customers in these risky areas. And between 2023 and 2024, the number of homes in the very expensive Pacific Palisades area, which is high-risk for wildfires, nearly doubled to around $6 billion of covered assets in that zip code, alone. It’s been estimated that the plan could have something like $24 billion in total losses from this cluster of ongoing fires.The FAIR Plan isn’t government-funded: instead, if it runs out of money because of high levels of payouts, private insurance companies foot the bill, which will place further strain on those insurance companies, which are already expected to be staggered by losses across the region, but also then raises insurance prices for everyone in that area, moving forward, which could further inflate expenses for the state’s tens of millions of residents, while also possibly incentivizing businesses to move elsewhere, which would reduce taxflows to state coffers, and over time cause even more financial problems.Reinsurance claims could muddle some of this math—reinsurance being basically insurance plans for insurance companies, bought from other, specialized insurance companies—as sufficient reinsurance coverage could help the FAIR Plan, and other insurers operating in these areas, weather the storm without being forced to raise prices excessively. But those companies, too, might then raise their reinsurance rates substantially, and those increases would then ripple across this same economic landscape.Lots of potential long-term financial damage, either way, on top of the assets lost and damage caused directly, and of course, the human losses, which as of the day I’m recording this, totals 24 people confirmed killed, dozens of people missing, and a still unquantified number of injuries and lives completely, perhaps permanently disrupted or upended.This whole situation—these fires—are complicated by many factors.The climate is one, as 2024 was the hottest year on record, the first one we’ve experienced, as a species, above that now-famous 1.5 degrees celsius-beyond-pre-industrial-levels milestone. That figure will fluctuate day to day and even year to year due to all sorts of variables, but the big picture here is that the global water cycle has changed because global average temperatures have been nudged upward, and that’s causing a lot of upsets to local infrastructure and ecosystems that have always, since we’ve been here, at least, relied on that cycle functioning in a certain way, within a certain spectrum of operation.Now that we’ve defied that spectrum, we’re finding ourselves with more extreme disasters of all kinds, but also more extreme and dangerous and damaging and deadly repercussions from those disasters, because the things we did to ameliorate them previously no longer work the same way, either.So California, especially this part of California, has been even drier than usual, and the way the state used to prevent the spread of wildfires no longer works the way it used to work; a climactic issue compounded by issues with the systems we’ve clung to, despite the problems they’re meant to address having evolved substantially since they were originally developed and deployed.This situation is also complicated by the fact that southern California, and especially the LA area, is a hotbed for global entertainment, and that means a lot of wealth concentration.Lots of people scrambling to buy and build homes with beautiful coastal views, and the fact that these areas are high-risk for wildfires and increasingly other disasters, as well, doesn’t really matter, because rich people want to be in this area, around all this activity and wealth, and it’s generally understood that wealth can make you immune to these sorts of things, at least most of the time.That immunity is no longer such a given, and that high concentration of expensive assets means that even a relatively small fire can cause a heck of a lot of damage in a relatively short time.The same general collection of properties also means this region has a lot of landmarks that are at high-risk of destruction, and which are increasingly expensive to maintain and protect and repair, and it means the world is watching, to a certain degree—as celebrities flee their homes and influencers report the beat-by-beat of their evacuations—which in turn means there’s plenty of incentive to spread misinformation, either out of a desire to participate in the situation, or because of honest ignorance, or for political and ideological reasons: wanting to paint the local governance as incompetent, for instance.At the moment, folks in the area are suffering from periodic power outages, largely due to local utilities shutting down some of their service areas in order to avoid starting new fires, their power cables and high winds sometimes sparking such things even in less pressure-cooker-like moments. And the air quality is absolutely abysmal, leading to localized health issues.Some areas have run out of water, apparently due to issues with reservoir infrastructure, and one of the two firefighting planes the local authorities have been using to douse the fires when the wind conditions allow has been grounded for repairs, after colliding with an illegally flown drone, the operator of which was apparently a paparazzi trying to capture photos of celebrity homes, either being consumed by fire or somehow avoiding such a fate.Again, this is a fast-moving story, and a lot is changing day by day, but at the moment it’s looking like this could become the most expensive natural disaster in US history, and while local authorities are making progress in halting these fires’ spread, the damage that’s been done has already been substantial, and could have a lot of knock-on effects, for individuals and for the state’s and country’s economy, for years to come.Show Noteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Firehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokehouse_Creek_Firehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/01/09/los-angeles-wildfire-economic-losses/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_FAIR_Planhttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/08/climate/california-homeowners-insurance-fires.htmlhttps://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/fair-plan-insurance-losses-20025263.phphttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/01/08/weather/los-angeles-fire-maps-california.htmlhttps://www.wsj.com/finance/wildfire-insurance-homeowners-costs-3889531fhttps://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-insurance-crisis-that-will-follow-the-california-fireshttps://archive.ph/Inso5https://www.npr.org/2025/01/09/nx-s1-5252837/will-there-be-enough-money-to-pay-out-insurance-claims-from-the-la-wildfireshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/01/09/california-wildfire-palisades-homeowners-insurance/https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/01/public-health-emergency-declared-amid-las-devastating-wildfires/https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-wildfires-southern-california-c5826e0ab8db965cb2814132ff54ee6fhttps://apnews.com/video/fires-wildfires-los-angeles-los-angeles-area-wildfires-california-574351467d2142ad958c212a0413ad96https://www.reuters.com/world/us/san-fernando-valley-under-threat-los-angeles-fire-rages-2025-01-12/https://www.wsj.com/us-news/los-angeles-wildfires-social-media-rumors-44d224b4https://www.wsj.com/style/los-angeles-hollywood-fires-celebrities-homes-paris-hilton-d1e3a7dehttps://www.vulture.com/article/hollywood-paparazzi-los-angeles-fire.htmlhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/12/california-fires-death-toll-expected-rise-ucla-threatened-winds-latest-updateshttps://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-was-first-year-above-15c-global-warming-scientists-say-2025-01-10/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/us/los-angeles-fire-water-hydrant-failure.html?unlocked_article_code=1.oE4.OUQs.lcdCoSSeQBtLhttps://www.axios.com/2025/01/11/los-angeles-fire-insurance-losses-billionshttps://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-08/palisades-fire-devastation-scopehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2025/01/11/los-angeles-fires-california-updates-palisades-eaton-kenneth/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-09/drone-collides-with-firefighting-aircraft-over-palisades-fire-faa-sayshttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/11/us/los-angeles-calfire-firefighters.htmlhttps://www.axios.com/2025/01/12/la-fires-climate-change-drought-extreme-weatherhttps://www.axios.com/2025/01/12/california-wildfires-loss-mental-healthhttps://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/01/12/us/los-angeles-fires-californiahttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/12/us/trump-los-angeles-fire-newsom-bass.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrinahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Sichuan_earthquakehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Turkey%E2%80%93Syria_earthquakeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanshin_earthquakehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunamihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_by_cost This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

The podcast dives into the definition of 'lone wolf' violence, highlighting its complex ties to mass killings and terrorism. It discusses the alarming increase in such incidents, fueled by societal views on firearms. A controversial murder case explores public reactions divided by corporate greed. The tragic New Year's attack in New Orleans sheds light on extremism and personal struggles. It emphasizes the dangers of ideological divides that dehumanize opponents, and the challenges in identifying and preventing lone wolf threats.

Dive into the turbulent history of South Korea from post-WWII division to modern political challenges. Explore the controversial leadership of Syngman Rhee, whose anti-communist stance led to a bloody crackdown on dissent. Learn about the assassination of a dictator and how it catalyzed a pro-democracy movement. Discover the current political landscape, spotlighting Yoon Suk-yul's presidency, marred by martial law and ongoing impeachment proceedings. History, conflict, and democracy collide in this engaging discussion.

Dive into the uprisings of the Arab Spring, where a single protest in Tunisia ignited a wave of revolts across the Middle East. Explore the intricate history of Bashar al-Assad's rise to power and the subsequent civil unrest fueled by oppression. The discussion unpacks the chaotic dynamics of the Syrian civil war, highlighting foreign interventions and the struggles among various factions. Delve into the geopolitical ramifications and the plight of Syrian refugees, all while drawing connections to contemporary literature.

This week we talk about emissions, carbon credits, and climate reparations.We also discuss Baku, COP meetings, and petrostates.Recommended Book: The Struggle for Taiwan by Sulmaan Wasif KhanTranscriptIn 2016, a group of 195 nations signed the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, usually just called the Paris Agreement, which was negotiated the previous year, and which, among other things, formalized the idea of attempting to keep the global average temperature from increasing by 1.5 C, which is about 2.7 F, above pre-industrial levels.The really bad stuff, climate-wise, was expected to happen at around 2 degrees C above that pre-industrial level, so the 1.5 degrees cutoff made sense as sort of a breakwater meant to protect humanity and the natural world from the most devastating consequences of human-amplified climate change.This has served decently well as a call-to-arms for renewable energy projects and other efforts meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and many nations have actually made really solid strides in that direction since this agreement was formalized, dramatically truncating their emissions in a variety of ways, while also laying the groundwork for long-term reductions by installing a whole lot of solar and wind, reviving old and building new nuclear power facilities, reinforcing and expanding their grids, including adding all sorts of large-scale battery storage, and figuring out ways to reduce energy consumption, which has allowed for the shut-down of coal and oil plants.Shorter-term solutions, like replacing more polluting and emitting sources of energy, like coal, with gas, have also put a big dent in overall global emissions, especially for entities like the US and Europe; this isn’t ideal as a permanent measure, because there are still a lot of emissions associated with gas, especially its transport, because of leakage, and gas itself, in the atmosphere, has really significant greenhouse properties, but in the short-term this has proven to be one of the most impactful solutions for some nations and large corporations, and it’s increasingly being seen as a transitionary measure, even by those who oppose the use of any fossil fuels long-term.Things have been going decently well, then, even if progress is still far short of where it needs to be for most countries to meet their Paris Agreement commitments, and far slower than many people who are watching this space, and analyzing whether we’ll be able to avoid triggering those much-worse climate outcomes, would prefer.One issue we’re running into, now, is that those original commitments were a little fuzzy, as the phrase “preindustrial period” could mean many different periods, even if it’s commonly assumed to be something like 1850 to 1900, in the lead-up to humanity’s full-on exploitation of fossil fuels and the emergence of what we might call the modern era—society empowered by things like coal and oil and gas, alongside the full deployment of electrical grids.Throughout this period, though, from the mid-19th century to today, the climate has experienced huge swings year to year, and decade to decade. The evidence showing that we humans are throwing natural systems way off their equilibrium are very clear at this point, and it isn’t a question of whether we’re changing the climate—it’s more a question of how much, how quickly, and compared to what; what baseline are we actually using, because even during that commonly used 1850 to 1900 span of time, the climate fluctuated a fair bit, so it’s possible to pick and choose baseline numbers from a range of them depending on what sort of picture you want to paint.Research from the World Meteorological Organization in 2022 found that, as of that year, we were probably already something like 1.15 degrees C above preindustrial levels, but that it was hard to tell because La Niña, a weather phenomenon that arises periodically, alongside its opposite, El Niño, had been cooling things down and dampening the earth-warming impacts of human civilization for about three years.They estimated, taking La Niña’s impact into consideration, that the world would probably bypass that breakwater 1.5 degrees C milestone sometime in the next four years—though this bypassing might be temporary, as global temperatures would increase for a few years because of the emergence of El Niño.Adding to the complexity of this calculation is that aforementioned variability in the climate, region to region, and globally. The WMO estimated that through 2027, the world is likely to fluctuate between 1.1 and 1.8 degrees C above preindustrial levels—and that at that higher range, El Niño might tip things into the especially dangerous 2 degree C territory the Paris Agreement was supposed to help us avoid.By late-2024, it was becoming increasingly obvious that the world had stepped past the 1.5 degrees threshold into unfamiliar climactic terrain.Three of the five leading research groups that keep tabs on this matter have said that in addition to 2024 being the warmest year on record, it will also be the first year we’ve ever surpassed that 1.5 degree level.Notably, simply popping up above 1.5 degrees doesn’t suggest we’re now permanently living in that long worried about climate nightmarish world: there are significant, normal fluctuations in this kind of thing, alongside those associated with the El Niño/La Niña patterns; there are a lot of variables acting upon our climate, in other words, in addition to the human variables that are pushing those averages and fluctuating ranges up, over time.The concern here, though, even if we drop back down below 1.5 degrees C for a while is that this temperature band opens up a whole new spectrum of weather-related consequences, ranging from substantial, persistent, crop-killing, barely survivable heat and drought in some parts of the world, to things like larger, more frequent, and more difficult to predict storm systems, like the ones we’ve already seen in abundance this and last year, but bigger and wilder and in more areas that don’t typically see such storms.What I’d like to talk about today is what happened at a recent climate-policy focused meeting, COP29, and the international response to that meeting.—The United Nations Conference of the Parties of the UN Climate Change Conference, or COP meetings, are held every year in a different host country, and they’re meant to serve as a formal space where governments can present their goals and boast of their climate-related accomplishments. They also serve as a platform for negotiations related to things like emissions standards and goal-setting, like that aforementioned 1.5 degrees C temperature level we’ve been trying to avoid hitting.The most recent of these meetings, COP29, was held in Baku, the capitol of Azerbaijan, in mid- to late-November of 2024. And that location was pretty controversial from the get-go because Azerbaijan is a petro-state: its authoritarian government basically funded and sustained by the sale of oil and gas, all of which flows through a state-owned, corruption-laden, local elite-profiting energy company.This isn’t the first time a full-on petro-state has hosted a COP meeting, as COP28 was held in Dubai, in the UAE, which was also controversial.But this one was seen as a step even further toward what might read as the appropriation or capture of the COP meetings for the benefit of fossil fuel entities, as the meeting was partly hosted by so-called official partners, which were fossil fuel business interests directly owned by the country’s president, while others weren’t directly owned, but were connected to his family’s other businesses, all of them thus linked to both authoritarian corruption, and the wealth associated with fossil fuel focused economics.As a result, there were allegations that this whole meeting was premised on providing a notorious source of greenhouse gas emissions, which has every reason to try to keep those emitting products available for as long as possible, a venue for greenwashing their efforts, while also giving them the power to moderate discussions related to global emissions targets and other climate change-oriented issues; a major conflict of interest, basically.The Azerbaijani president, leading up to the meeting, countered that critiques of his country’s government and human rights record and prominence as a fossil fuel exporter were all part of a smear campaign, and that these unwarranted, preemptive criticisms wouldn’t stop those running COP29 from achieving their goal of helping the world “cope with the negative impacts of climate change.”That statement, too, was criticized, as it implies fossil fuel are more interested in pushing the world to adapt to a climate change and its impacts, rather than attempting to halt the emissions that are causing said climate change; many such companies seem keen to keep pumping oil and burning coal and gas forever, in other words, and their efforts in this regard thus tend to orient around figuring out what the new, warmer, more chaotic world looks like, rather than entertaining the idea of changing their business model in any substantial way.So leading up to this meeting, expectations were low, and by some estimates and according to some analysis, those low expectations were met.Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was a big topic of discussion, for instance, as this article outlines how countries can cooperate with each other to reach their climate targets—and this collaboration is predicated on a carbon credit system.So if County A reduces their emissions by more than the targets set by this group, they can sell the gap, the amount of carbon equivalents not emitted into the atmosphere, to Country B, which failed to reach its targets, but which can bring its emissions into accord by acquiring those credits, which according to such a system count as emissions reductions.This same general concept applies to companies, like airlines and even fossil fuel producing energy companies, as well.But while the agreement reached at COP29 does establish a UN-backed carbon credit trading body, which has been heralded as a key step on the way toward concluding Article 6 negotiations that could open up a bunch of new finance for smaller and poorer countries in particular—as they could sell their carbon credits to their wealthier, more emitting fellow COP members—despite that progress, the scaffolding that exists now is generally considered to be leaky and rife with abuse potential, as the UN body doesn’t really have the teeth to enforce anything or do much checking into claims made by governments and corporations. A lot of this system is basically on the honor system, and that means just like the stated goals presented by governments and corporations as to when they’re be net-zero and when they’ll reach the even further-off goal of zero emissions, these claims are often worth little or nothing because there’s no mechanism for punishing entities that fail to live up to their boasts and ambitions.A company or government could say they plan to hit net-zero by 2035, then, but if they don’t do anything that would allow them to hit that goal in that lead-up to that year, they get to keep claiming to be part of the solution, without having to do any of the work to actually achieve anything. This grants them the veil of sustainability, and without any real consequence.Also notable here is that this meeting’s progress on Article 6, establishing that UN body, was pushed through using a questionable procedural move that disallowed negotiation, despite this same proposal having been dismissed after negotiation at previous COP meetings.So while it’s arguably good to see progress of any kind on these matters, that this component of Article 6 was voted down previously, but then forced through using what amounts to a technicality early on at COP29 is being side-eyed by a lot of COP watchers who worry about these meetings being coopted by forces that are keen to see this carbon system formalized not because it will help the world reduce emissions, but because it will create a new asset class worth hundreds of billions of dollars, which many of them hope to profit from.It’s worth noting, too, that all of the carbon credit markets that have been tried, so far, have either collapsed or served as mechanisms for greenwashing emitting activities; less than 16% of carbon credits issued up till this point represent actual, provable emissions reductions, and most of them are basically just dressed-up money grabs. This new move, despite representing progress of a sort, isn’t being seen as substantial enough to change the current carbon credit paradigm, as those issues have not been addressed, yet.All that said, the big news out of COP29 was a deal that requires wealthier nations make a big payout to poorer nations in the form of climate finance; so paying for renewable energy infrastructure, paying for flood walls, things like that, so that poorer countries can leap-frog the fossil fuel era, and so they can deal with and survive the consequences of climate change, which is something they bear a lot less responsibility for than wealthier, far more emitting countries.Those on the receiving end, representing the nations that will receive payments via this plan, were aiming for a minimum of $500 billion, payable in full by 2035, and they were pushing for a lot more than that: something like $1.3 trillion.The final sum was lower than the minimum target, though, weighing in at just $300 billion; which isn’t great in contrast to those hoped-for figures, though on the upside, it is three-times what was promised as part of a previously negotiated deal from 2009.Representatives from poorer nations have expressed their discontentment with this agreement, saying that the sum is paltry compared to the challenges they face in trying to shift to renewables while also scrambling to defend against increasingly dangerous temperatures and weather patterns.They’ve also criticized the meeting’s leadership for basically gaveling this version of the agreement through before it could be commented upon by those on the receiving end of these payouts.Summing up the consequences of this meeting, then, a lot of money matters were discussed, which is important, and more money was promised to poorer nations by wealthy nations than at earlier meetings, which is also generally considered to be vital to this transition, and to overall fairness within this context—since again, these nations have contributed very little to the issue of climate change, compared to wealthier nations, and they bear a disproportionate amount of the negative consequences of climate change, as well.There are serious concerns that some of these things were passed without the usual level of democratic consideration, and that some of the money talk, especially related to carbon credits, could represent basically a cash-grab by entities that aren’t super-interested in actually changing the status quo, but are very interested in making potentially tens or hundreds of billions of dollars from what amounts to a fabricated asset class that they can spin-up out of nothing.There’s a chance that some of this, even the stuff that’s sparking the most concern at the moment, and which seems to be a cynical appropriation of this group and this whole process, could actually lead to more substantial agreements at future COP meetings.COP30 will be based in Brazil, and Brazil’s current leadership at least has shown itself to be decently concerned with actual climate issues, as opposed to just the money associated with them. And previous meetings have tended to build upon the agreements of their precursors—so the establishment of a UN body for carbon credits could clear the way for an actually empowered, punishment-capable institution that holds companies and countries to their word on things, rather than simply serving as a symbolic institution that watches over a made-up asset class, which seems to be the case, currently. That asset class could become less prone to abuse and manipulation, and could help with this energy transition as it’s ostensibly meant to; but that’ll be determined in large part by what happens at the next couple meetings.However this policymaking plays out, we’ve stepped into a world in which 1.5 C is no longer a far off concern, but a lived reality, at least periodically, and that could nudge things more in the direction of practical outcomes, rather than aspirations and fuzzy goals from this and similar bodies; though the consequences of this and the last few COP meetings have arguably led to luke-warm progress in that direction, at best.Show Noteshttps://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-negotiators-take-key-step-to-global-carbon-deal-1e23433ehttps://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/article-64-mechanismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Azerbaijanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conferencehttps://www.semafor.com/article/11/24/2024/the-cop29-deal-is-even-more-disappointing-than-it-lookshttps://apnews.com/article/united-nations-climate-talks-baku-azerbaijan-finance-8ab629945660ee97d58cdbef10136f35https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/24/cop29s-new-carbon-market-rules-offer-hope-after-scandal-and-deadlockhttps://www.businessgreen.com/blog-post/4382153/cop29-baku-breakthrough-disappoints-trigger-fresh-wave-climate-financehttps://news.mit.edu/2023/explained-climate-benchmark-rising-temperatures-0827https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/climate-crisis-world-temperature-targethttps://grist.org/economics/how-the-world-gave-up-on-1-5-degrees-overshoot/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/11/27/global-warming-fight-paris-agreement-future/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

This week we talk about Mastodon, Threads, and twttr.We also discuss social platform clones, user exoduses, and communication fractures.Recommended Book: Invisible Rulers by Renée DiRestaTranscriptIn 2006, a prototype of a software project called twttr, t-w-t-t-r, was developed by Jack Dorsey and Florian Weber, that name used because the full twitter.com domain, the word with all its vowels, was already owned and in use, and because the vowel-less version of the word only had five letters, which aligned with SMS short codes for the US, which were basically shorthand versions of telephone numbers that were used in lieu of such numbers by mobile network operators at the time.Going without vowels was also super trendy in Silicon Valley back then, due to the flourishing of online success stories like Flickr.Twitter, in that early incarnation, was meant to be a one-to-many SMS service, which means sending text messages from one phone to multiple phones, rather than one to one, which was the default.This early prototype was used internally at Odeo, which was an early-2000s web-based media directory, founded by some of the same people who eventually founded Twitter as a company, and random fun fact, Kevin Systrom who eventually cofounded Instagram, was an intern at Odeo one summer, back in 2005, before the company was sold in 2007.Twitter was spun out as its own company the same year Odeo was sold, and by 2009 it had become the hot new thing in the burgeoning world of the web—folks were sending tens of thousands of tweets, messages that were shared one-to-many, though online, on the web, instead of via SMS, by the end of 2007, and that was up to 50 million a day by early 2010.The whole concept of Twitter, then, from its name, which was initially predicated on SMS short codes, to its famous 140-character limit, was based on earlier technology, that of text messages, and that sort of limitation—which has in the years since been messed with a bit, the company slowly adding more capabilities, including the sharing of images and videos and other media types—but those limitations have in part helped define this platform from its peers, as while Facebook expanded and expanded and expanded to gobble up all of its general-purpose social networking competitors, Instagram dominated the photo-posting space, and YouTube has locked down the long-form video world for more than a decade, twitter held its own as a less-sprawling, less successful by most metrics, but arguably more influential network because it was a place that was optimized for concision and up-to-the-minute conversation, as opposed to every other possible thing it could be.This meant that while it didn’t have the same billion-plus user base, and it didn’t have the ever-growing ad-revenue that Meta’s platforms could claim, it was almost always the more culturally relevant network, its users sharing more up-to-date information, its communities generating more memes, which were then spread to other networks days or weeks later, and it became a hotbed of debate and exclusive information from journalists, politicians, and business owners.A lot changed when Tesla and SpaceX owner Elon Musk bought the network in October of 2022, changing the name to X in mid-2023, and pivoting the company dramatically in basically every way: removing a lot of those earlier limitations, cutting the number of employees by something like 80%, and losing a lot of advertisers because of his many ideological statements and political stances—including his backing of former president and now president-elect Donald Trump in the 2024 election.What I’d like to talk about today are the twitter clones that have popped up in recent years, and one in particular that, despite its still-small size and arguable underdog status, is being heralded as the possible successor of Twitter—in that original, influential and scrappy sense—and what makes this network, Bluesky, different from other would-be successors in this space.—The leadership at X, including owner Musk, recently promoted a new feature on the app that refocuses attention away from buttons like likes and shares in favor of views—a metric of engagement that some analysts have claimed is meant to conceal the fact that the network is seeing a lot less actual, human engagement, and because it feeds people posts it wants them to see, this change allows them to artificially inflate the seeming activity on these posts for advertising purposes: they can say, hey look how much attention these posts are getting, please buy some ads, and that allows them to charge a higher price than if they were using those more conventional engagement metrics, which are apparently collapsing.As a company, X has been hemorrhaging money since Musk took over, its ad revenue, which makes up the majority of its income, dropping by nearly half from 2022 to 2023, and it lost another 24% from the first half of 2023 to the first half of 2024.One estimate released in November of 2024 suggests that X may have missed out on nearly $6 billion in lost ad revenue since Musk took over in 2022, mostly because of all the decisions he’s made—including basically going to war with many of the company’s top advertisers, publicly criticizing and threatening them for not paying more and buying more ads—but also his many foot-in-mouth statements and, at times, support of extremist causes and characters.He’s attempted to bring some of those advertisers back, with mixed success, as the ones that have returned after boycotts have usually invested far less than in the past, and most of the ad-buyers that have filled the gaps are paying a lot less per ad unit than before, and are generally of a lower quality: a lot of cheaply products from low-grade Chinese factories, scams of various sorts, and/or products sold by companies that are politically conservative culture-warriors, aimed at the network’s increasingly right-leaning and far-right audience; a bit like what we’ve seen on Fox News over the past decade or so, following waves of sexual assault and other scandals on that network, which led to similar advertiser exoduses.It’s also been estimated that the network lost a substantial portion of its total user-base following Musk’s takeover, including something like a third of all users in the UK and around a fifth in the United States, all just in 2024, up till the month of September.That loss of revenue and users was enough to cause Fidelity, which owns a multi-million-dollar stake in X, to write down the value of its investment by more than 75%; in July of 2024, it estimated the company, which was purchased for about $44 billion by Musk was only worth about $9.4 billion; a substantial loss for them and their investment, but also for all other shareholders.All of which leads up to what happened in the wake of the US’s most recent presidential election, during which Musk shelled out more than $100 million to support Trump’s campaign, while also pulling out all the stops to promote the former president on X—something that many users weren’t too keen on, as the owners of other social networks have been criticized and threatened in the past for showing any hint of political bias in their business decisions or personal life, and this was incredibly overt.This heavy-handed biasing of the network toward Trump, and that very public support of the candidate by X’s owner, sparked a new exodus from the platform, some people simply quitting social media entirely, at least for a while, but others looking for something of the same, and thus checking out the twitter-clones that have popped up over the past handful of years; the majority of which only actually gained real momentum in the wake of Musk’s takeover and rebranding of the network a few years ago.One of those twitter-alternatives, Mastodon, attracted a lot of early attention because of what it offered that twitter, and other mainstream social networks, did not: an open source platform based on the ActivityPub protocol, which means it can connected to other ActivityPub-capable social networks.So in theory at least, you can have a profile on a Mastodon instance—which a self-hosted Mastodon network, a social platform island of sorts that is connected to other such islands, the totality of the social network made up of a huge number of such instances, all interconnected in various ways, and each offering different rules and focuses—you can have that profile on that island function on other networks beyond Mastodon, as well.And that’s interesting because it means your work, your posts and conversations, are all more portable, allowing you to move to different networks if you choose, without losing your history and connections and credibility, because it’s all compatible with other networks.So it’s almost like having a Facebook profile that you can also use on Twitter and Instagram and YouTube, if all those networks played well together and shared information and post types between each other; that’s the promise of a protocol like ActivityPub and a network like Mastodon.Mastodon was made public in 2016 as a nonprofit, has basically the same feature-set as pre-Musk twitter, and while it had already gained a steady stream of users from previous upsets at networks like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr, among other more mainstream networks, it attained a huge number of new users in 2022 on the news that Musk would be taking over Twitter, hitting around 2.5 million monthly active users by the end of that year.That number has since dropped to just under a million as of September 2024, suggesting that the initial wave of enthusiasm has crested; though the platform continues to see a lot of support within some online communities, and its interactivity with other networks, including Meta’s Threads, which has also added ActivityPub functionality, means that its numbers will always be a little weird, as folks can read Mastodon content and interact with Mastodon users from other, connected networks.Speaking of which, Threads is a twitter-clone that was released by Facebook and Instagram parent-company Meta in July of 2023, and it attained more than 100 million users in just five days, which set a new record for the rate of user-attainment.It took a little while for the network to be released beyond the US, especially in the EU, due to regulatory concerns, and an earlier version of the app was more of a Snapchat-clone, but that one did badly enough with users that the company pulled it from app stores and reused the brand for this new app a few years after that failed experiment.Threads was able to achieve that high adoption rate in part because it promoted the app heavily on Instagram and Facebook, and in part because of Musk’s takeover of, and changes to Twitter. Folks looking for a Twitter-alternative, but who didn’t want to deal with the comparable complexity of something like Mastodon flooded into this new network, and Meta’s decision to push politics and other serious discussions to the algorithmic back-burner made it a friendly space for brands and influencers who didn’t want to be associated with the chaotic forces that were swirling around the newly rebranded X.So Threads is similar to Twitter, but it supports ActivityPub, like Mastodon, and has similar community guidelines to other Meta products—which means there’s a lot less nudity, and fewer references to illegal things, like drugs.It was recently announced that Threads has surpassed 275 million monthly active users, which puts it within spitting distance of independent assessments of X’s monthly active user figure, which Musk recently said was around 600 million, but Sensor Tower says is closer to 318 million, as of October of 2024.There’s been some hubbub about the possibility that Threads might be seeing losses in activity on the network, though, including a drop in how much time users spend on it. This is potentially the result of that decision to keep controversial stuff more or less hidden, and to heavy handedly, compared to other networks, at least, curate the feeds of users, who have very limited power over what they see in their feeds.The company announced they would be adjusting the algorithm significantly in the near-future, in order to allow more breaking news and other such posts to rise to the forefront, and it’s thought that this might be a response to the recent success of another twitter-clone called Bluesky.Bluesky was founded in 2021, and it was originally, back in 2019, an initiative by Twitter to see if decentralizing the network might be possible—making Twitter just one network in a fediverse of networks, basically. As a result, it’s perched atop an open communication protocol it developed called the AT Protocol, which is distinct from, but similar in utility to ActivityPub, in that it allows social platforms to link up and interact with each other, despite being different networks.Bluesky is superficially similar to pre-Musk twitter, but one of its killer apps, one of the things that distinguishes it from most other options in this space right now, alongside the AT Protocol, is the ability to choose your own algorithm, so that rather than having Meta decide what you see in your feed, and rather than just seeing a chronological list of posts from people you follow, you can also choose to follow curated lists of people, to tweak the word and content filters you use, the way posts are arranged, and an abundance of other options; it’s pretty versatile, and you can easily flip between different filters to peruse different sorts of content filtered in different ways.The network launched on an invite-only basis in 2023, and was fully opened to the public in February of 2024, at which point it had already attracted more than 3 million users.Shortly after that launch, Jack Dorsey—the co-founder of Twitter and Bluesky—left Bluesky’s board, saying that the company was making all the mistakes Twitter made and that he was stepping aside to focus on another decentralized social network he founded, Nostr, instead.Bluesky continued to gain users though, relatively slowly most of the time, though whenever Musk did something controversial they would typically see a larger influx, as was the case for all twitter-clones.In October of 2024, several changes to Twitter, including one that basically rendered its block feature useless, and another that said the company could use all posted content for AI training purposes, led to a surge in Bluesky adoption, bringing in more than 1.2 million users in just two days.That paled in comparison to what happened in November, following the election, though, when Bluesky started to grow by about a million users a day, catapulting its user base to more than 20 people million as of November 20—a surge that rocketed the app to the top of the app charts. And for context, the company only has about 20 employees, as of late-November, so that’s a huge employee-to-user ratio.Bluesky is not without controversy, as the company’s leadership has already been criticized for taking investment money from Blockchain Capitol, which could change its incentives, and though it’s approaching 25 million users as of the day I’m recording this, up from a small fraction of that just a month ago, that’s less than 10% of what Threads and X have, and that growth is almost certain to slow sometime soon, once the post-election flight from X has subsided; so it’s possible this surge could be similar to what Mastodon saw not too long ago—a big surge in users, followed by a ebb in activity as people stop using the network for various reasons.The company has also been experiencing growing pains, in terms of tech, because of that sudden, much larger scale, but also in terms of culture.All those newbies joining the network all at once are changing the platform’s makeup, accidentally trampling Bluesky’s traditions and folkways, while also changing the conversational mores and topics and trends from how they were, pre-user-flood.Bluesky is currently the one the beat in terms of growth rate, in other words, and it seems to have achieved significant cultural resonance following the election, especially for people on the left of the political spectrum who no longer feel welcome or comfortable on X.But both Mastodon and Threads have represented the same in recent years, too, though their growth largely the consequence of X’s failure, not necessarily the result of their own accolades and advantages.It’s possible what we’re seeing here, then, is not a struggle to become the next Twitter, but rather the emergence of a fractured text-based social media ecosystem, each platform offering something the others don’t, or favoring some groups and their needs over those of others, and that, in turn, leading to a more fractured communication ecosystem, and maybe reinforced filter bubbles, as well.Show Noteshttps://www.fastcompany.com/91230935/the-website-tracks-how-fast-bluesky-is-growing-in-near-real-timehttps://techcrunch.com/2024/10/18/bluesky-surges-into-the-top-5-as-x-changes-blocks-permits-ai-training-on-its-data/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(social_network)https://news.sky.com/story/the-x-exodus-could-bluesky-spike-spark-end-of-elon-musks-social-media-platform-13254722https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-hides-x-engagement-figures-user-exodus-1990065https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/31/metas-threads-app-now-has-275-million-users-zuckerberg-says.htmlhttps://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/21747/2024-08-27/ad-revenue-freefall-continues-at-x.htmlhttps://www.warc.com/content/paywall/article/warc-curated-datapoints/counting-the-cost-xs-59bn-in-lost-ad-revenue-since-its-2022-takeover/en-gb/157583https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11/21/are-users-leaving-elon-musks-x-en-masse-and-where-are-they-headinghttps://www.euronews.com/next/2024/10/01/x-has-lost-75-of-its-value-since-elon-musk-took-overhttps://www.cnn.com/2024/11/06/business/elon-musk-election-bet/index.htmlhttps://anderegg.ca/2024/11/15/maybe-bluesky-has-wonhttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/technology/bluesky-growing-pains.htmlhttps://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/07/15/5-years-ago-today-twitter-launched-to-the-public/https://www.businessinsider.com/how-twitter-was-founded-2011-4?op=1https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/technology/31ev.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Corp. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe