Legal residents of the United States sent to foreign prisons without due process. Students detained after voicing their opinions. Federal judges threatened with impeachment for ruling against the administration’s priorities. In this Opinion video, Marci Shore, Timothy Snyder and Jason Stanley, all professors at Yale and experts in authoritarianism, explain why America is especially vulnerable to a democratic backsliding — and why they are leaving the United States to take up positions at the University of Toronto. Professor Stanley is leaving the United States as an act of protest against the Trump administration’s attacks on civil liberties. “I want Americans to realize that this is a democratic emergency,” he said. Professor Shore, who has spent two decades writing about the history of authoritarianism in Central and Eastern Europe, is leaving because of what she sees as the sharp regression of American democracy. “We’re like people on the Titanic saying our ship can’t sink,” she said. “And what you know as a historian is that there is no such thing as a ship that can’t sink.” She borrows from political and apolitical Slavic motifs and expressions, arguing that the English language does not fully capture the democratic regression in this American moment. Professor Snyder’s reasons are more complicated. Primarily, he’s leaving to support his wife, Professor Shore, and their children, and to teach at a large public university in Toronto, a place he says can host conversations about freedom. At the same time, he shares the concerns expressed by his colleagues and worries that those kinds of conversations will become ever harder to have in the United States. “I did not leave Yale because of Donald Trump or because of Columbia or because of threats to Yale — but that would be a reasonable thing to do, and that is a decision that people will make,” he wrote in a Yale Daily News article explaining his decision to leave. Their motives differ but their analysis is the same: ignoring or downplaying attacks on the rule of law, the courts and universities spells trouble for our democracy.
Posts from the all other stuff Category
Choose another category?
Michael and Lucifer
Search Engine
Search Engine is the podcast that tries to answer the questions that keep you up at night. A podcast made by humans that provides the answers that neither artificial intelligence nor actual search engines really can. Named one of the best podcasts of 2023 by Vulture, Time, The Economist, and Vogue.
The Curious Brain | Trend 2 (2026) : When Machines Become Colleagues
The workplace of 2026 no longer runs on keyboards and calendars it runs on collaboration between humans and algorithms. What was once framed as “AI assistance” has matured into something closer to partnership. In law firms, algorithms draft contracts before junior associates touch them. In hospitals, AI systems flag risks and suggest treatments as confidently as seasoned doctors. In boardrooms, predictive models whisper recommendations that shape billion-euro decisions.
The shift is measurable. McKinsey report projects that by 2030, 30% of current U.S. jobs could be automated, with 60% significantly altered by AI tools, even prime ministers are being replaced with AI today, but the real story isn’t replacement, it’s augmentation.
Workers aren’t being eliminated as quickly as feared. Instead, they are being redefined. Roles evolve from doing tasks to overseeing systems, from producing outcomes to interpreting them. A project manager in 2026 will spend less time moving boxes on a timeline and more time arbitrating between two AI agents that disagree.
The benefits are seductive: speed, productivity, fewer errors. Companies that embed AI into workflows report massive efficiency gains. But alongside efficiency comes a new tension: dignity. What does it mean to be a lawyer when your “colleague” writes the first draft better than you ever could? What does it mean to be a manager when your primary skill is editing machine outputs?
Trust is another fracture point. Humans trust other humans because of shared vulnerability. Machines offer no such bond. Do we defer to the recommendation of a system that never tires, never forgets, never second-guesses? Or do we resist, insisting on flawed human judgment even when the data tells us otherwise?
For businesses, the challenge in 2026 is not about adopting AI tools it’s about designing cultures of collaboration. The winners will be companies that treat AI not as a silent overlord, but as a partner whose decisions are transparent, explainable, and accountable. The losers will be those that hide behind the opacity of algorithms and alienate the very people meant to work alongside them.
The future of work is no longer man versus machine. It is man with machine. The most valuable skill of 2026 may not be coding or strategy it may be learning how to remain human in a room full of perfect colleagues.
Michael and Lucifer
Biggest ‘Falling Giants’: Fortune Global 500 Companies With the Sharpest Market Cap Drops
The Rise of Copy-Paste Creativity: Why AI Ads Feel So Empty
AI was supposed to reinvent advertising. To make it intimate. Tailored. A whisper in your ear, not a billboard in your face.
Instead, most AI ads today feel like generic upscale animation slick, polished, but soulless. They don’t feel personal. They feel mass-produced and very similar to one another.
The illusion of personalization
Agencies love to say “personalization at scale.” What we’re really seeing is templating at scale. A character model reused, a background swapped, a few lines of text rotated. The result: ads that look identical across brands, categories, and countries. I can’t help wondering: are they actually selling the product, or just selling the illusion of innovation?
It’s creative déjà vu.
– Nearly 90% of advertisers are already using AI to make video ads (IAB, 2025).
– Yet consumers aren’t fooled: NielsenIQ found many describe AI ads as “boring,” “annoying,” and “confusing” (Nielsen/OKO One, 2024).
If the promise was intimacy, the delivery feels like an overproduced screensaver.
The data proves what’s missing
When AI is used for real personalization, the results are different:
– MIT researchers (2025) found personalized AI video ads boosted engagement by 6–9 percentage points, while cutting production costs by 90% (MIT IDE, 2025).
– Headway, an edtech startup, reported a 40% ROI increase after leaning into AI creative—but only because they combined speed with true audience tailoring (Business Insider, 2024).
The distinction is clear: personalized AI works. Generic AI doesn’t.
Template fatigue is the new banner blindness
We’ve replaced stock photography with stock animation. Banner blindness with template blindness. Ads that were supposed to see you instead blur into the feed.
And here’s the tragedy: the tech could do more. AI can adapt mood, context, culture, even language nuance. But right now, most agencies are chasing speed over meaning volume over resonance.
The fork in the road
The industry faces a choice:
– Keep churning out glossy, generic animations that look expensive but feel empty.
– Or use AI as a scalpel cutting deeper into personalization, creating work that actually feels alive to the person watching.
Because if AI is just helping us produce better-looking wallpaper, then it’s not innovation. It’s stagnation with better rendering.