Roblog

Recent

• 10 March 2026

  Filed under: corruption

  Stay classy: mummy’s favourite

  Andrew O’Hagan in the LRB reviews Andrew Lownie’s new book Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York alongside Virginia Giuffre’s autobiography, and in doing so eviscerates Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the cheap, tawdry corruption with which he has coasted through his adult life:

  “With some people, money and sex are the only truths. It’s the ultimate delinquency to believe that gratification itself is power. Bringing down the royal family may be the least terrible consequence of everything Andrew has done. When a lazy aristocrat from a dying dynasty uses a helicopter to travel seventeen miles, the edifice shakes. But when that same man rapes a 17-year-old and calls her a liar, it is the end of days. The gift of Andy and Fergie, which comes at too high a price, has been to bring the antiseptic of daylight to the culture of royal privilege.”

  #

• 15 February 2026

  Filed under: ai technology law

  AI won’t automatically make legal services cheaper

  In a lengthy article that is my new gold standard for analysing the actual consequences of introducing AI into an industry, Justin Curl, Sayash Kapoor, and Arvind Narayanan explore the effects of AI on legal work.

  Sayash and Arvind had previously authored AI as Normal Technology (also well worth reading), which argues that it’s a mistake by both boosters and doomsters to treat AI as some special category of thing that will lead to humanlike or superhuman intelligence; instead, we should treat it, and should remain in control of it, like any other technology. In particular, we should measure its impact by how it diffuses through society and industry, not by what it’s capable of in isolation, and we should expect that diffusion to take decades, not months.

  This article is their attempt to apply the “AI as normal technology” thinking to a particular industry.

  As a document- and language-focused industry, law has seemed ripe for LLM-based disruption; as an industry that often commands extremely high fees for its work, many people are desperate for that disruption to happen, and for legal work to become cheaper. That motivated reasoning is perhaps one of the reasons why law regularly tops the panic-inducing lists of “jobs that won’t exist in the future because of AI”.

  The authors’ conclusions are much more nuanced. They look at regulatory concerns, which might inhibit AI’s progress into the industry; they look the fundamental dynamics of the industry, in this case the adversarial nature of common-law countries; they look at the impact of past technologies, which often failed to deliver the commodification of law that many people imagined.

  AI, they conclude, won’t fix any of the structural problems faced by the legal industry and those who interact with it as clients, and may even magnify them; but it may be that the mere threat of AI disruption can be an external impetus to reform, reform that otherwise might have faltered through lack of will and coordination.

  I think both the specific conclusions about law and the general framework outlined by the authors are enormously helpful contributions to the discourse around AI, and I’ll be trying to think along similar lines in my own work. #

• 15 February 2026

  Filed under: ai technology journalism

  How the New York Times uses a custom AI tool to track the “manosphere”

  The New York Times has developed a tool to download, transcribe, and summarise various right-wing podcasts, part of what they call the “manosphere”, in order to spot signs of division and discontent within Donald Trump’s base:

  “When one of the shows publishes a new episode, the tool automatically downloads it, transcribes it, and summarizes the transcript. Every 24 hours the tool collates those summaries and generates a meta-summary with shared talking points and other notable daily trends. The final report is automatically emailed to journalists each morning at 8 a.m. ET. Currently, the tool is used by nearly 40 reporters across the newsroom.”

  It’s a fascinating use of LLMs in the newsroom. Whether this ends up making bias worse, as the apparent consensus of grifters and racists becomes a signal that influences the Times’ own reporting, is a complicated but vital question. But this specific use-case is just one of many. The tool grew out of another, called Cheatsheet, which sounds essentially like a no-code tool that allows journalists to execute LLM-based workflows against custom data, and which has already led to significant investigative breakthroughs:

  “The Initiatives Team started trialing other applications of LLMs to process large, messy datasets and file dumps on a case-by-case basis. Today, many of those live in a single spreadsheet-based tool. Reporters can drop datasets into Cheatsheet and then run different preset scripts and prompts. Each capability in the menu is known as a ‘recipe.’ Some of those recipes, like transcribing thousands of hours of video footage and summarizing transcriptions, are foundational to the Manosphere Report.

  “Still in its beta, Cheatsheet has already been tested on about 300 users in the newsroom, with 50 of those being ‘really active users’, according to Seward. Right now, at least one new project is created in Cheatsheet every day. The tool has been used to investigate an election-interference group, to transcribe and translate Syrian prison records, and to find recent instances of Trump talking about Jan. 6. At times, Cheatsheet has even been used to take on more thorough historical analysis of podcasts.”

  #

• 14 February 2026

  Filed under: food

  Saint Cavish at Gem Garden

  One of my favourite YouTube channels at the moment is @saintcavish, Christopher St. Cavish’s explorations of Chinese cooking. Christopher is no mere visitor, dipping in briefly and superficially to a vast and almost-unknowable cuisine; he has lived in Shanghai for over twenty years, and so is able to delve deep into culinary traditions and gain access to remarkable places, like this visit to a Michelin-starred fine-dining restaurant in Shenzhen.

  The production values are perfect. There are no showy Netflix-style visuals or overly dramatic score. It’s just exceptionally clean, well-graded footage – shot by a single camera operator, Graeme Kennedy – of remarkable chefs cooking remarkable food, all with St. Cavish’s thoughtful commentary. Not one to watch while hungry. #

• 13 February 2026

  Filed under: design

  Elizabeth Goodspeed on imperfection as design strategy

  Creatives’ social media accounts are awash with lo-fi, analogue aesthetics, most of which are created digitally, often with cookie-cutter kits that undermine the whole idea of what “analogue” is supposed to represent. Elizabeth Goodspeed understands why:

  “The practical reality is that most people no longer have the time, tools, or support to make fully analogue work, even if they want to. The creative infrastructure that would make it viable – materials access, slower timelines, financial stability – isn’t widely available. Designers and illustrators are stuck in a bind: analogue signals value, but digital is what’s feasible. The result is a kind of strategic mimicry. The market is looking for particular cues, and designers have to find a way to hit them. It doesn’t help that glossy, computer-made work can now be mistaken for AI either; clean, high-fidelity digital craft has become suspect by default, making handmade a safer choice. You can think of adding in fake ink splatters a bit like penciling in a beauty mark: an intentional imperfection done to signal authenticity, rather than the byproduct of a real nuisance.”

  Rather than using these analogue cues for merely surface-level styling reasons, or to signal “this isn’t AI”, Elizabeth hopes that we can use this analogue fixation as part of a broader reckoning about how and why creative work is made, and to whose benefit:

  “When analogue collapses into surface style, it stops applying pressure to how work is made and valued. But it doesn’t have to be that way. The Arts & Crafts movement, for instance, emerged alongside mass mechanisation and responded not with nostalgia, but with structural reorganisation. Designers and makers pushed back against the factory’s division of labour by reasserting continuity between thinking and making. Objects were produced slowly, often collaboratively, with an emphasis on material knowledge and visible decision-making. They were sold through guilds and exhibitions that foregrounded craft as labour, not just aesthetic, and delivered tangible financial benefits to the people who made them. There’s a version of today’s analogue fixation that could move in this direction.”

  #

• 8 February 2026

  Filed under: sports

  The Mundanity of Excellence

  Via Matt Webb, from his broader (and fascinating) post about the nature of work and what the roboticisation of domestic labour might take from us, comes this topical and counter-intuitive nugget about Olympians. How is it that they bring themselves to do the presumably mad levels of hard work and training that are required to get to the tops of their games? Well, because they enjoy it:

  “The very features of the sport that the ‘C’ swimmer finds unpleasant, the top level swimmer enjoys. What others see as boring – swimming back and forth over a black line for two hours, say – they find peaceful, even meditative, often challenging, or therapeutic. … It is incorrect to believe that top athletes suffer great sacrifices to achieve their goals. Often, they don’t see what they do as sacrificial at all. They like it.”

  It’s from a 1989 ethnographic study on Olympic swimmers by Daniel Chambliss. The central premise is that levels of sports are discontinuous, and that, while putting in more and more effort can make you better within a particular level of performance, it isn’t what progresses you to the highest heights:

  “Having seen that ‘more is better’ within local situations, we tend to extrapolate: if I work this hard to get to my level, how hard must Olympic swimmers work? If I sacrifice this much to qualify for the State Championships, how much must they sacrifice? We believe, extrapolating from what we learn about success at our own level, that they must work unbelievably hard, must feel incredible pressure, must sacrifice more and more to become successful. Assuming implicitly that stratification in sports is continuous rather than discrete (that the differences are quantitative) we believe that top athletes do unbelievable things. In short, we believe that they must be superhuman.”

  Neither talent nor hard work are good explanations for their success. Instead, Chambliss argues, the cause is more qualitative than quantitative; the extremely successful do different things rather than more things, and keep doing them to a habitual and mundane degree.

  “After three years of field work with world-class swimmers… I wrote a draft of some book chapters, full of stories about swimmers, and I showed it to a friend. ‘You need to jazz it up,’ he said. ‘You need to make these people more interesting. The analysis is nice, but except for the fact that these are good swimmers, there isn’t much else exciting to say about them as individuals.’ He was right, of course. What these athletes do was rather interesting, but the people themselves were only fast swimmers, who did the particular things one does to swim fast. It is all very mundane. When my friend said that they weren’t exciting, my best answer could only be, simply put: that’s the point.”

  #

• 20 January 2026

  Filed under: politics

  Was the green lantern a good chap?

  Dan Davies has written about how many systems (including the British constitution) use what he terms a “good chap” regulatory system: i.e. they rely on the system being mostly populated by decent people who obey the rules, even though they don’t technically have to.

  That has obvious flaws, like when someone (Boris Johnson, say, or more disastrously Donald Trump) comes along who decides not to be a good chap. But, Dan argues, there’s a certain advantage to the naïveté:

  “It is always possible to break norms, if you’re really determined to. Everything does, in fact, depend on having people in positions of power who respect the rules of the game. The British ‘good chap’ system is just much more blatantly in your face about it.

  “Which might account for the longevity of the Westminster system. It is incredibly fragile, but it’s obviously fragile, and in this way achieves a sort of paradoxical antifragility. In a ‘good chap’ system, when a bad chap shows up, all the good chaps know that they have to band together and oppose or get rid of them, because they know that there are no systemic constraints on badchappery. In a system that’s meant to be full of checks and balances, it is much easier for a kind of bystander effect to develop, where everyone waits for the system to protect itself without understanding that the system is just them.”

  The contrast with the US in its current mode is striking; I definitely see that bystander effect, where people continually expect some kind of check or balance to take effect. It certainly hasn’t yet. #

• 6 January 2026

  Filed under: design

  It’s hard to justify Tahoe icons

  A brilliant takedown of the menu icons in the latest version of MacOS, a version I’m still steadfastly refusing to upgrade to, from Niki Prokopov.

  Apple decided to do a thing that was both impossible and undesirable, then did it badly:

  “In my opinion, Apple took on an impossible task: to add an icon to every menu item. There are just not enough good metaphors to do something like that.

  “But even if there were, the premise itself is questionable: if everything has an icon, it doesn’t mean users will find what they are looking for faster.

  “And even if the premise was solid, I still wish I could say: they did the best they could, given the goal. But that’s not true either: they did a poor job consistently applying the metaphors and designing the icons themselves.”

  In referencing the Human Interface Guidelines from 1992, Niki makes a point that many people would do well to remember:

  “…is an interface manual from 1992 still relevant today? Haven’t computers changed so much that entirely new principles, designs, and idioms apply?

  “Yes and no. Of course, advice on how to adapt your icons to black-and-white displays is obsolete. But the principles – as long as they are good principles – still apply, because they are based on how humans work, not how computers work.

  “Humans don’t get a new release every year. Our memory doesn’t double. Our eyesight doesn’t become sharper. Attention works the same way it always has. Visual recognition, motor skills – all of this is exactly as it was in 1992.”

  #

• 

  10 December 2025

  Filed under: technology

  Jevons only knows

  Jevons paradox gets thrown around a lot in the context of AI, but it’s a useful lens through which to view an industry or a role. Should you run towards or away from what you’re currently doing?

• 8 December 2025

  Filed under: film

  Chain Your Heart to a Star: Fee Warner and the Marc Bolan Rock Shrine

  A couple of months ago I made my first documentary film: Chain Your Heart to a Star. It’s the story of Fee Warner, who for 48 years has been visiting the site of Marc Bolan’s death in south-west London. There she has built, and continues to maintain, what has become a shrine to Bolan and T. Rex. The shrine is visited by people from all over the world, and is enduring evidence of the depth of feeling we humans have for music and musicians. #

• 24 November 2025

  Filed under: ai

  Investigating a possible scammer in journalism’s AI Era

  Nicholas Hune-Brown in The Local exhibits more diligence than most publications in tracking down the source of an AI-written pitch:

  “I was embarrassed. I had been naively operating with a pre-ChatGPT mindset, still assuming a pitch’s ideas and prose were actually connected to the person who sent it. Worse, the reason the pitch had been appealing to me to begin with was likely because a large language model somewhere was remixing my own prompt asking for stories where ‘health and money collide,’ flattering me by sending me back what I wanted to hear.”

  Such grubby scams are, he thinks, reflective of the diminished media environment we live in:

  “Every media era gets the fabulists it deserves. If Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair and the other late 20th century fakers were looking for the prestige and power that came with journalism in that moment, then this generation’s internet scammers are scavenging in the wreckage of a degraded media environment. They’re taking advantage of an ecosystem uniquely susceptible to fraud – where publications with prestigious names publish rickety journalism under their brands, where fact-checkers have been axed and editors are overworked, where technology has made falsifying pitches and entire articles trivially easy, and where decades of devaluing journalism as simply more ‘content’ have blurred the lines so much it can be difficult to remember where they were to begin with.”

  Immunisation against these sorts of scams and misinformation is possible, as Hune-Brown demonstrates with his dogged investigative work. But the skills needed are precisely the ones that the media have spent the last decade or two gutting. It does not bode well. #

• 21 November 2025

  Filed under: sustainability

  Brett Christophers on waste

  This whole piece, about what happens to the waste our modern economy produces by the billions of tons, is fascinating. But I particularly liked this bit as a novel and useful explanation of something I’ve thought about before, but not in these terms:

  “Three other insights about value from political economy are helpful here. The first is that use value and exchange value are not equally important under capitalism – or, more precisely, are not of equal importance to capitalists. Marx showed that where the two are in tension, as they often are, exchange value overrides use value: the imperatives of competition and accumulation mean that commodities must be produced principally for sale. What counts as ‘waste’ comes to be decided by reference to wealth creation and preservation. This is what Locke was doing when he justified the European annexation of Indigenous territories on the grounds that they were not being used ‘productively’: the land was, in other words, being wasted, and should be brought into the ambit of capitalist modernity and its calculus of value. In a present-day example, Franklin-Wallis describes seeing a batch of unused TVs from a major manufacturer at a US electronics ‘recycling’ plant waiting to be destroyed in order not to act as competition for the same manufacturer’s new line of products. In 2020 Apple sued a Canadian recycler for selling off some of the half a million unsold devices it had sent to be shredded. In July 2018 it was reported that Burberry had incinerated ‘deadstock’ worth £28 million in the previous financial year to prevent its being sold at discounted rates. And so on.”

  #

• 10 November 2025

  Filed under: technology

  AI-powered nimbyism

  As Frederik Pohl said, “a good science fiction story should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam.”

  Lots of optimism about AI in its early days focused on how it might make the job of people in bureaucratic roles much easier, as it massively increased their information-processing bandwidth. But here is the flipside:

  “A new service called Objector is offering ‘policy-backed objections in minutes’ to people who are upset about planning applications near their homes.

  “It uses generative AI to scan planning applications and check for grounds for objection, ranking these as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ impact. It then automatically creates objection letters, AI-written speeches to deliver to the planning committees, and even AI-generated videos to ‘influence councillors’.”

  This is the tricky future we must navigate. One particularly unsavoury detail:

  “Kent residents Hannah and Paul George designed the system after estimating they spent hundreds of hours attempting to navigate the planning process when they opposed plans to convert a building near their home into a mosque.”

  #

• 5 October 2025

  Filed under: technology

  Four theories of Meta

  Jeremiah Johnson with a dystopian piece on the seeming contradiction between Meta’s unstoppable financial success and its obviously corrosive social impact, with a depressing conclusion:

  “The only thing scarier to me than a mega-billionaire shoving pornified-AI bots down society’s throat is the idea that even if Zuck wasn’t doing that, we’d be clamoring for someone to step up and do it in his place. And that theory of Meta is what I ultimately think is the correct one. Why did Meta shift from promoting human connection to promoting porny AI chatbots? Because they have access to better data than anyone in the world about what people actually want, and that’s what the data tells them. The terrifying truth might be that even if Meta closed up shop tomorrow, their vision of an AI future would come to pass regardless. Maybe the people just want what they want, and they’re going to end up getting it good and hard.”

  #

• 8 September 2025

  Filed under: crime

  Fugitive father shot dead by NZ police

  Last year I linked to a Slate story about Tom Phillips, a New Zealand father who disappeared with his kids into the bush. Back then, the story was complex enough, with unclear motivations, a potential custody battle, and an underlying theme of hardy, resilient bush men resisting the opressively civilising influence of modern society and government forces. Some argued Phillips was essentially kidnapping his own children; others that he was a modern-day “man alone”, teaching his kids an admirable sort of self-reliance.

  The story ended tragically today; Phillips was shot by police during a bungled burglary in which he fired at officers with a rifle. #

• 

  28 August 2025

  Filed under: technology

  My stance on AI

  Staking out a position in an evolving world; trying to figure out whether ethical AI usage is possible; charting a course between the doomsters and the boosters.

• 28 August 2025

  Filed under: politics

  The radicalisation spiral (£)

  Sam Freedman on the high-speed pipeline that seeems to funnel certain people towards predominantly right-wing online propaganda:

  “Over the last few years I’ve watched a disturbing number of people I used to know fall victim to the radicalisation spiral. It’s unnerving watching acquaintances who seemed relatively normal suddenly become obsessed with antivaxxer propaganda or start retweeting Tommy Robinson. I suspect many readers know someone, even if only tangentially, who’s disappeared down an online rabbit hole.”

  #

• 28 August 2025

  Filed under: art

  Dust – what time does to art

  A thoughtful and moving piece by Tom Cox on the effect of time passing on art, as experienced when watching Get Back:

  “It’s something very rare: a largely unaltered portrait of newborn art before any dust has settled on it. Time will make its refinements and adjustments to that art, just as it always does. You don’t have any control over that, even if you’re the most famous band in the world. All you can do is try to be as free as possible, give yourself space to fail, which is the same space that could very likely also permit you to flourish. Then it’s up to your other collaborators, which are the years that stretch out in front of you. They could be looked on as a kind of invisible post-production. They’ll sort it all out. They always do, even if they’re sometimes cruel or unsympathetic to your personal circumstances while going about it.”

  #

• 

  20 March 2025

  Filed under: technology

  Commons over, baby

  AI is the latest technology to threaten our digital commons, and culture more broadly. Can we stop it destroying what we hold dear? Or is the juice worth the squeeze?

• 11 March 2025

  Filed under: technology

  Flipping the switch on far-UVC

  A fascinating post from Richard Williamson about far-UVC, a technique that uses ultraviolet light to kill pathogens in the air without harming people or other organisms:

  “One of the best shots we have at turning the page on airborne disease is an emerging type of germicidal UV (GUV) light called far-UVC. Over the last decade, researchers have documented its ability to eliminate pathogens while being safe for humans. A landmark study from 2022 found that far-UVC reduced the concentrations of airborne bacteria by 98.4 percent in a room-sized chamber, all while operating within safe UV exposure limits. Compared to standard ventilation, this was the equivalent of changing the air completely over in the room 184 times every hour. To put that in perspective, the CDC recommends 5 or more air changes per hour in the workplace. Even hospital operating rooms in the US only require 20. Far-UVC is effective against viruses too; airborne coronaviruses are more susceptible to far-UVC than the same bacteria used in the other study.”

  If it’s so simple, why hasn’t it been adopted yet? Richard argues that the problem is partly regulatory: there is no straightforward approval pathway for a device like this, like there would be if it were a drug. That means that people can just implement it (good) but also that there’s no rigorous trial process that proves its efficacy (bad). Without that proof, large institutions are unlikely to invest in a rollout of something that might be hokum.

  Why doesn’t someone pay for a rigorous trial, then? The other problem is that UVC isn’t patentable (it’s already generic, there’s lots of prior art), so if a manufacturer made the huge investment in proving UVC’s efficacy then its competitors would be able to free-ride off the back of its work.

  This is one of those posts where I have a slight amount of epistemic learned helplessness; I don’t know enough about the science to know if the bold claims of efficacy are true, or if there are unforeseen consequences or side-effects lurking here. But there’s something interesting in Richard’s proposed solution, which is to set up a non-profit to validate the claims so that everyone can benefit. I wonder what other inventions and breakthroughs have this same shape of coordination problem preventing their widepsread adoption? #

• 29 January 2025

  Filed under: biology

  The case for subspecies – the neglected unit of conservation

  I’ve always found useful the idea of people temperamentally being either “lumpers” and “splitters”. Lumpers are those who assign things broadly and generally, valuing similarities over differences, and splitters are those who assign things narrowly and precisely, valuing differences over similarities. XKCD described the distinction well.

  This fascinating essay by Richard Smyth is about the very real consequences of lumping and splitting in the world of conservation, and about how our decision whether or not to assign an animal its own taxonomic category can have transformative consequences for its chances of survival:

  “Similarly, a segment in the BBC’s recent wildlife series Asia highlighted the grave plight of the Gobi bear. There are, Sir David Attenborough told us, fewer than 40 Gobi bears left. It’s a miserable statistic. But it’s worth thinking about exactly what’s being said here. The Gobi bear is, as it happens, a subspecies, a significant sub-population of the brown bear Ursus arctos. But what if it wasn’t? ‘There are 40 Gobi bears left’ lands a little differently than ‘There are 40 brown bears left in this part of the Gobi desert’; the former sounds like a call to action, no time to lose! – whereas the latter is more, well, who cares? What’s a few brown bears, here or there?

  “What this boils down to, again, is the question of what’s real – what’s significant, what means something.”

  #

• 17 January 2025

  Filed under: culture

  We don't need more cynics. We need more builders.

  I wrote recently about the “vibe shift” that’s currently underway, and how we might build out way out of it. Joan Westenberg hits on a similar theme, and makes a powerful call for “pragmatic meliorism” – that is, neither deluded optimism nor destructive cynicism, but rather a pragmatic belief that “things are broken, AND they can be fixed; people are flawed AND capable of growth; systems are complex AND can be improved.”

  It’s hard not to be cynical in a world as seemingly screwed up as this one, but Westenberg’s case against the cynics is convincing:

  “Here’s a more charitable reading of cynicism: it’s not an intellectual position. It’s an emotional defense mechanism. If you expect the worst, you’ll never be disappointed. If you assume everything is corrupt, you can’t be betrayed.

  “But this protection comes at a terrible price. The cynic builds emotional armor that also functions as a prison, keeping out not just pain but also possibility, connection, and growth.”

  #

• 17 January 2025

  Filed under: politics

  What Britain looks like after Brexit, by Daniel Hannan

  Shortly before the Brexit referendum in 2016, Dan Hannan – one of the most unserious people ever to briefly be taken seriously by the British establishment, proof alongside Boris Johnson that a plummy accent and the occasional Latin phrase are all you need to appear an intellectual titan in British politics – wrote a vision of what life would be like in Britain in June 2025, nine years after the referendum.

  The whole thing is worth reading, to remind yourselves of what these charlatans promised us, but I particularly hated this bit. It combines a level of oversimplification that is almost beautiful with a complete failure to understand both one’s own bargaining position and the priorities of the other side. In hindsight, it’s almost funny:

  “The last thing most EU leaders wanted, once the shock had worn off, was a protracted argument with the United Kingdom which, on the day it left, became their single biggest market. Terms were agreed easily enough. Britain withdrew from the EU’s political structures and institutions, but kept its tariff-free arrangements in place.”

  Almost funny.

  Perhaps I’m being unfair; we do still have six months left for Hannan’s vision to come true. I’m not holding my breath. #

• 15 January 2025

  Filed under: film

  Wim Wenders’s Tokyo-Ga

  I watched Wim Wenders’s 1985 documentary Tokyo-Ga this week. It chronicles his trip to Japan in search of the Tokyo of film director Yasujirō Ozu, whom Wenders idolises. Will he be able to catch glimpses of Ozu’s city, or will it have been buried under the frantic rebuilding of postwar Japan? Along the way he meets Chishū Ryū, who starred in 14 of Ozu’s films; Yūharu Atsuta, Ozu’s cinematographer; fellow German director Werner Herzog; and countless others. Wenders’s open-minded and slow-paced journey is all the more remarkable for being filmed at a time of great western anxiety about Japan. Well worth a watch. #

• 9 January 2025

  Filed under: planning

  How to solve the £100m bat tunnel problem

  The UK has been attempting to build a high-speed railway line called HS2 for years. Its development has been dogged by all sorts of problems, but perhaps the most farcical was the revelation that it had spent £100m on a 1km long tunnel for bats, in an area that was home to around 300 bats – an insane £300k per bat.

  In this great post, Sam Dumitriu talks about why decisions like that get made, but also digs into some of the planning changes the government have made to hopefully make them less likely to happen in the future.

  The plans seem to be better both from a “getting stuff built” perspective and a “preserving nature” perspective, which seems like a rare win. But it’s not over the line yet; it needs legislation to pass, which means getting it past lobby groups that are invested in the status quo.

  “Wasteful spending on fish discos and bat tunnels should infuriate everyone whether their priority is world-class infrastructure or protecting endangered species. By fixing the Habs Regs, we can cut the cost of building new clean infrastructure and go beyond preserving the nature we have to actually enhancing and restoring it.”

  #

• 

  8 January 2025

  Filed under: technology

  Machinery hurtful to commonality

  A new generation of Luddites stand against the big streaming platforms and AI companies. What happens next?