Media Search:



Obama-Era Official: Housing Crisis Impact Hinges On These 3 Must-Have Solutions – Forbes

Entrepreneurs from the six ventures selected for the inaugural 2019-20 Housing Lab cohort in effort ... [+] to break through barriers to housing affordability and equity.

A funny-but-unfair potshot the American housing industry gets is this: Its a 200-year-old industry undeterred by progress. Thats the glib narrative, and its at least part-true. What the one-liner belies, however, is that invention and progress have sent shivers of light, excitement, and possibility through U.S. housing and constructions $3-trillion-a-year firmament, especially of late.

Three vaunted examples:

And these sweeping shifts dont even take into consideration an accelerating flow of materials science applications, the role of artificial intelligence in design and construction, the explosive power of building information modeling, a still-barely tapped digital thread linking a household to his, her, or their future home and community.

The trouble is this.

Who specifically does all of this real-world, real-time innovationoccurring at every turn in geographical nooks and crannies and cracks and crevices of residential real estate and constructionultimately impact? Factories, distribution centers, job sites, white board conference rooms, research and development labs, innovators among lenders, financiers, marketers, builders, planners, developers, architects, materials suppliers, etc.housing teems with change-agents, young, middle-aged, and older.

Innovation promises, but does it deliver on those promises? Whether an innovation bends the cost curve, improves productivity, or expands the credit box, reduces friction, adds inventory, lowers regulatory barriers, etc., they all beg the same questions. Are fewer people housing burdened? Are more properties safe from natural hazard harm or destruction? Do more homes operate at net carbon positive levels that will, possibly lower risk of climate collapse?

The answer is yes and no. Innovations tend to do one of the three big jobs they need to, but not the other two. As a result, housings familiar whack-a-mole phenomenon of solving for an issue and either worsening or ignoring two equally compelling challenges.

Certainly, the innovations mentioned above all claim beneficiaries and create new value. Still, can the effort and investment in housings most scientifically, strategically, and financially innovative work apply brilliance and ingenuity where housing needs it most of all? Solutions to crisis challenges in housing affordability, sustainability, and resiliency at a time needespecially among societys most vulnerable peopleis non-negotiable across all three spheres.

Carol Galante, the I. Donald Terner Professor in Affordable Housing and Urban Planning, and founder ... [+] and faculty director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at Berkeley.

In both the private sector and among earnest and enlightened people working in the public sector, were seeing active efforts to stretch out of the past into the future, says former Obama Administration housing official Carol Galante, who is I. Donald Terner Professor in Affordable Housing and Urban Planning and founder-faculty director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at University of California at Berkeley.

Were not going to get to the solutions we need unless we marry policy change with innovations in practice and innovations in the way we finance projects and community development, and in how we define ownership and stakeholder-ship, Galante says. Were seeing great strides of progress everywhere in how we build housing, how we get it approved, and how we get it financed, and we have to work to apply these innovative techniques to create results where housing can be a solution for where the crises hit the hardest.

Galantelike many of housings pantheon of experts and leadersnotes that a day almost never goes by that does not come with it revelation of some unprecedented height of unparalleled achievement, unrivaled capability, breakthrough processes, material, integration, designs, engineered impact on structure, systems, and livability. Game-changing uses of technology, data, machine learning, robotics, match-making, process engineering, etc. dazzle the mind in ways few could have imagined a decade ago.

But when it comes to keepersdisruptive innovations that gain sector-wide, transformative traction, at least near-universal adoption, and implementation in housingmany of even the most necessary and ingenious of todays initiatives fall short of the kind of impact housing needs most urgently right now.

Its always a challenge for policyparticularly local land-use policyto keep pace with building technologies advances, and, lately financial ones, Galante notes. If anything good can come out of the enormous distress the pandemic has created its what Id call an emerging coalition of the willing on the policy front that have both been exposed more profoundly to wealth and income disparities among people of color and societys most vulnerable populations, and experienced, first-hand, a sense of possibility around whats achievable.

Galante and her colleagues at Terner Centers Housing Lab accelerator program are accepting applications through April 7, 2021 for a second cohort of new ventures whose strategies, operational models, and impact would promote an equitable economic recovery from the current pandemic shock and economic disruption.

We are looking for innovators with creative solutions that are responsive to the unique circumstances of the current moment, while also being responsive to the housing market failures that existed long before COVID-19, a Housing Lab challenge reads.

For year two, the Housing Lab will support ventures accepted into its 2021 cohort with a $100,000 grant, a dedicated business coach, capital structure advice, and access to the Terner Centers ecosystem of builders, policy makers, nonprofits, and entrepreneurs. In 2020, six new venturesDigs, Dweller, ESuSu, Hurry Home, Padsplit, and PrefabADU were selected from nearly 140 applications from all fifty U.S. states. Within six months of graduation, two ventures completed their next funding rounds and one was acquired, despite graduating into the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participating entrepreneurs rated the Lab with a Net Promoter Score of 100. All six companies are still in operation and on a path towards scale.

Go here to see the original:
Obama-Era Official: Housing Crisis Impact Hinges On These 3 Must-Have Solutions - Forbes

OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of…

HAPPY SPRING TO THOSE WHO CELEBRATE. Welcome to Overnight Energy, your source for the days energy and environment news.

Please send tips and comments to Rachel Frazin at rfrazin@thehill.com. Follow her on Twitter: @RachelFrazin. Reach Zack Budryk at zbudryk@thehill.com or follow him on Twitter: @BudrykZack. Signup for our newsletter and others HERE.

SEND THE MARINES: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation

The Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to former President Obamas designation of a national monument 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod, Mass.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a statement issued Monday that despite concerns about the designation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, the lawsuit does not satisfy our usual criteria for reviewing cases.

Roberts explains his ruling: To date, petitioners have not suggested what this critical statutory phrase means or what standard might guide our review of the Presidents actions in this area, Roberts wrote.

His decision upholds a 2019 appeals court ruling in favor of the monument.

Obama established the monument in 2016 to protect deep sea environments and marine life.

Read more about the ruling.

MISSOURI BUSINESS: Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river

The Interior Department has reversed a Trump administration decision determining that a portion of the Missouri River was under the jurisdiction of the state of North Dakota rather than a Native American reservation.

Trump officials had concluded a part of the river that flows through the Berthold Indian Reservation was within the states jurisdiction rather than that of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, the reservations three affiliated tribes.

Interesting timing:The opinion comes days after Interior Secretary Deb HaalandDeb Haaland Bald eagle population has quadrupled in last decade White House withdraws deputy Interior secretary amid reported pushback from Murkowski OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies MORE became the first Native American Cabinet secretary. Native groups have expressed hope that Haalands confirmation will mean they have an ally in the department on issues affecting tribes.

The previous administrations M-Opinion overturned decades of existing precedent holding that the Missouri riverbed belonged to the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara (MHA) Nation, an Interior spokesperson said in a statement. Todays action will allow us to review the matter and ensure the Interior Department is upholding its trust and treaty obligations in accordance with the law.

The origins of the dispute: The earlier opinion is the subject of a legal challenge by the tribe in the District Court for the District of Columbia, according to the department. The court has granted the Interior Department a stay to review that opinion.

North Dakota has maintained the state owns the mineral rights to the portion of the river while the tribes have asserted legal precedent dating back to 1936 that gives them ownership.

Read more about the case here.

GRID YOUR TEETH: Moniz says Texas blackouts show need to protect infrastructure against climate change

Former Energy Secretary Ernest MonizErnest Jeffrey MonizOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies Moniz: Texas blackouts show need to protect infrastructure against climate change The Hill's Morning Report - Biden: Back to the future on immigration, Afghanistan, Iran MORE on Monday told lawmakers that recent extreme weather events in Texas underscored the need to better incorporate climate change risks into energy infrastructure.

Climate change means that the weather patterns of the past are not adequate to inform those of the future, Moniz said at a hearing hosted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Advice for the future: Research, development, and demonstration of grid resilience technologies will be critically important to preserving reliability, an essential role of the federal government, he added.

Moniz, who served during the Obama administration, noted that both the failure of the Texas grid and rolling blackouts in parts of California were indicative of the need to protect energy infrastructure from extreme climate events.

Read more about Monizs testimony here.

FRIENDS OR FRENEMIES: White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies

National climate adviser Gina McCarthyGina McCarthyOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies Three things Biden can do to unleash state and local climate action MORE on Monday met virtually with leadership from oil and gas companies to discuss shared priorities, according to a readout from the White House.

The readout, which did not specify which companies or individuals participated, said that these priorities included climate change, protecting and creating jobs and ensuring that the U.S. is a leader on clean energy.

McCarthy made clear that the Administration is not fighting the oil and gas sector, but fighting to create union jobs, deploy emission reduction technologies, strengthen American manufacturing, and fuel the American economy, according to the White House.

The background on the meeting: The meeting comes amid tensions between the White House and some in the industry over moves like putting a temporary pause on new leases for oil and gas drilling on public lands.

That pause is pending a review from the administration of its oil and gas program, and the Interior Department will hold a forum this week where groups representing industry, tribal and environmental viewpoints will speak.

Read more about the meeting here.

FORUM ME, NOT FOR THEE: Senate GOP pushes back on list of participants in oil and gas leasing forum

Republicans on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources are raising objections to the Interior Departments list of participants for a forum on federal oil and gas leases.

In a letter sent Monday, Republicans on the panel accused the department of deliberately excluding Republican governors of energy-producing states. The forum, set for March 25, will review the Biden administrations moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands.

We believe that you have intentionally limited the right for the public to participate, including state-wide elected officials, namely the governors of our states, says the letter.

GOP senators signing the letter included Sen. John BarrassoJohn Anthony BarrassoOvernight Energy: Senate confirms David Turk as deputy Energy secretary | 14 states sue Biden administration over leasing pause for public lands drilling | Regulator knocks Texas for failing to winterize power equipment Senate confirms David Turk as deputy Energy secretary OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies MORE (Wyo.), the panel's ranking member, as well as Sens. Cynthia LummisCynthia Marie LummisOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies Senate GOP pushes back on list of participants in oil and gas leasing forum Small cities fret over feds redefining metro areas MORE (Wyo.), Steve DainesSteven (Steve) David DainesOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies Senate GOP pushes back on list of participants in oil and gas leasing forum Democrats, Republicans recommend more input, detail on Biden conservation goals MORE (Mt.), Bill CassidyBill CassidyVivek Murthy confirmed as surgeon general OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies Senate GOP pushes back on list of participants in oil and gas leasing forum MORE (La.), Jim RischJim Elroy RischOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies Senate GOP pushes back on list of participants in oil and gas leasing forum Murkowski votes with Senate panel to advance Haaland nomination MORE (Idaho), John HoevenJohn Henry HoevenOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies Senate GOP pushes back on list of participants in oil and gas leasing forum Small cities fret over feds redefining metro areas MORE (N.D.), John CornynJohn CornynDemocrats divided on gun control strategy Senate panel ties on embattled Pentagon nominee OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies MORE (Texas), and Kevin CramerKevin John CramerOVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri river | White House climate adviser meets with oil and gas companies Senate GOP pushes back on list of participants in oil and gas leasing forum Small cities fret over feds redefining metro areas MORE (N.D.).

Read more about the letter here.

IS IT INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK YET? The New York Times and The Washington Post on Monday reported that the White House is preparing a $3 trillion infrastructure and jobs package that could have major investments in the fight against climate change.

Specifically, The Post reported that the proposal devotes $400 billion to preventing climate change, including: $60 billion for green transit infrastructure, $46 billion for climate-related R&D. It also reportedly aims to boost the availability of electric vehicle charging stations.

ON TAP TOMORROW:

WHAT WERE READING:

FOIA docs raise questions about interference in wind project, E&E News reports

Federal regulators in some cases dont know for sure whether California oil companies are obeying the law, The Desert Sun and ProPublica report

A Colorado county may have a model for the nations conservation efforts, The Denver Post reports

EPA deal with Ala. polluter undercuts Biden equity pledge, E&E News reports

ICYMI: Stories from Monday and the weekend

Senate GOP pushes back on list of participants in oil and gas leasing forum

Moniz: Texas blackouts show need to protect infrastructure against climate change

Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of portion of Missouri River

Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation

Japan issues tsunami warning after major quake rocks country

FROM THE HILLS OPINION PAGES

Why the US should care about the China-India 'blackout war' by Peter Pry of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security

Read the original:
OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama marine monument designation | Interior reverses course on tribal ownership of...

NFT bubble: The craziest nonfungible token sales so far – CNET

A .gif of Nyan Cat sold for lots and lots (and lots) of money as an NFT.

Cryptocurrency is no longer the strangest online trend -- Those reins have been taken byNFTs. Nonfungible tokens have become a sensation, or scandal, thanks to the headline-grabbing insanity of it all: Memes being sold for the cost of a Tesla, tweets fetching seven-figure bids and digital art selling for $69 million.

Nonfungible assets are those that aren't interchangeable with one another. Every $100 bill holds the same value as any other $100 bill, therefore they are fungible. Houses, cars and collectables are nonfungible: Houses of the same size on the same street will sell for different prices, and the same model of the same car can similarly vary in cost.

Subscribe to CNET Now for the day's most interesting reviews, news stories and videos.

Which takes us to nonfungible tokens. They're essentially certifications of ownership recorded on a blockchain. Nonfungible tokens put the ownership of a digital product -- be it digital art, a video clip or even just a jpeg or gif -- on that ledger. In the age of NFTs, downloading a picture is like owning a print. Having the NFT is like owning the original painting.

Real digital artists are making real money on NFTs. Take Beeple. He's a digital artist with a huge fanbase, over 1.8 million followers on Instagram. Art he sold as an NFT recently fetched $69 million in a Christie's auction. That's insane to you or me, but not to people who frequent Christie's auctions, who spend $60 million on abstract expressionist paintings.

But even if there is a small percentage of NFT sales you can make sense of, there are many more which are absolutely, positively nuts.

For example...

When COVID-19 lockdown began last March, Brooklyn filmmaker Alex Ramrez-Mallis and four friends did the obvious thing: Started sending audio recordings of their farts to one another through a WhatsApp group chat. One year later, Ramrez-Mallis is auctioning 52 minutes of audio flatulence as an NFT.

The auction's starting price: $85. Would you pay $85 for farts? Would be a solid investment if you did, since someone out there was ultimately willing to pay 0.24 ethereum, or about $420, for the NFT. What's more, in addition to selling the 52-minute recording, he's also selling NFTs for individual farts. Several have been sold, including Fart #420for about $90.

"If people are selling digital art and GIFs, why not sell farts?" Ramrez-Mallistold the New York Post. Truer words, never spoken.

As the NFT craze catches headlines, brands are jumping on the bandwagon. Example, toilet-paper maker Charmin. In a series of tweets last week, Charmin introduced digital art -- various illustrations of rolls of toilet paper -- that it'll be putting up for sale as NFTs.

One, which looks potentially seizure inducing, has a top bid of roughly $2,120 (1.25 wrapped-ethereum). That's not a lot in the scheme of silly NFT sales, but it's a lot to spend on a toilet-paper advertisement. There are five other NFTs for sale, with bids ranging from $500 (0.3 wrapped-ethereum) to $1,693 (1 wrapped-ethereum).

"All proceeds will be donated to Direct Relief," Charmin said, "as part of our ongoing efforts to improve the lives of people impacted by poverty or emergency situations around the world."

Bad Luck Brian.

Remember Bad Luck Brian? It was a meme popularized in 2012, when a yearbook photo of high school student Kyle Craven, depicting him with braces and a plaid sweater, was posted to Reddit. People would post the picture with macro captions of unfortunate events, like "Escapes burning building. Gets hit by firetruck." (Most of the good ones are too NSFW for me to post here.)

Kyle Craven has had the last laugh, though, selling the yearbook photo as an NFT for $36,000. It's kind of a beautiful underdog story for the digital age. Kind of.

This art was sold as an NFT in $38,000 in 2018 and flipped three years later for $320,000.

This one is dumb, but also is an illustrative example of why people are buying NFTs: to sell them for more later on.

The above piece of art is like a Pokemon card for a hell-creature merge of Homer Simpson and Pepe the frog. Homer Simpson is, well, Homer Simpson, and Pepe is an internet frog that's popular on 4chan and other areas of the internet. The NFT for this art recently sold for $320,000.

The crazy part? The person who sold it wasn't its creator.He bought it back in 2018 for $38,000. So as preposterous as all of this NFT business is, it's worth noting that some people are actually making a lot of money flipping them.

Now we get into the stupid money.

Nyan Cat was a YouTube sensation nearly 10 years ago. It was a video of a pixelated cat with a Pop-Tart for a torso, along with the tune of a Japanese pop song. It has over 185 million views on YouTube, and has become a ubiquitous gif in the years since.

"The design of Nyan Cat was inspired by my cat Marty, who crossed the Rainbow Bridge but lives on in spirit," wrote its creator on the sales page for the NFT of Nyan Cat. It would end up selling for 300 ethereum -- $531,000.

"Just setting up my twttr," tweeted Jack Dorsey, co-founder and CEO of Twitter, back in 2006. Turns out that each of those words is worth over $580,000, as the NFT for that tweet sold for $2.9 million.

Dorsey has said the proceeds will be turned into Bitcoin and donated to GiveDirectly, a charity that helps six African countries with COVID-19 relief.

The philanthropy is nice -- not to be understated, since it'll likely save thousands of lives -- but there's also some clever marketing at play here. NFTs are closely related to cryptocurrency, since both are based on blockchain, to the point where NFTs are almost always bought with Ethereum, the second biggest currency after Bitcoin. So if you're a big investor in cryptocurrency, like Dorsey is, inflating the NFT bubble isn't a bad way to help your cryptoholdings appreciate.

Which is why it's not surprising to see Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweet about NFTs, and tease selling one in the future.

But despite the philanthropy, the guerrilla marketing and the distinct possibility that the buyer will be able to flip the tweet for $10 million in a few years, dropping $2.9 million on a tweet is a sign we've entered a new era of internet insanity.

See also: NFTs explained: These pricey tokens are as weird as you think they are

Now playing: Watch this: Tesla invests $1.5B in Bitcoin, E3 to go digital

1:22

Read the rest here:
NFT bubble: The craziest nonfungible token sales so far - CNET

Charles Kesler, author of Crisis of the Two Constitutions, on the case for Trump – Vox.com

If Trumpism had an intellectual home, it would be the Claremont Institute.

Claremont is a small but influential conservative think tank, tucked away in Southern California. It publishes the Claremont Review of Books, a leading journal of right-wing intellectuals, particularly those influenced by the 20th-century philosopher Leo Strauss.

You might recall an infamous viral essay from 2016 comparing America to Flight 93, a reference to the hijacked plane on 9/11 in which passengers stormed the cockpit. That piece, published by Claremont, told readers they faced a choice in November 2016: charge the cockpit or you die. In other words, vote for Donald Trump or watch the republic burn.

The Flight 93 essay is the most well-known thing Claremont has published, and probably the most provocative, but its also aligned with the institutions broader mission. Over the past four years, Claremont has tried to put intellectual meat on the bones of Trumpism. They may not like Trump, the guy, but theyve worked hard to provide a theoretical framework for his politics.

The editor of the Claremont Review, and really the face of the institution, is Charles Kesler. A professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College (which is unaffiliated with the Claremont Institute), Kesler is what Id call a measured thinker. He supported Trump but was always very careful about how he expressed it.

Kesler is out with a new book, called Crisis of the Two Constitutions, so I reached out to him to talk about the appeal of Trump. There was nothing mystifying about the popularity of Trump among the conservative base. He was a godsend to anyone who lived to see the libs triggered. But Kesler and the authors at Claremont are different. They saw in Trump an opportunity, perhaps the last opportunity, to turn the country around.

In this conversation, I press Kesler to explain what, exactly, he saw. Does he think the country is in mortal peril? And if so, why was Trump the solution? Kesler is a serious person, and at times, this is a frustrating exchange. But I believe it offers some insight into what the intellectuals who backed Trumpism are thinking, and why the American right is where it is now.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

The tone of your book is not reactionary, but it did strike me as the lament of a reactionary, someone who really does believe that the country is on the brink. Is that how you feel?

I guess it depends on what you mean by on the brink. I dont think were on the brink of anything immediately. The trends are certainly bad, and I dont see a lot of healthy influences. But I dont think anythings inevitable in politics. Im definitely worried about my country, if thats what you mean.

No, thats not really what I mean. Were all worried. But there are many who think were in an actual political emergency.

I wouldnt say were in an emergency now. Were approaching a crisis unless things happen in between. I begin the book by pointing out that our politics could change considerably if some extraneous event happens, if a major war breaks out, or if the little green men land from outer space. There could be a game reset if the conditions really were to change suddenly.

But Covid-19 was a pretty big extraneous factor, and it seemed to make very little difference in our politics. It was easily absorbed into the ongoing disagreements. We just had more things to disagree about. We could argue about masks, and shutdowns, and opening up, and all the things that we have been arguing about in addition to the usual stuff from the past year.

Ill be honest: I think you think were in a political emergency, but you dont seem quite willing to say that at least not in the book.

There are lots of familiar conservative arguments in there about cultural decline, and, frankly, Im sympathetic to some of it, but my sense is that youre hesitant to signal your genuine alarm. And this is most clear when it comes to Trump, whom you never fully endorse but youre obviously not not endorsing him. For someone like you, a serious person with a real grounding in history, even a muted openness to Trump feels like an act of desperation.

An act of desperation?

I mean someone like you understands what Trump is, what he represents, and supporting him suggests you think things are sufficiently bad that the system has to be blown up in order to be saved.

I did, in fact, vote for Trump. And I published Michael Antons infamous Flight 93 essay back in 2016. So I cant be exonerated of Trump. But I honestly dont think theres an emergency.

I wrote my dissertation on Cicero, so I know something about Roman republican politics. And in that case, you had essentially 100 years of civil war, off and on, before what we would now recognize as the end of the republic. And its not clear that at any moment in that process, you couldve said, This is it. This is the last spiral, the last hundred years of republic. Were doomed. I think its very hard to read that. And were far from having pre-civil war conditions.

I dont agree with Ross Douthats account of America as a decadent society, though. His argument is that our decadence is more fundamental than our polarization, and that we could have many more centuries of continued rich decadence, and of being a superpower, without any impending catastrophe to worry about.

But that analysis doesnt recognize that America, as you say, has always been a contentious and fractious polity. Weve had a lot of diversity in American history and American politics. And thats why we should be concerned about challenges to unity, because our unity is a constructed political thing, and it takes more maintenance and inspiration than people may believe.

How could someone worried about American unity look at a guy like Trump and think thats a solution to our problems?

Well, I think he had a chance. His message, his policies, could have been very helpful in carving out a new middle in American politics. The problem was his tone, his affect, his showmanship and egotism, whatever you want to call it exactly, undercut that political attempt, and it left him in the strange position of governing a country in which 60 percent of the people in one poll said that they were better off now than they were four years before, and yet 20 percent of those people voted against him.

So he turned out a lot of pro-Trump voters, but he also turned out a lot of anti-Trump voters. He threw away whatever chance he had to be a unifying figure. And if you look at some of the micro-results, he did better among some Black voters and Hispanic voters in various places. So the simple story of Donald Trump the racist cant be entirely true. Despite his personality, or maybe because of his personality, he gave them some hope. Thats why I think it might have been a winnable election for Trump, if he had just been a little less Trump-like in his personality.

This is where you drive me nuts, Charles. Its true that Trump did surprisingly well among some Black and Hispanic voters, and there are some interesting potential reasons for that, but the idea that Trump was ever going to be a unifying figure is just absurd.

Youre smart enough to recognize the nationalist game Trump was playing. You know the appeals he made to white voters were racially tinged, you know he lunged into national politics by embracing the racist birther conspiracy about Obama, but in your book you talk about Make America Great Again as an innocent slogan from a man who just loves his country like a little boy loves his mommy and that it was the PC liberals who got it all wrong.

Look, you can be a nationalist without being a racist, and plenty of non-racist people voted for Trump, but your account of Trumps naive nationalist pitch is charitable to a degree that is frankly hard to believe.

I mean it sincerely. There are parts of Trump that Ive long disassociated myself from, like the birtherism. I wrote a book about Obama back in 2012, and I made a point in the beginning to say that I dont believe this. I never had any tolerance for this stuff. And there are things Trump said and did that were crude and regrettable and I dont want to hear it again.

But he did stand up for the traditional, patriotic civic culture. And he was one of the very few Republican politicians who had really any interest in tackling political correctness, or the eventual toppling of monuments and statues, which I think was very defensible on civic or nationalist grounds. This is part of what made Trump so attractive to a lot of voters.

Theres a lot there, but Im going to circle back to the point I was driving at earlier. I think there are right-wing intellectuals who have concluded that democracy has produced the wrong outcomes (culturally and politically) and therefore they believe it has to be rejected, or at least no longer considered inherently good.

Do you think thats true?

No, I think youre right. I must say, I read more about them than I read of them. Because a lot of them are on the web. If they remain on the fringe, I dont think its an imminent problem. But it could be a long-term problem on the right among a certain kind of disillusioned young male.

Im not talking about alienated 20-somethings posting Pepe the Frog memes. Im talking about conservative intellectuals, people like Michael Anton, whose Flight 93 essay you published. I mean, that essay told readers that the stakes of the 2016 election were literally existential, that they had to charge the cockpit or you die. I suppose you could argue that Anton thinks hes defending the republic there, but I also think hes saying that democracy has veered so far off the tracks that we need to explode it in order to revive it.

I would say in defense of Michael that the only action hes asking a reader to take is to vote for Trump. The metaphor he uses is histrionic, as he himself has admitted. In fact, I think he admitted that in the original piece itself. But it was designed to shake conservative voters out of a certain kind of lethargy that had come over them because of their discontent with Trump and with the whole process that started with 17 candidates and somehow, in the end, boiled down to Donald Trump. He feared apathy on the right, so he countered that with a dynamic and explosive image.

I think telling people to charge the cockpit or die is doing a little more than saying, Just go out and vote, but Ill leave Anton aside. You refer to something called the Weimar problem in your book that seems relevant here. You write: Every republic eventually faces what might be called the Weimar problem. Has the national culture, popular and elite, deteriorated so much that the virtues necessary to sustain republican government are no longer viable? You hedge on this, but honestly, do you think this is basically where we are?

No, but I do fear thats where were headed. Its a more comprehensive list than I gave there. It would also include doubt about the goodness of the republic. And the grounds of the goodness of the republic is a major part of our ambivalence. Its a major part of our moral and psychological disarray right now.

But its also economic dislocations and what has happened to the middle class and to the working class in America. I dont think any of that is irrecoverable, though. And I think we can do better. But I do think that, yeah, in some ways, I fear were hollowing out the republic. You have two adamant parties that increasingly deplore each other, and which of these parties has the time to take up the banner of the original republic? Which party cares about individual rights, about natural rights, about limited government, about a whole set of constitutional ideas that we were once so proud of but which figure only at the margins of our constitutional and political arguments?

Theres some both-sidesism in that answer, but you clearly think the progressive left is the driving force of decay, right?

I do lay a fair amount of blame at the feet of progressives, thats true. I think progressivism imported a whole new conception of political science and human nature, and really a new conception of the purpose of politics, which has turned government into a rights-creation industry. Were not in politics to defend our natural rights, or our God-given moral dignity, or whatever you want to call it. Were in politics to create rights. And the only rights we ever have are those that we humans create for one another.

Now, there are worse ways of looking at politics than that, to be sure. But I think its very demoralizing for a democracy. Although it tries to avoid this, it still undermines the restraint on human will in politics. It opens the vista of very great creativity in the making of rights, which can also mean the unmaking of rights, which can also be done very creatively. And it removes any authority above our will from rights, from the democratic process, from the safety and happiness of the people, all of these notions which were close to the heart of what I call the founders Constitution.

I try to be fair to the progressives in each of their versions as they make history in the 20th century. Theyre really out to save America, as they understand it, from the burden of an antiquated Constitution and the inefficiencies of the machinery of the Constitution, but also what they regard as the immorality of the ideas behind the machinery. I think they sincerely believe that. And they did accomplish some good things in the 20th century, but I think the reasons they give for what they do tend to undermine the goodness of those accomplishments.

This is one place where we just have a philosophical disagreement, because whatever one thinks of God, I do believe that rights only exist because human beings have decided they should, and because weve agreed to continually reaffirm them. But this is a point we cant argue here. Most of your ire in the book is directed at the woke left and what you call its abandonment of truth-seeking. Is relativism really a bigger problem on the left today than it is on the right?

Thats a good question. I think its more of a problem on the left. You could say many of the moral revolutionaries on the left, whether on the gender front or the anti-racist front, a lot of that does seem to be wrapped up with the notion of anti-foundationalism, or the idea that theres no foundation for any of our concepts other than human will. That tendency is more advanced on the left than on the right.

Im not here to defend everything that falls under the banner of wokeness, and Ive been pretty open about my issues with a lot of it, but your book is conspicuously uninterested in the post-truth politics on the right. I mean, the vast majority of the Republican Party believes the 2020 election was fraudulent, a claim without any basis in fact whatsoever.

Does that kind of epistemological pluralism bother you as much as some of the stuff youre seeing on the left?

No, it does concern me, and in the winter issue of the Claremont Review of Books, I ran three pieces that were critical of the hypothesis that the election had been stolen. I think its much more likely the election was won fair and square, or more or less fair and square with some cheating, but not the whole thing being stolen by Joe Biden. I think any political scientist would have to read the evidence that way.

Now, at the same time, there are complicating factors here. One is that the battle over the election came at the end of a series of battles about the truth of things like Russian collusion or Ukrainian intervention. After two or three years of every establishment organ assuring us that there was no doubt that the guy was guilty, it turns out he wasnt. So I think that contributed to the plausibility of Trumps story that this was the latest deception in a series of deceptions.

Okay, thats fine, and while I think thats a simplistic account of the Russia story, Ill avoid debating it and instead push on my previous point a little more. Were not in this situation merely because the left or because the media overplayed its hands on Russia, though Id concede thats part of the story.

A lot of conservatives believe these lies because right-wing commentators and politicians and intellectuals have cynically indulged them. I just heard your colleague Michael Anton on Andrew Sullivans podcast playing this exact game. He wont say outright that the election was stolen, but when pressed for evidence, he says hes just practicing epistemological humility. I mean, come on!

This is why I think people in your camp, sometimes called West Coast Straussians, are doing something very deliberate. One of the ideas of Strauss is that the philosopher, especially in times of crisis, may have to be a little deceptive, or tell lies in service of some higher goal, like saving the republic.

Honestly, is that part of whats going on here?

No, not at all. I would consider intentional deception about the election an especially despicable use of the noble lie excuse. As I say, I think that Trump lost. Ive published two essays on that very question, and my own, in the last issue, which more or less assumed the truth of that. I think Trump won a close election in 2016, and he lost a fairly close election in 2020. And theres nothing that really ought to be surprising about that.

But its true that Trump took advantage of what might have been, among reasonable people, some doubt about particular elections, and blew it up into a whole theory, a whole excuse, for losing the election. That is regrettable, and it is damaging.

Youre very careful in the book to say we havent reached the point of no return, so Ill ask you here: Wheres that line? And what happens when we cross it?

Its hard to say exactly. But it could be the result of a Supreme Court decision that a majority of the states refuse to enforce. It could be an abortion ruling or a guns ruling. But it could be sufficiently polarizing that people essentially say, I dont want to be in the same community with the people on the other side of this issue. And that would start by saying, Were not going to allow federal marshals to enforce the law in our state. But of course, for reasons that are familiar in history, that can escalate into something much bigger than anyone anticipated. I dont think that is necessarily going to happen, and, of course, Im hopeful that it doesnt happen.

But thats a mechanical answer to your question. I think a more philosophical answer would be that weve crossed that line when its clear that we really dont understand All men are created equal in the same way, or when we understand it in incompatible and even mutually impossible ways. If that happens, weve reached the limits of moral community, which helped to set the limits of political community. And thats when you have a real problem.

Read the rest here:
Charles Kesler, author of Crisis of the Two Constitutions, on the case for Trump - Vox.com

What is quantum computing?

Quantum computing is an area of study focused on the development of computer based technologies centered around the principles ofquantum theory. Quantum theory explains the nature and behavior of energy and matter on thequantum(atomic and subatomic) level. Quantum computing uses a combination ofbitsto perform specific computational tasks. All at a much higher efficiency than their classical counterparts. Development ofquantum computersmark a leap forward in computing capability, with massive performance gains for specific use cases. For example quantum computing excels at like simulations.

The quantum computer gains much of its processing power through the ability for bits to be in multiple states at one time. They can perform tasks using a combination of 1s, 0s and both a 1 and 0 simultaneously. Current research centers in quantum computing include MIT, IBM, Oxford University, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In addition, developers have begun gaining access toquantum computers through cloud services.

Quantum computing began with finding its essential elements. In 1981, Paul Benioff at Argonne National Labs came up with the idea of a computer that operated with quantum mechanical principles. It is generally accepted that David Deutsch of Oxford University provided the critical idea behind quantum computing research. In 1984, he began to wonder about the possibility of designing a computer that was based exclusively on quantum rules, publishing a breakthrough paper a few months later.

Quantum Theory

Quantum theory's development began in 1900 with a presentation by Max Planck. The presentation was to the German Physical Society, in which Planck introduced the idea that energy and matter exists in individual units. Further developments by a number of scientists over the following thirty years led to the modern understanding of quantum theory.

Quantum Theory

Quantum theory's development began in 1900 with a presentation by Max Planck. The presentation was to the German Physical Society, in which Planck introduced the idea that energy and matter exists in individual units. Further developments by a number of scientists over the following thirty years led to the modern understanding of quantum theory.

The Essential Elements of Quantum Theory:

Further Developments of Quantum Theory

Niels Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. This theory asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be, but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or even to exist, until it is measured. This relates to a principle called superposition. Superposition claims when we do not know what the state of a given object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously -- as long as we don't look to check.

To illustrate this theory, we can use the famous analogy of Schrodinger's Cat. First, we have a living cat and place it in a lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. Then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if it has broken the cyanide capsule and died. Since we do not know, the cat is both alive and dead, according to quantum law -- in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and see what condition the cat is in that the superposition is lost, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

The principle that, in some way, one particle can exist in numerous states opens up profound implications for computing.

A Comparison of Classical and Quantum Computing

Classical computing relies on principles expressed by Boolean algebra; usually Operating with a 3 or 7-modelogic gateprinciple. Data must be processed in an exclusive binary state at any point in time; either 0 (off / false) or 1 (on / true). These values are binary digits, or bits. The millions of transistors and capacitors at the heart of computers can only be in one state at any point. In addition, there is still a limit as to how quickly these devices can be made to switch states. As we progress to smaller and faster circuits, we begin to reach the physical limits of materials and the threshold for classical laws of physics to apply.

The quantum computer operates with a two-mode logic gate:XORand a mode called QO1 (the ability to change 0 into a superposition of 0 and 1). In a quantum computer, a number of elemental particles such as electrons or photons can be used. Each particle is given a charge, or polarization, acting as a representation of 0 and/or 1. Each particle is called a quantum bit, or qubit. The nature and behavior of these particles form the basis of quantum computing and quantum supremacy. The two most relevant aspects of quantum physics are the principles of superposition andentanglement.

Superposition

Think of a qubit as an electron in a magnetic field. The electron's spin may be either in alignment with the field, which is known as aspin-upstate, or opposite to the field, which is known as aspin-downstate. Changing the electron's spin from one state to another is achieved by using a pulse of energy, such as from alaser. If only half a unit of laser energy is used, and the particle is isolated the particle from all external influences, the particle then enters a superposition of states. Behaving as if it were in both states simultaneously.

Each qubit utilized could take a superposition of both 0 and 1. Meaning, the number of computations a quantum computer could take is 2^n, where n is the number of qubits used. A quantum computer comprised of 500 qubits would have a potential to do 2^500 calculations in a single step. For reference, 2^500 is infinitely more atoms than there are in the known universe. These particles all interact with each other via quantum entanglement.

In comparison to classical, quantum computing counts as trueparallel processing. Classical computers today still only truly do one thing at a time. In classical computing, there are just two or more processors to constitute parallel processing.EntanglementParticles (like qubits) that have interacted at some point retain a type can be entangled with each other in pairs, in a process known ascorrelation. Knowing the spin state of one entangled particle - up or down -- gives away the spin of the other in the opposite direction. In addition, due to the superposition, the measured particle has no single spin direction before being measured. The spin state of the particle being measured is determined at the time of measurement and communicated to the correlated particle, which simultaneously assumes the opposite spin direction. The reason behind why is not yet explained.

Quantum entanglement allows qubits that are separated by large distances to interact with each other instantaneously (not limited to the speed of light). No matter how great the distance between the correlated particles, they will remain entangled as long as they are isolated.

Taken together, quantum superposition and entanglement create an enormously enhanced computing power. Where a 2-bit register in an ordinary computer can store only one of four binary configurations (00, 01, 10, or 11) at any given time, a 2-qubit register in a quantum computer can store all four numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit represents two values. If more qubits are added, the increased capacity is expanded exponentially.

Quantum Programming

Quantum computing offers an ability to write programs in a completely new way. For example, a quantum computer could incorporate a programming sequence that would be along the lines of "take all the superpositions of all the prior computations." This would permit extremely fast ways of solving certain mathematical problems, such as factorization of large numbers.

The first quantum computing program appeared in 1994 by Peter Shor, who developed a quantum algorithm that could efficiently factorize large numbers.

The Problems - And Some Solutions

The benefits of quantum computing are promising, but there are huge obstacles to overcome still. Some problems with quantum computing are:

There are many problems to overcome, such as how to handle security and quantum cryptography. Long time quantum information storage has been a problem in the past too. However, breakthroughs in the last 15 years and in the recent past have made some form of quantum computing practical. There is still much debate as to whether this is less than a decade away or a hundred years into the future. However, the potential that this technology offers is attracting tremendous interest from both the government and the private sector. Military applications include the ability to break encryptions keys via brute force searches, while civilian applications range from DNA modeling to complex material science analysis.

The rest is here:
What is quantum computing?