THE FUTURE ALWAYS HAPPENS FASTER THAN YOU EXPECT:

AI and 3D printing: When technologies collide, and something interesting happens (Paul Wallis, October 16, 2026, Digital Journal)

In a decade or so, 3D printing has gone from limited printing materials and comparatively simple designs to a virtual sector-wide DIY Renaissance.

3D printing has always needed and will need more contextual space for its ideas, more processing power, more and better materials, etc. This is where AI comes in. Processing and managing high data loads, vectors, and specifications are where the very high-grunt scientific form of AI excels.

These two almost new areas of science are growing up fast, and the future is looking limitless. 3D people, please excuse an unavoidable level of superficiality at this point, because there’s a lot to cover.

At the 3D production level, AI is already making itself very useful. It’s working in areas like managing large numbers of printers, predicting failures, design optimization, and practical things like additive manufacturing.

THE NEXT ORBAN?:

India’s Gen Z Gandhians Are Exposing the Brutal Side of Modi’s Hindu Nationalist Regime (Madhavan Narayanan, 10/16/26, UnPopulist)


Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is having a difficult year. He seemed to have consolidated unshakeable control over the world’s largest democracy through a combination of slogans designed to rile up the dominant Hindu majority against Muslims and other minorities, and allegations of corruption and tax evasion against opposition leaders. Even the slowing economy, high unemployment and inflation didn’t make any serious dent in his hold on power.

Over the last 10 days, however, he—and the country—has been jolted by a massive youth movement that is accusing his government of fixing elections through voter list manipulation; it is demanding accountability and insisting on its democratic rights.

Using a cocktail of nonviolent techniques reminiscent of Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India movement against British colonialists, a Gen Z movement has gripped the country.

RISE THE TIDE:

We have to make people care about economic growth: The very real promise of economic growth must be made to seem tangible (Daniel Dieppe, 17 October, 2026, The Critic)

Indeed, properly understood, economic growth is a lynchpin to a whole myriad of social and economic problems. Paying the Triple Lock state pension, which rises by at least 2.5 per cent per annum, would be much easier if the economy kept pace with the single largest welfare expenditure. The NEETs and graduate jobs crisis could be solved if there were, well — more jobs. The arguments for mass immigration, supposedly needed to keep the economy going, could be pulled apart if economic growth remained high.

Yet despite growth’s almost puppeteer status at the centre of our modern national story, few people associate their everyday problems with it. Eliminating poverty, by far the greatest raison d’etre for left-wing politics, is not associated with economic growth, even though economic growth is the single greatest alleviator of poverty throughout history.

An economy exists to create wealth: its distribution is a political question.

IT DEMONSTRTES THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF EMPATHY:

The Elizabeth Holmes Documentary You Can See Everything Is an Act of Radical Empathy: The high-concept documentary from Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim offers surprising generosity to a Big Tech villain without fully excusing her crimes. (Peter Suderman | 10.16.2026, reason)

Just before she entered prison, Holmes invited documentarians Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim to live with her, her boyfriend Billy Evans, and their two young children in their beachfront San Diego rental unit, promising them full access, complete transparency. The result is this year’s most entrancing documentary, You Can See Everything. When the camera captures Billy in the shower, the movie delivers on its titular promise; you, uh, really can see everything.

Yet what you cannot see is who Holmes really is. The mystery of the era’s most famous fraudster is the movie’s central riddle: Is she cynical, calculating, a stone-cold liar and psychopath? Or is she something stranger—a damaged and delicate person who genuinely believes her lies, or at the very least, genuinely believes the stories she tells herself to justify those lies after the fact?

Fielder and Holmes seem uncertain themselves; the movie is, in part, their own attempt to wrestle with their own ambivalence, their own inability to come to a conclusion. It’s a hall of mirrors about the infinite unknowability of a person, even given unfettered access.

We can never truly know ourselves, nevermind another.

CAN’T WAIT TO HEAR HOW IT’S PERFECTLY NORMAL TO TRANSITION…:

The Kids Who Identify as Animals: A rising subculture of kids says they don’t feel entirely human. Here’s what their parents are learning to do with that. (Kara Baskin, 10/14/26, Boston Magazine)

What is new is where—and how young—the search happens. The furry world these kids move through lives largely online: The International Anthropomorphic Research Project (IARP), a group of scholars who study it, finds a heavy overlap with digital media use, and nearly 60 percent of furries say they found the fandom before turning 18. It’s a place where identity is constantly performed, debated, and policed, often by other kids. Yet even for the most online generation in history, some things arrive before the algorithm. The Internet gave Sol the word for it, and others who understood. But the feeling was already there.

The fandom also overlaps heavily with other marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ and nonbinary young people—which has made it a target of moral panic. In 2022, the baseless claim that schools were installing litter boxes for students who identified as cats ricocheted across the Internet and into political speeches, sparking a new battle in the culture wars.

Furries are also routinely conflated with sexual fetish—adult furry content exists online—though that bears little resemblance to the kids sewing tails, painting masks, and trading art at PortCon. “One of the biggest misconceptions is that there’s sort of an adult undertone when really, this is about expression, identity, and creativity,” Werkhoven says. “There’s the conception that furry is strictly like a kink, and that’s not true. It’s: ‘I have a character, and that character is a dog.’”

That fear-and-fascination cycle is where most parents come in. Catherine, a Newton mother of two furry kids (now 27 and 21), found out her older child was a furry only because her younger one let it slip years ago; the older one feared the stigma too much to say so. “These furries are all anonymous. They’re in big fur suits, right? It could be anybody. I don’t know, factually, if this has ever happened, but there is fear that pedophiles will take advantage of younger kids,” she says. Then she chaperoned her younger child to a convention and found it closer to an art fair than a den of iniquity: kids and caregivers, mental health workshops, and costumes of startling craft. “They come up with a whole character. They have very elaborate stories of their character and terminology. It doesn’t matter if you’re a boy or girl, gay or straight; they become this other person, and they can open up,” she says. “I was impressed.”

Catherine’s reassurance, though, rests on something therian parents don’t have. Her children invented their “fursonas.” Sol didn’t invent the cat. The question in Susanne’s house isn’t whether this is safe—it’s what it means that her daughter isn’t pretending.

DIRT MAID:

The Complex Legacy of the Great Wynonna Judd: Her devastated and victorious new album follows the suicide of her mother Naomi. (Crispin Sartwell, 10/12/26, Splice Today)

“The dirt made me. The dirt made me, like a mother with no shame made me,” she sings, shockingly on “Kentucky Queen.” Who sings like that about their mom, much less about their mom the beloved country star? But Wynonna has been freed to tell the truth as she experienced it, hard as it may be.

A different day
The same ol’ call
Lost your mind in Mobile
Fallin’ off again
It’s too far, I can’t find you
A counterfeit fix, that’s what you run to
I know, Lord, I know

It’s a strange transaction
That nobody wins, but I buy in
Oh, here we go again

And I’m desperate for change
From the rain and stormy weather
I would drag you out of Hell if I could
But I don’t have the power
I can’t save you, but I try
I don’t want to, but I still believe
In a hopeful lie

I hear this song as being about the struggle when someone you love is in and out of rehab, for drug abuse or mental illness issues. She’s saying (I think) that she believed it, or tried to, or said she did, each time Naomi headed toward a recovery, or got more therapy. But perhaps the song is about her daughter Grace, who’s had similar struggles and is currently in jail. In any case, the song registers how the pain has been exacerbated by hope, which is a terrible truth. But she manages to sing about these matters directly, with no obscurity or evasion, and I hope that expressing it with this sort of intensity will help her.

APPLYING DARWINISM:

Eugenics and the Nihilism of Law-and-Order Politics (Terence Keel, September 6, 2026, LA Review of Books)

His conclusion was, however, fatefully turned on its head in 1912 by Arthur H. Estabrook, working out of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Estabrook “reanalyzed” Dugdale’s data and decided that heredity mattered more than Dugdale realized. With Charles Davenport, one of the nation’s leading eugenicists and the director of the Eugenics Record Office, Estabrook published a study of another “degenerate” family, entitled The Nam Family: A Study in Cacogenics. Unsurprisingly, the two men concluded that there was nothing to be done to correct the genes of a criminal. “The rural communities of ‘degenerates,’” they argued, suffered from “an unusual lack of industry, retardation in school work, and a failure to observe the conventionalities in sex-relationships. There is reason for concluding that the first and second traits are hereditary and are, in a measure, the raison d’être of the foundation of such communities.” They used the term “cacogenics” (derived from an earlier concept developed by British physician and biologist E. E. Fournier d’Albe) for the generational deterioration of a (white) family. The sentiment behind the concept had considerable staying power, even if the term itself fell out of use.

Estabrook and Davenport helped normalize the notion that some families were burdened with an insurmountable defective inheritance. The state, it followed, could do nothing against a “cacogenic” family’s slide into criminal degeneracy and poverty. Combining policing, incarceration, segregation, and sterilization was the best course of action to protect the privileged from the hopeless.

Reducing complex social problems to a hereditary defect—to “bad genes”—had the virtue of sounding scientific while hiding a profound pessimism about American people. Conservative ideologues seized on this “diagnosis” to argue against state and philanthropic investment in the lives of people like the Jukes. Similar arguments about Black people were made during the period of Jim Crow segregation, with advocates of Darwinian evolution arguing against investing in a population destined to become extinct once forced into open competition with whites. In their 2009 book Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins, historians Adrian Desmond and James Moore describe how “natural selection was now predicated on the weaker being extinguished. Individuals, races even, had to perish for progress to occur. […] Europeans were the agents of Evolution.” Political pluralism and multiracial democracy effectively stood in the way of evolution. State investment could not possibly make a meaningful difference in the lives of inferior people—a view that has generated a lingering apathy plaguing US policy decisions around medical care, employment, and poverty ever since.

THE ANGLOSPHERIC DIFFERENCE:

Deirdre McCloskey Wants Old Liberalism Back: ‘Equality of Permission’: In ‘Equality of Permission,’ McCloskey returns to familiar ground: free markets, individual dignity, and the dangers of statism. What makes it distinctive is the force and flair of her argument. (Joakim Book, October 13, 2026, Daily Economy)

My book argues for a substantial restoration of this first, Scottish, Smithian, and individual liberty. Alone. It argues against a state-directed, collectivist, and faux-predictable pursuit of an unattainable utopia, a top-down social engineering advocated widely in the French Enlightenment, which promises, through what it calls its numerous nice-sounding but coerced ‘policies,’ to serve a general will.

OUR RIGHTS AS ENGLISHMEN:

The British Radical Who Used the American Revolution to Curb the Crown: Danielle Allen’s valuable history of Charles Lennox shows the two sides weren’t foes but allies for popular sovereignty against tyranny (Andy Craig, 10/12/26, The UnPopulist)

In the spring of 1778, with the war in America going badly, a member of the House of Lords proposed that Britain withdraw its forces and recognize American independence. Charles Lennox, the third Duke of Richmond, was a great-grandson of King Charles II, one of the wealthiest men in the country, and about as well-placed in the British establishment as anyone could be. He was also, for 15 years, its most persistent critic.

Richmond is not a name most Americans would recognize. Danielle Allen’s Radical Duke makes a good case that he ought to be. […]

The central argument of the book, and its most valuable contribution, is that the reformers in London and the rebels in America were reacting to the same problem, and that the problem was not taxation as such. It was that Parliament had stopped functioning as an independent check on the Crown.