Technology

IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSTATE DEFLATIONARY PRESSURES:

India Built the World’s Back Office. A.I. Is Starting to Shrink It. (Steven Lee Myers and Paul MozurVisuals by Saumya Khandelwal, Feb. 27, 2026, NY Times)]


For a quarter century, India has made itself the world’s back office, providing an educated, English-speaking work force to do tasks more cheaply than in the United States or Europe. The industry today employs more than six million people and is worth nearly $300 billion, more than 7 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Now, A.I. threatens to do to India what its outsourcing model did to the rest of the world: replace hundreds of thousands of office workers.

ALL IN YOUR HEAD:

How Real Is the Nocebo Effect? (Carol Tavris, February 23, 2026, Skeptic)


Where the placebo goes, can the nocebo be far behind? In This Book May Cause Side Effects, Helen Pilcher, a science writer and TV presenter with a PhD in cell biology, delves into the placebo’s “evil twin”—the myriad ways that our negative expectations affect us. If you had chills, fatigue, or headaches after getting a COVID shot, she writes, they were likely due to your being told those are frequent “side effects.” If you read the list of symptoms that your newly prescribed drug “might” produce, chances are you will experience one or more of them—and possibly decide not to take that drug after all. “If just the thought of eating a certain food makes you feel sick,” she writes, “it’s highly likely that placebo’s evil twin has struck again. Indeed, many of those who believe they have intolerances to certain ingredients, such as lactose or gluten, may well owe their misery to psychological rather than physical processes.” When self-reported “gluten intolerant” people are given gluten-free bread but told that the bread contains gluten, very often they develop gastrointestinal symptoms. “And when some gluten-intolerant people are covertly fed regular bread but told that it’s gluten-free, they don’t get symptoms,” Pilcher writes. “It’s the idea of gluten that they are intolerant to, rather than theprotein itself.”

OPEN SOURCE EVERYTHING:

Revisionist History – Aliens, Secrets and Conspiracies (Steve Blank, 1/24/26, The Cipher Brief)


What’s interesting is what happened after the news came out that the Alien story was government disinformation. A large percentage of people who were briefed, now “doubled down” and believed “we got the technology from Aliens” even more strongly – believing the new information itself was a coverup. Many dismissed the facts by prioritizing how they felt over reality, something we often see in political or religious contexts. (“Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”) […]


Secrecy created 75 years of cynicism and mistrust, when the U.S. began launching highly classified reconnaissance balloons (story here), and later the U-2 and SR-71 spy planes. These top secret projects gave rise to decades of UFO sightings. Instead of acknowledging these sightings were from classified military projects the Department of Defense issued cover stories (“you saw weather balloons”) that weren’t believable.

Governments and companies have always kept secrets and used misinformation and manipulation. However, things stay secret way too long – for many reasons – some reasonable (we’re still using the same methods – reconnaissance technology, tradecraft, or, it would harm people still alive – retired spies, etc) or not so reasonable (we broke U.S. or international laws – COINTELPRO, or it would embarrass us or our allies – Kennedy assassination, or the Epstein files).

Secrecy increases the odds of conspiracy beliefs. Because evidence can’t be checked, contradictions can’t be audited, a government “cover-up” becomes a plausible explanation. People don’t tolerate “I don’t know” for long when stakes are high (stolen elections, identity, national crises, the meaning of life, or what happens when we die). That vacuum gets filled by the most emotionally satisfying model: a hidden “higher power” concealing information and controlling events.

FIRST, DO NO HARM:

Christians welcome decision to pause puberty blockers trial (Christianity Today, 2/23/26)

Simon Calvert is Deputy Director at The Christian Institute, which has opposed the trans agenda for well over two decades. He was among the critics welcoming the pause while urging the government to go further and cancel it completely.

“It is dangerous and immoral to use children as guinea pigs for drugs that we already know are harmful for them and useless at treating gender dysphoria,” he said.

“In the overwhelming majority of cases, childhood confusion about gender typically resolves during puberty. So these drugs block the very process which relieves that confusion.

“We must hope and pray this outbreak of common sense is permanent and that the trial never goes ahead.”

Puberty blockers for people under the age of 18 questioning their gender have been banned in the UK since 2024.

James Esses, a therapist and leading campaigner against the puberty blockers trial, recently joined with other opponents to launch High Court action aimed at stopping the trial from going ahead.

He said, “This is a huge victory but now we must compel them to abandon it completely. This poison must never enter another child’s body.”

BRITAIN’S TUSKEEGEE STUDY:

What happens next after the MHRA halts puberty blockers trial? (Hannah Barnes, February 22 2026, Times uk)

Dr — now Baroness — Hilary Cass’s four-year inquiry into NHS youth gender services painted a shameful picture of what had taken place at the now-closed gender identity development service (Gids) at the Tavistock in north London. All under the eye of NHS England, politicians and healthcare regulators. Youth gender medicine was “an area of remarkably weak evidence,” Cass said. There was “no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress”.

Among the most damning of her observations, though, was that the NHS had allowed the routine prescribing of puberty-blocking drugs to gender-distressed children for a decade, without any robust data to support that decision. […]

Perhaps the most surprising omission from the protocol, was acknowledgment that puberty blockers are highly unlikely to be a standalone treatment. Rather, they are part of a pathway towards medical transition. And with that comes a very real risk of infertility. There is no evidence that blockers on their own impact fertility (partly because so few children have come off the drugs, and gender clinics haven’t bothered to try to find them). But worldwide studies show in excess of 90 per cent of those who commence treatment with puberty blockers continue on to masculinising or feminising hormones. Early puberty blockade followed immediately by hormones means there is no opportunity for children’s eggs or sperm to mature.

The MHRA — which approved this trial in the first place — has now acknowledged these points, and more. “The expected effects of the drugs include the sterilising effect of puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones,” the regulator said unequivocally in a letter to KCL. Treatment with puberty blockers beyond a year could “result in persistent and potentially permanent bone structural change,” it added. A government spokesperson described the MHRA’s intervention as raising “new concerns — directly related to the wellbeing of children and young”.

Let’s be clear, these concerns are not “new”. They have been raised in recent months by concerned medics, ethicists, clinicians and journalists. And they have been known for years.

AS LABOR COSTS TEND TOWARDS ZERO:

The A.I. Disruption Is Actually Here, and It’s Not Terrible (Paul Ford, 2/16/26, NY Times)

November was, for me and many others in tech, a great surprise. Before, A.I. coding tools were often useful, but halting and clumsy. Now, the bot can run for a full hour and make whole, designed websites and apps that may be flawed, but credible. I spent an entire session of therapy talking about it.

The tech industry is a global culture — an identity based on craft and skill. Software development has been a solid middle-class job for a long time. But that may be slipping away. What might the future look like if 100 million, or a billion, people can make any software they desire? Could this be a moment of unparalleled growth and opportunity as people gain access to tech industry power for themselves?

According to the market, the answer is no. Recently, software stocks — Monday.com, Salesforce, Adobe and many others — plummeted all at once; the Nasdaq 100 lost half a trillion dollars in two days. Legal software company stocks slumped recently because Anthropic released tools to automate some legal work. Financial services firms and real estate services — the market keeps devaluing them because traders expect there to be less need for humans at desks in an A.I.-automated future. Why will anyone need all that legacy software when A.I. can code anything up for you in two shakes of a robotic lamb’s tail?

Personally this all feels premature, but markets aren’t subtle thinkers. And I get it. When you watch a large language model slice through some horrible, expensive problem — like migrating data from an old platform to a modern one — you feel the earth shifting. I was the chief executive of a software services firm, which made me a professional software cost estimator. When I rebooted my messy personal website a few weeks ago, I realized: I would have paid $25,000 for someone else to do this. When a friend asked me to convert a large, thorny data set, I downloaded it, cleaned it up and made it pretty and easy to explore. In the past I would have charged $350,000.

The revolution is always ten years away… until you realize it already happened.

THE FUTURE ALREADY HAPPENED…AGAIN:

AI is the future of warfare and US is in the lead (Stephen Bryen, February 17, 2026, Asia Times)


Recently AI has played an important role in several conflicts: the Gaza war (Operation Gideon’s Chariots); US-Israel operations against Iran (Operation Rising Lion); the capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Venezuela (Operation Absolute Resolve); operations to locate and stop “rogue” oil tankers; and the Ukraine war, where AI is playing a major role.

If the US and Israel take action against Iran in the coming days, planning and operations would likely be supported by AI.

AS EVERYONE KNEW BUT HIM AND THE LEFT:

Why Big Oil wants no part of Trump-seized Venezuela (Damian Tobin, February 19, 2026, Asia Times)


After the US captured Venezuela’s president at the start of 2026, Donald Trump promised to “unleash” the country’s oil supply. He wanted companies to invest US$100 billion to get hold of it.

Big Oil though, seems less than keen on that idea, appearing to consider Venezuela too expensive or risky.

TEST LESS:

99% of adults over 40 have shoulder “abnormalities” on an MRI, study finds (Beth Mole, Feb 17, 2026, Ars Technica)

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine this week, 99 percent of adults over 40 were found to have at least one abnormality in a rotator cuff on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The rotator cuff is the group of muscles and tendons in a shoulder joint that keeps the upper arm bone securely in the shoulder socket—and is often blamed for pain and other symptoms. The trouble is, the vast majority of people in the study had no shoulder problems.

In other words, it’s normal.

LEVELING UP OPEN INTELLIGENCE:

Building the truth machine (Andy Hall and Elliot, Feb 13, 2026, Free Systems)

The central problem is that the political and policy markets—those arguably most core to the social value proposition of prediction markets—are mostly ghost towns today. […]


For the vast majority of political contracts, there’s almost no one on the other side of the trade. One way to see this: the gap between what buyers are willing to pay and what sellers are asking—a standard measure of how active a market is—typically exceeds 20% of the midpoint price, and is often much higher than that. That’s enormous. In a healthy, liquid market, that gap is no more than a few percentage points at most.

Interestingly, it’s not the case that less liquid markets are necessarily less accurate at predicting outcomes. Sometimes markets stay illiquid precisely because they’re already accurate, and there’s no incentive for new money to enter. Even quite small prediction markets have historically shown strong predictive performance—Wolfers and Zitzewitz documented accurate forecasts from markets with as few as 20 to 60 participants. More recently, Clinton and Huang’s analysis of over 2,500 political contracts from the 2024 election found that PredictIt—the most restricted platform, with position limits of just $850 per contract—correctly predicted 93% of outcomes, compared with 78% for Kalshi and 67% for Polymarket. Markets with more trading activity were not more accurate, controlling for the types of events being traded.

But thin markets are certainly cheaper to manipulate, as I have argued recently. When liquidity is low, a single motivated actor can move prices without anyone around to push back—and in a world where CNN and CNBC are now broadcasting these prices to millions of viewers, that vulnerability matters more than ever.