What does the election mean for AI? Matt Wolfe says: The upcoming Trump Administration will repeal the Biden Administration's AI regulation executive order, which required developers of foundation models to report their safety tests to the federal government, and in general the upcoming Trump Administration will oppose regulation of AI, seeking for AI to advance as fast as possible so the US will stay ahead of geopolitical competitors. "Make America First in AI". The upcoming Trump Administration might even fund AI "Manhattan Projects" to further speed up AI advancement. J.D. Vance is an advocate for open source AI models. Elon Musk runs X.AI and will be working with the upcoming Trump Administration.

That's the first 6 minutes of the video. The rest is about other stuff: Runway AI's new camera control feature, Kling Face Swap, ByteDance's new X-Portrait 2, Facepoke, BlackForestLabs's Labs FLUX 1.1, Krea.AI Loras (character models), Anthropic PDF reading, Anthropic's Haiku price increase, partnerships with AI companies and the US military/defense industry, Instagram age verification, OpenAI possibly wanting to get into hardware, GPT-4o Predicted Outputs, Prime Video AI recaps, iOS 18.2 new AI features, bolt.new builds a Tetris game from a prompt, Wendy's working with Palentir for supply chain AI, SingularityNET AI that plays Minecraft, Nvidia robotics simulation tools, and a Unitree walking robot and robot dog that a guy tries to beat the heck out of.

#solidstatelife #ai #domesticpolitics #election

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt2qXsURflg

Gerrymandering with simulated annealing with Monte Carlo Markov chains. Found this video from 3 years ago. Basically you randomly flip pixels on a map, then, as your simulated "temperature" decreases, you decrease the randomness of how much you run with the random pixel flips regardless of whether they increase whatever gerrymandering metric you put in, and increase the degree to which the map zeroes in on a solution that's close to optimal. Your optimization function takes into account such things as to what degree funky shapes are allowed, populations of all districts are close, and of course, the degree to which the final outcome of the state is proportional to the population in terms of political parties, or whether it gives one party or the other disproportionate representation.

Algorithmic Redistricting: Elections made-to-order - AlphaPhoenix

#solidstatelife #domesticpolitics #gerrymandering #simulatedannealing

"Trump Media & Technology Group, which operates the Truth Social social-media network and trades under the symbol 'DJT,' has a market capitalization of approximately $9.48 billion, allegedly higher than X, the company formerly known as Twitter, which allegedly has a valuation of $9.4 billion."

"Industry analysts believe the jump in TMTG's stock price reflects growing enthusiasm among its investors that Trump will win the 2024 presidential election over VP Kamala Harris."

Trump Media is now worth more than Elon Musk's X after stock rallies to new highs

#domesticpolitics

I heard the judge at Google's antitrust trial left to coach Kamala Harris for her Presidential debate, but after looking for more information on (ironically?) Google, I discovered it wasn't the judge, it was Google's lead defense attorney, which is a lot less weird, but is still a little weird.

"Karen Dunn, a litigator at Paul Weiss, opened Google's defense in a federal court case targeting its digital ad business. Shortly after, she reportedly helped Harris prepare for her debate with Donald Trump in Philadelphia."

What's y'all's predictions for how these antitrust cases are going to turn out for Google? Business as usual or a radical change in Google's business practices?

Who is Karen Dunn? Key figure behind Kamala Harris' debate preparations

#solidstatelife #domesticpolitics #monopoly #antitrust

"Book Review: '2040' by Pedro Domingos" by Scott Aaronson. That is, the book is by Pedro Domingos and the review is by Scott Aaronson.

"Pedro Domingos is a computer scientist at the University of Washington. I've known him for years as a guy who'd confidently explain to me why I was wrong about everything from physics to CS to politics ... but then, for some reason, ask to meet with me again. Over the past 6 or 7 years, Pedro has become notorious in the CS world as a right-wing bomb-thrower on what I still call Twitter -- one who, fortunately for Pedro, is protected by his tenure at UW. He's also known for a popular book on machine learning called The Master Algorithm, which I probably should've read but didn't."

I haven't read that book, either, but as I understand it, the premise of the book is that the AI "master algorithm" will combine neural networks with symbolic AI. So far, we haven't seen any sign that's the way things are going to go. But we have seen neural networks that can solve problems by, for example, instead of trying to do calculations in a language model, using the language model to write Python code and using the Python code to do the actual calculation. There's integration with Wolfram|Alpha that I've tried out and that worked. So it seems to me like the direction things will go is neural networks will do the stuff analogous to the biological neural network known as the human brain, and will use calculating tools, like humans do. You as a human think abstractly about what calculations to do, then use a calculator or write Python code to actually do the calculations accurately, and neural networks will do the same thing. We're already partway down that path, and the future is to make the neural networks more multimodal and have improved context windows and long-term memory and so on. Anyway, getting back to the book review.

"Now Pedro has released a short satirical novel, entitled 2040. The novel centers around a presidential election between:"

"The Democratic candidate, 'Chief Raging Bull,' an angry activist with 1/1024 Native American ancestry (as proven by a DNA test, the Chief proudly boasts) who wants to dissolve the United States and return it to its Native inhabitants, and"

"The Republican candidate, 'PresiBot,' a chatbot with a frequently-malfunctioning robotic 'body.' While this premise would've come off as comic science fiction five years ago, PresiBot now seems like it could plausibly be built using existing LLMs."

"This is all in a near-future whose economy has been transformed (and to some extent hollowed out) by AI, and whose populace is controlled and manipulated by 'Happinet,' a giant San Francisco tech company that parodies Google and/or Meta."

Happinet -- lol.

Ok, so obviously, the idea here is to extrapolate the current political situation and technological situation simultaneously out into the near future (much nearer than 2040, really) and do so in an entertaining and satirical manner. We've already had AI Steve, "Your independent candidate for Brighton Pavilion", so why not PresiBot?

"I should clarify that the protagonists, the ones we're supposed to root for, are the founders of the startup company that built PresiBot -- that is, people who are trying to put the US under the control of a frequently-glitching piece of software that's also a Republican. For some readers, this alone might be a dealbreaker. But as I already knew Pedro's ideological convictions, I felt like I had fair warning."

Book Review: "2040" by Pedro Domingos

#solidstatelife #ai #genai #llms #domesticpolitics

PoliScore uses LLMs to rate legislators.

"Non-Partisan. For the People. Policy / Issues Based."

For my state, Colorado, it says:

"John W. Hickenlooper: A"
"Michael F. Bennet: A"
"Diana DeGette: A"
"Joe Neguse: A"
"Lauren Boebert: F"

Non-partisan, you say?

So I clicked on "John W. Hickenlooper":

"Overall benefit to society: 50"
"Immigration: 50"
"Healthcare: 49"
"Energy: 48"
"Technology: 47"
"Wildlife and forest management: 44"
"Social equity: 44"
"Environmental management and climate change: 43"
"Public lands and natural resources: 42"
"Education: 38"
"Agriculture and food: 37"
"Foreign relations: 37"
"Transportation: 36"
"Economics and commerce: 35"
"Crime and law enforcement: 33"
"National defense: 33"
"Housing: 30"
"Government: 28"

Hmm, wonder how it came up with those numbers?

"Senator John W. Hickenlooper has demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental management, energy innovation, and social equity through his recent legislative efforts. Notably, he sponsored the 'Reforestation, Nurseries, and Genetic Resources Support Act of 2024,' which aims to enhance reforestation efforts by providing financial and technical support to nurseries and seed orchards. This bill is expected to significantly benefit environmental management and climate change mitigation. Additionally, his sponsorship of the 'BIG WIRES Act' underscores his dedication to modernizing the US electric grid, promoting energy resilience, and integrating renewable energy sources, which are crucial for sustainable development."

"In the realm of social equity..."

I'm going to stop there because it goes on for for 2 more paragraphs. Then, after that, is a big list of 218 bills. Each bill has a grade, of which almost all are "A" and the lowest is "C".

For comparison, I clicked on "Lauren Boebert":

"Overall benefit to society: -11"
"Agriculture and food: 11"
"National defense: 8"
"Energy: 7"
"Housing: 4"
"Transportation: 3"
"Technology: 3"
"Government: 2"
"Economics and commerce: 1"
"Crime and law enforcement: -1"
"Wildlife and forest management: -13"
"Foreign relations: -13"
"Education: -13"
"Public lands and natural resources: -14"
"Healthcare: -15"
"Social equity: -18"
"Environmental management and climate change: -26"
"Immigration: -29"

"Representative Lauren Boebert's legislative actions reveal a troubling pattern of prioritizing divisive and regressive policies over constructive and inclusive governance. Her support for the 'Withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change' and the 'WHO Withdrawal Act' underscores a disregard for international cooperation and global health, potentially isolating the US from critical global initiatives."

"Boebert's sponsorship of the 'Build the Wall and Deport Them All Act' and the 'Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2024' highlights a harsh stance on immigration that could exacerbate social inequities and strain foreign relations. ..."

I'm going to stop there but it goes on. Under "Bill History", there's 279 bills, almost all of which are graded either "D" or "F".

I tried clicking on a couple of bills. For John Hickenlooper, I clicked "Reproductive Freedom for Women Act":

"Overall benefit to society: 60"
"Social equity: 80"
"Healthcare: 70"
"Crime and law enforcement: 30"
"Economics and commerce: 20"
"Government: 10"

"The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act, introduced in the Senate, seeks to address the repercussions of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which significantly altered the legal landscape for abortion rights in the United States. The bill explicitly states Congress's support for protecting access to abortion and other reproductive health care services. It aims to restore the protections that were enshrined in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which had previously guaranteed a woman's right to choose an abortion. The high-level goals of the bill are to ensure that women have the freedom to make decisions about their reproductive health without undue governmental interference."

It goes on for 4 more paragraphs.

For Lauren Boebert, I clicked "No User Fees for Gun Owners Act":

"Overall benefit to society: -30"
"Government: -10"
"Economics and commerce: -20"
"Social equity: -30"
"Crime and law enforcement: -40"

"The 'No User Fees for Gun Owners Act' seeks to amend Section 927 of Title 18 of the United States Code and Part I of Subchapter B of Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The primary goal of the bill is to prevent state and local governments from imposing any form of liability insurance, taxes, or user fees specifically as conditions for the ownership, manufacture, importation, acquisition, transfer, or continued possession of firearms and ammunition."

It goes on for 6 more paragraphs.

It looks to me like, if you're a liberal/Democrat, you just use this website as is. If you're a conservative/Republican, at first glance, it looks like you can invert the letter grades and reverse the positive/negative number scores. But, giving the matter more thought, it occurred to me that if the website is made assuming "liberal" values, then bad grades/negative numbers may just mean opposition to liberal values, but that might not tell you anything about what values the politician or bill is for, necessarily. In other words, I'm thinking, if you made comparable systems assuming either conservative or libertarian values, you wouldn't necessarily just get the inverse of this system. Your thoughts?

It may be that the AI-generated summaries for every bill, alongside the easy-to-navigate system of listing them under their sponsors/cosponsors, may be the most valuable aspect of this site. It wouldn't be to hard to check in on a regular basis to see what bills your elected representatives are sponsoring/cosponsoring and get a general sense of what they are about.

I won't comment on the insanity of having a society with more laws than is possible to fit in any human brain while expecting all laws to be obeyed. Oh, whoops. Looks like on this site, it lists all the bills that are sponsored, whether they eventually get signed into law or not, though, so if you see bills listed on this site it doesn't mean you have to obey them (necessarily).

Legislators - PoliScore: non-partisan political rating service

#solidstatelife #ai #genai #llms #domesticpolitics

"Opinion: It's time for the Biden Campaign to embrace AI"

"By Kaivan Shroff, Guest Writer"

"The stakes of the 2024 presidential election cannot be overstated. With Donald Trump promising to act as a dictator 'on day one,' it is not hyperbolic to say the future of American democracy hangs in the balance. Against this backdrop, the Biden campaign faces a critical challenge: conveying a strong and effective image of President Joe Biden to a population and media ecosystem increasingly focused on optics over substance. Given the president's concerning performance last week, it's time for the Biden campaign to consider leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to effectively reach the voting public."

"Reasonably, some may challenge the use of AI as dishonest and deceptive, but the current information ecosystem is arguably no better." "We must ask the question, are augmented AI videos that present Biden in his best form -- while sharing honest and accurate information -- really more socially damaging than our information ecosystem's current realities?"

"AI-generated content can be tailored to highlight President Biden's accomplishments, clearly articulate his policies, and present a consistent, compelling message. In an era where visual mediums and quick, digestible content dominate public perceptions, AI offers an opportunity for more effective communication. These AI-enhanced videos could ensure that the public does not make decisions about the future of our democracy based on an inconveniently timed cough, stray stutter, or healthy but hobbled walk (Biden suffers from a 'stiff gait')."

"The use of AI renderings in political campaigns is becoming increasingly common, and the Republican Party has already embraced this technology and is using AI in their attack ads against the president. Instead of a race to the bottom, the Biden campaign could consider an ethical way to deploy the same tools."

Opinion: It's time for the Biden Campaign to embrace AI | HuffPost Opinion

#solidstatelife #ai #genai #llms #computervision #deepfakes #domesticpolitics

The trend worldwide for LGBT+ rights is to become more polarized. Fewer countries have no explicit laws on the issue and more do have explicit laws, but those laws can be pro-LGBT+ rights or anti-LGBT+ rights.

In 1990 there were 0 countries where same-sex marriage was legal and 5 where it was banned. Today, there are 24 where same-sex marriage is legal and 34 where it is banned. The animation (use the "play" button near the bottom of the page) shows the same trend for "partially legal" and "partially banned".

The page recounts data showing similar trends for same-sex sexual acts, joint adoption,
gender marker change, and recognition of third gender.

If you're wondering which countries, there's a map that animates legal status of same-sex sexual acts from 1950 to 2024. For this year, 2024, it shows same-sex sexual acts carries the death penalty in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, Nigeria, Uganda, and Somalia.

LGBT+ rights have become more protected in dozens of countries, but are not recognized across most of the world

#domesticpolitics #lgbt

The Darién Gap. I figure I ought to tell you all something is going on at the Darién Gap (in case you don't already know), but it's hard to find any information that is politically unbiased. (Not claiming this video is unbiased.) Immigration is a hot-button political topic but the Darién Gap is a bizarre twist to the story I (for one) never saw coming a year or two ago. The Darién Gap is a dense jungle between Colombia and Panama, and there has been a massive uptick in recent years of migrants flying into Ecuador, which allows them to enter visa-free, and traveling from there through the Darién Gap. Once on the other side, Panama, Costa Rica, and Honduras bus the migrants swiftly through. In Guatemala and Mexico, however, the migrants have to travel illegally and hire guides and all that entails. The ultimate destination is the United States. The Darién Gap has no highways or any other infrastructure, no law enforcement, so cartels and criminal gangs have free reign, and no medical care, except at a handful of tiny indigenous villages. Medical risks include fungal infections, snakebite, mosquito-borne diseases, broken bones from sliding down wet cliffs, and drowning (due to the necessity of crossing swift rivers with unpredictable surges). Death rates in the Darién Gap are high, but the video does not cite any specific figures, which are probably impossible to know.

1 million migrants face death in Earth's deadliest jungle...why? - Cogito

#domesticpolitics #immigration

Online poll of 18-30-year-old registered voters: "64% backed the statement that 'America is in decline.' A whopping 65% agreed either strongly or somewhat that 'nearly all politicians are corrupt, and make money from their political power' -- only 7% disagreed."

Lead pollster said, "Young voters do not look at our politics and see any good guys. They see a dying empire led by bad people."

Yeah, I know, online polls are not so accurate. Still, not a vote of confidence from the upcoming generation.

'A dying empire led by bad people': Poll finds young voters despairing over US politics

#futurology #domesticpolitics #generations

"Who would really win a civil war?", ponders "Monsieur Z". Before I reveal what he says, let me preface it by saying in my mind, I always figured if there was a civil war in this country between the liberal and conservative sides (which sadly seems increasingly likely over the years), the liberal side would win. The "logic" behind this prediction, such as it is, is simply that all the economic growth for the last several decades has been concentrated in the tech companies and major cities of the liberal side, and economic growth ultimately determines the winner. That's not to say that a civil war couldn't be extremely bloody and worth avoiding because of the loss of life it would cause.

Ok, having said that, I never encountered this YouTube channel before, and I get the impression this guy is a conservative, since he seems to sympathize more with the conservative side. If you're familiar with this channel feel free to chime in. (Hopefully sharing a link to this channel won't get you in trouble -- I think YouTube keeps track of who watches disapproved channels.) It seems he's some sort of military historian. Anyway, he predicts a win for the liberal side. The greatest advantage the conservative side has, supposedly, is they control the food supply, but at a practical level, they cannot cut off the food supply to liberals because that would also cut off the food supply to each other in the process. More generally, the conservative side is too fractured and distrustful to organize into a combat force that could successfully take on the US military, even as a guerrilla combat force, and the military will, he predicts, be successful at purging conservative sympathizers from their ranks.

Who would really win a civil war? - Monsieur Z

#domesticpolitics

"Florida is on its way to banning -- and criminalizing -- alternative meat".

"'We're not going to have fake meat. Like that doesn't work,' Gov. Ron DeSantis said."

Eh. Why not?

"Cell-cultivated meat, to be clear, differs from traditional veggie burgers and meat alternatives like Impossible Burgers. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) defines: Cell-cultivated meat 'is developed in a lab, grown from a sample of animal cells that does not require the slaughter of animals.' In other words, it's actually meat. The development of cell-cultivated meat, the CRS explained, happens in five steps: the biopsy of animal cells, cell banking, cell growth, harvesting, and food processing. It's an industry that has heavy oversight in the US by both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)."

Huh, wonder why they would care.

"As of today, the unknowns are so great. There are no long-term studies." Says the House bill sponsor Danny Alvarez, a Republican representative.

Yeah but that hasn't exactly stopped us from putting whacky stuff in our food supply before.

Florida is on its way to banning -- and criminalizing -- alternative meat - Food & Wine

#domesticpolitics #agriculture #startups

Is the US headed toward a second civil war? This is from 2 years ago but I just saw it today. Barbara F. Walter from UC San Diego led a research project for the CIA where they analyzed 30 factors that correlated with civil war in countries other than the US. They found that there were 2 factors that predicted civil war: when the government is neither a democracy nor an autocracy, but in an in-between state (which she calls "anocracy"), and when people organize around identity rather than ideology.

As an example, she cites the civil war in Yugoslavia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia tried to transition to democracy but never made it out of the in-between state. And in the elections, you might imagine they could have had parties organized around ideology, such as a communist party and a capitalist party, but instead what Yugoslavia got was a Serbian party and a Croat party.

So is the US headed toward a second civil war? Voting in the US is increasingly based on identity (which she defines as race, ethnicity, or religion), so the question largely rests on the question of how stable US democracy is or whether it is leading towards the in-between "anocracy" state. Which yo-yos up and down according to some index she cites where the strength of US democracy is estimated ("the polity scale"). In the end she seems to give an estimate of 4% odds per year. That means over a 20 year period, the odds reach 50%. I don't know about you, but 50/50 odds of a civil war in the next 20 years seems about right to me. [Insert sarcastic joke about 2024 election here.]

She doesn't mention that Yugoslavia didn't just have 2 ethnicities -- the country broke up into 7 countries as a result of the war. Thankfully the different ethnic groups have been able to live peacefully side-by-side in their own separate countries since the war. She also makes a point of putting the blame on Slobodan Milošević, the former ruler under the Soviet regime, and says that the group that formerly has power but sees their power decline are always the ones who start civil wars, not the downtrodden like people think. She doesn't mention that the US, NATO, and Russia got involved. I'm guessing I should interpret that as meaning that these details are not predictive factors of civil war in general.

If you're interested in more, she's published a whole book on the topic.

Kenneth N. Waltz Lecture in international relations: Is the US headed toward a second civil war?

#domesticpolitics #polysci #civilwar

"The school board of Mason City, Iowa has begun leveraging AI technology to cultivate lists of potentially bannable books from the district's libraries ahead of the 2023/24 school year."

"In May, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed, and Governor Kim Reynolds subsequently signed, Senate File 496 (SF 496), which enacted sweeping changes to the state's education curriculum. Specifically it limits what books can be made available in school libraries and classrooms."

"But ensuring that every book in the district's archives adhere to these new rules is quickly turning into a mammoth undertaking."

"As such, the Mason City School District is bringing in AI to parse suspect texts for banned ideas and descriptions since there are simply too many titles for human reviewers to cover on their own."

An Iowa school district is using AI to ban books | Engadget

#solidstatelife #ai #domesticpolitics #censorship

Peter Turchin interviewed by Aaron Bastani. Interesting to see Peter Turchin as I've read two of his book but never seen him before. Well, I don't know if "read" is the right term for one of the books. The two books are Age Of Discord and Figuring Out The Past. And speaking of books, he's got a new one out, which is the occasion of this interview.

Age Of Discord was about how societies go through cycles of cohesion and integration vs disintegration and internal conflict. But first I should mention that Peter Turchin is a "quantitative historian" -- he looks at history quantitatively, through numbers and math. The model he presents in Age Of Discord uses 44 variables in differential equations. You probably won't be surprised he found we're in a disintegrative phase. And he predicted it would not end soon.

Figuring Out The Past is a book of data. It has thousands of numbers and other data points on historical civilizations, hundreds of kingdoms, empires, and countries from ancient times to modern times, with all sorts of information on their populations, governance structures, taxation systems, economic systems, agricultural systems, methods of warfare, and so on. I can't say I've "read" this book as that would be reading data tables. It's more accurate to say I've "browsed" it. It's always interesting to flip around and read about the various civilizations that existed in history.

As for the current book, it's called End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration. I've ordered it but haven't read it yet. Hopefully it'll be written in less academese language than his Age Of Discord book. That's the reason I haven't been recommending it to people. From this discussion, it looks like Peter Turchin isn't just predicting the current period of turmoil will persist for a while before things get better. It looks like he's predicting the turmoil will get worse -- possibly a lot worse, and that we might be in "End Times" -- the end of the current political order.

In this interview, he uses a lot of the concepts I'm familiar with from Age Of Discord but which people seem to frequently misunderstand, in part because of his lousy terminology. Turchin may be a smart guy and brilliant with differential equations, but, he's not very good at inventing terminology that resonates with regular people. One such terms you'll see pop up in this discussion is "elite overproduction". People frequently think this means, for example, too large a percentage of the population getting college degrees, then being upset when they don't get "elite" jobs but end up working as baristas. That's not actually what Turchin means by "elite overproduction", not at all.

What he's talking about is when a society becomes highly unequal in its wealth distribution, not only do the vast majority of people become poorer while a wealthy elite becomes richer, but the number of rich people increases. This might be counterintuitive. The number of rich people is still small compared to the masses. But the number of rich people is large compared with the number of positions of political power.

If you imagine a position of political power, such as a governorship of a state. If there is only one person who wants the job, then that person gets the job. If there are a few people who want the job, then there's competition for the job, but maybe not too much. But if a lot of people become very wealthy and, instead of setting their sights on escaping poverty and becoming wealthy, set their sights on political power, now suddenly you have thousands of people competing for that governorship. And the fight can become very vicious. In Age Of Discord, Turchin shows how this competition can be quantified, in, for example, the amount of money that has to be spent to acquire a political office, which the candidate must either have from their own wealth or be able to fundraise through their personal connections to other rich people. The "price" of political office has gone up and up and up, with Presidential campaigns costing in the billions. This is what Turchin is referring to when he uses the phrase "elite overproduction". And why he thinks "elite overproduction" leads to social division and disintegration.

It has nothing to do with how many people get college degrees. If you have a college degree but your ambition in life is to make more money and not political power, because you don't yet have so many millions that making more money for its own sake has lost its meaning for you, you don't count as "elite".

This is a pretty wide-ranging conversation, ranging from European and Russian history to current-day US politics. For non-college educated people, life has not just been stagnating, it has been getting worse -- purchasing power has been going down and down and down. It now takes 4 times as much money to put a child through college as it did in the 1970s. This is because more and more people want out of the declining 90% and into the 10% for whom life is getting better. Turchin has another term for this which won't catch on, "popular immiseration". This opens the door for elites to break ranks from other elites and try to obtain political power by becoming "populists", appealing to the discontent of the masses. It looks like in his new books, Turchin refers to these elites as "counter-elites".

Is the West heading towards social breakdown? | Aaron Bastani meets Peter Turchin | Downstream - Novara Media

#geopolitics #domesticpolitics #economics #demographics #history #cliodynamics

In 1937, when asked "Should the Constitution be easier to amend?", 28% said yes, 60% said no. In 1987, when asked a similar question, 20% said the constitution was too hard to amend, 60% said amending it was about as hard as it ought to be. In 2022, however, 41% said the Constitution should be more frequently reviewed and amended, and 7% it should be entirely rewritten and replaced. In 2022, survey results were also highly polarized: 72% of Republicans think the Constitution is basically fine as is; 72% of Democrats say it should be amended or replaced.

See links below for how the US constitution compares with other constitutions worldwide.

The United States' unamendable Constitution

#domesticpolitics #constitutionality #constitution