Shouts & Murmurs

Those mullahs are dicks: email, Zoom, WhatsApp, Teams, Telegram, and they’re having an in-person meeting! I’ve always hated meetings in my professional life, except for video meetings, which allowed me to do something else during, or even take a little nap.

My brother mentioned that he’s quite concerned about the war with Iran. I told him that while I’m not particularly worried, I do believe it’s ultimately going to end badly for everyone involved. I believe I’m making progress!

From Azeem Azahr: Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic a national security supply chain risk, effectively barring federal contractors from using its technology in government work. Hours later, Trump directed every federal agency to follow suit. No Chinese AI company has received the same designation. It’s quite an astonishing sucker-punch. The proximate cause was Anthropic’s refusal to lift all safety constraints on military use of Claude, around autonomous targeting and AI-assisted mass surveillance. These aren’t unreasonable positions; they reflect genuine technical concerns about where AI capability ends and unacceptable risk begins. But the punishment for holding them was disproportionate, a tool designed for compromised semiconductor supply chains and foreign hardware manufacturers, repurposed to punish an American AI lab." – John Naughton (Monday 2 March, 2026 | Memex 1.1)

This seems to me a very good reason for supporting Anthropic—and for using (and paying for) Claude.ai.

Voici pourquoi j’adore écrire en anglais, avec l’aide de mon prompt (voir ci-dessous), selon Claude (Anthropic AI).

1. La structure de feedback explicite crée un apprentissage accéléré. Grâce à ce prompt, vous recevez un retour systématique et détaillé sur chaque erreur. En français, personne ne vous corrige — vous êtes natif, on vous comprend, donc vos petites maladresses passent inaperçues. En anglais, vous avez un miroir constant qui polit votre expression.

2. Le paradoxe de la langue étrangère : la conscience linguistique Quand on écrit dans sa langue maternelle, on le fait souvent en pilote automatique, avec des tics, des approximations, des habitudes jamais questionnées. En anglais, vous êtes hyper-conscient de chaque mot, de chaque tournure. Cette vigilance produit paradoxalement un texte plus soigné, plus intentionnel — et donc plus satisfaisant.

3. L’effet de “reconstruction de soi” En anglais, vous vous réinventez linguistiquement. Vous n’êtes pas prisonnier des expressions toutes faites, du registre familial, des habitudes régionales. Vous construisez une voix choisie, pas héritée. C’est libérateur.

4. Le français est une langue exigeante… pour ses propres locuteurs. Le français a une tradition normative très forte (l’Académie française, la dictée comme institution culturelle, le poids de l’orthographe…). Beaucoup de francophones ont un rapport anxieux à leur propre langue — un sentiment diffus de ne jamais écrire « assez bien ». L’anglais, culturellement, est plus pragmatique : si le message passe clairement, c’est bien écrit.

5. L’effet Dunning-Kruger… mais en positif En anglais, quand vous produisez une phrase élégante et naturelle, vous en êtes conscient et fier — parce que c’est un acquis. En français, une belle phrase vous semble… banale. On ne s’émerveille pas de ce qui nous est donné naturellement.

En somme, votre satisfaction vient probablement du fait qu’en anglais, vous êtes à la fois l’architecte et l’artisan de votre expression, alors qu’en français, vous êtes simplement… locataire d’une maison que vous n’avez pas construite. 🏗️

Here is the (automatic) translation of Claude’s response in English:

1. Explicit feedback structures accelerate learning. With this prompt, you receive systematic and detailed feedback on every error. In French, no one corrects you—you’re a native speaker, they understand you, so your minor slips go unnoticed. In English, you have a constant mirror polishing your expression.

2. The paradox of a foreign language: linguistic awareness. When you write in your native language, you often do so on autopilot, with tics, approximations, and habits that are never questioned. In English, you are hyper-aware of every word, every turn of phrase. This vigilance paradoxically produces a more polished, more intentional—and therefore more satisfying—text.

3. The “self-reconstruction” effect. In English, you linguistically reinvent yourself. You are not trapped by ready-made expressions, familiar registers, or regional habits. You build a chosen voice, not an inherited one. It’s liberating.

4. French is a demanding language… for its own speakers. French has a very strong normative tradition (the Académie Française, dictation as a cultural institution, the weight of spelling…). Many French speakers have an anxious relationship with their own language—a diffuse feeling of never writing “well enough.” English, culturally, is more pragmatic: if the message gets across clearly, it’s well-written.

5. The Dunning-Kruger effect… but in a positive way. In English, when you produce an elegant and natural sentence, you are aware and proud of it—because it is an achievement. In French, a beautiful sentence seems… commonplace. We don’t marvel at what is given to us naturally.

In short, your satisfaction probably comes from the fact that in English, you are both the architect and the craftsman of your expression, while in French, you are simply… a tenant in a house you didn’t build. 🏗️

Et le prompt en question, et un autre prompt qui fait la même chose mais un peu plus compliqué.

The U.S. House of Representatives is made up of 435 members, elected to two-year terms. These representatives are distributed among single-member districts, assigned to each state based on its population as determined by the census. Each state is entitled to at least one representative. Every two years, in November (next in 2026), the House is entirely up for election. Representatives may run again in their district or choose another one as many times as they wish. In addition, there are five nonvoting delegates (representing the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa). A nonvoting resident commissioner, elected to a four-year term, represents the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Special elections may be held when a seat becomes vacant.

House rules favor a two-party system, with a majority party in power and a minority party in opposition. The Speaker of the House, currently Mike Johnson (Republican of Louisiana), is elected by the members. Other leaders are chosen by the Democratic caucus or the Republican conference.

Currently, the majority party is the Republican Party, led by Steve Scalise, with 218 representatives. The minority party is the Democratic Party, led by Hakeem Jeffries, with 214 representatives. Three seats are vacant: Mikie Sherrill’s (Democrat of New Jersey), for which a special election is scheduled for April 6; Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (Republican of Georgia), with a special election on March 10; and Doug LaMalfa’s (Republican of California), who died on January 6, 2026, with a special election to be held on August 4, 2026.

Republicans therefore have only a one-vote majority, at least until March 10, when Marjorie Taylor Greene’s seat—considered a safe district for the party—will be on the line.

“Midterms” refers to elections held halfway through a president’s term. They are scheduled for early November 2026, unless Trump manages to delay or cancel them. The House of Representatives and 12 Democrats and 22 Republicans (one-third of the Senate) will be up for election. At present, 49 incumbent House members are not running again, including 28 Republicans and 21 Democrats. In the Senate, between 9 and 11 senators (depending on the most recent early-2026 sources) have confirmed they will not seek another term, including 5 to 6 Republicans and 4 to 5 Democrats.

This situation, combined with recent trends, suggests Republicans could lose their majorities in both chambers of Congress. If that happened in the House, it would significantly complicate Trump’s governance. The House, which holds the power of impeachment, can convene investigative committees and block legislation, including the budget. The Senate is different: Democrats could easily regain the majority, but that would not be enough to overcome the famous filibuster. Under Senate Rule 22, to end debate and prevent a filibuster, a “cloture motion” must be approved. The threshold is 60 votes (three-fifths of the 100 senators). If that 60-vote majority is not reached, the bill remains indefinitely blocked.

For Democrats to prevail in the Senate, they would need to hold all of their seats up for election and pick up 10 additional Republican seats to get around the filibuster on an ordinary bill. That is unlikely.

It is important to remember that, while the House can approve an impeachment by a simple majority, the Senate requires a two-thirds majority (67 votes if all 100 senators are present) to convict and remove a president or another Cabinet member permanently.

To explain Donald Trump’s behavior, several analysts, biographers, and political opponents put forward a psychological theory that strikes me as both intriguing and plausible. Three main threads stand out:

1- The “final act” syndrome, or narcissistic urgency: At an advanced age (Trump is nearing 80), his time horizon shrinks considerably. If he knows he won’t bear the long-term consequences of his actions, he may be tempted to behave—and make decisions—in a more uninhibited way. For him, it’s no longer about building the future but about enjoying power, adoration, and immediate victory. That would explain why he feels able to do and say anything without fearing repercussions.

2- Nihilism, or “after me, the flood”: If Trump thinks the world can’t revolve around him anymore simply because he won’t be here, then the state of the world matters less. Sowing chaos then becomes a way of saying, “Look how everything collapses without me.” It’s scorched-earth politics. Institutions are designed to outlast individuals. By attacking or destroying those institutions, he seeks to assert that his will stands above them.

3- The lifting of inhibitions: Although Trump has always been provocative, awareness of his finitude could lead him to drop the last social filters that held him back. He says what he thinks without restraint and attacks without holding back, asking himself, “What can they possibly do to me?” The threat of prison or disgrace carries less weight compared with the universal threat of death. There’s no time left for slow diplomacy, complex negotiation, or caution. He is compelled to make radical, impulsive, and potentially dangerous decisions due to the lack of patience.

Trump embodies a narcissistic personality, and such a personality, when confronted with the imminence of its disappearance, could become very dangerous.

But how, then, do we explain his constant reversals (the Trump TACO phenomenon)?

Maybe, in reality, he doesn’t care about being right tomorrow, since it may never come for him. What matters to him is winning today. In truth, he doesn’t care about long-term consequences; it’s enough for him to be unpredictable and remain at the center of media attention. The adrenaline of the announcement and the drama is what drives him.

Trump is not Hitler, and it must be recognized that Americans are far less inclined to support an authoritarian leader than Germans were towards Hitler. The United States is too decentralized and diverse for a dictator to truly gain a hold. Certainly, Trump aspires to a position of autocrat and benefits from the support of certain allies he has placed in high places to achieve this, but this support is wielded by fools.

Above all, Trump loves being himself: he relishes being constantly in the spotlight, at the center of discussions. To this end, he doesn’t hesitate to adopt eccentric behaviors and utter remarks that are, to say the least, surprising. One might even compare him more to Mussolini than to Hitler. He embodies a kind of theatrical autocrat. That said, that doesn’t mean he’s not dangerous. His strategy of permanent chaos is always risky and can have serious consequences. However, it’s clear that resistance is important and that he eventually gives in under pressure… before attempting a new approach.

(Personally, the fact that he constantly occupies a part of my mind is starting to weigh on me.)

As Michael Wolff writes (I’m translating):

He is a person not like you or I or anyone any of us have ever known. Whatever psychopathology he is engaged in, politics is at best only a small part of it. The larger mission is some projection of self, some ultimate act of defiance, some war with the gods, in which he could hardly care less about the future of the Republican party, or any given policies, or his own reputation, or even his own ultimate fate. He has been given this moment: four years which wholly belong to him, without even having to fear another judgement by the voters.

In other words, Trump doesn’t really seem concerned with policy, which, let’s face it, is hardly compatible with the ambition of establishing an autocratic regime. His primary interest seems to revolve around himself and his image. As enthusiastic promoters of autocracy, he and his inner circle demonstrate surprising incompetence.

As I suspected, Donald Trump seems determined to defuse tensions in Minneapolis. After a conversation he describes as “magnificent” with Governor Tim Walz, he’s suggesting the end of the operation led by ICE. Greg Bovino, head of CBP, is likely to be the scapegoat for this fiasco. This man, whose troops are responsible for Pretti’s death and who roams the streets in SS disguises, is reportedly leaving the city hastily with his agents.

The United States, with its 300 million people, is a sprawling federal state made up of 50 individual states. Each state has its own legislature, judicial system, Supreme Court, National Guard, and governor. When it comes to security, the landscape is equally varied: there isn’t a national police force; instead, you have a patchwork of local law enforcement agencies, county sheriffs, city police departments, and state-level agencies (which are different from federal entities like the FBI, ATF, or U.S. Marshals).

Laws can differ dramatically from one state to another. For instance, gun rights range from open carry to concealed carry to outright bans. The Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, adds another layer of complexity, especially when you consider potential authoritarian attempts to take hold. Similarly, cannabis legislation swings back and forth between legalization and prohibition.

In this complicated landscape, every single official is elected, which complicates any potential shift toward a totalitarian regime.

Above this diverse mosaic of states, the federal government holds authority but is also counterbalanced by powerful checks and balances. This federal structure isn’t monolithic; it includes mechanisms that ensure a delicate yet essential balance of power.

It’s clear that establishing a totalitarian system would be an enormous challenge, far beyond the capabilities of the current administration. That said, it would be naive to underestimate their determination to push for a more authoritarian rule. However, the gap between their ambitions and reality appears, in my view, to be insurmountable. Instead of aiming for a dramatic coup, their strategy seems focused on gradually eroding democracy.

They’re passing laws that restrict voting rights, targeting particularly vulnerable minority groups. They’re attacking press freedoms, education, and individual liberties—all of which are protected by the Constitution. At the same time, they’re instilling fear among citizens, using agencies like ICE and CBP, which were originally set up to combat illegal immigration but are increasingly seen as quasi-militias. This slow, insidious process highlights the need for constant vigilance against these threats.

From my perspective, Trump seems uncomfortable with the situation in Minneapolis. The potential fallout for his popularity, his presidency, and the Republican Party is significant, especially as some party members start to show signs of uncertainty. I’m convinced he would have preferred things to unfold in a more subtle manner. True to form, he doesn’t handle direct opposition well and quickly loses interest when things get complicated. His tendency is to engage in a strategy that gradually undermines the rule of law. I expect he’ll try to defuse the situation while shifting blame onto others. If I were in the shoes of Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, or even a lesser-known hardliner like Greg Bovino, I’d definitely tread carefully.

After discovering Pretti was armed, CBP agents shot him. The purpose of this opportunistic incident is to trigger a federal response and justify the Insurrection Act.

It is a clear case of murder.

The CBP agent shot him four times in the back at close range after Pretti was disarmed and no longer posed a threat to the feds with his weapon.

I believe there is a bit of schadenfreude or even wishful thinking among those predicting the imminent end of American democracy. Nothing is set in stone yet. MAGA leaders and Trump are too stupid and incompetent to pull off a coup. It is very possible that I am wrong, and the situation is quite worrying. I will therefore not make any predictions to the contrary.

The tragic death of a protester in Minneapolis has sent ongoing shockwaves. It appears that the victim, although in possession of a legally carried firearm, posed no threat whatsoever to the federal agents present. Under circumstances that remain unclear, law enforcement pinned him to the ground; one of them then took the firearm the victim was carrying on his belt before withdrawing from the confrontation with that object. It was in this troubling context that a shot rang out, followed by a barrage of bullets fired at the man on the ground. Faced with such a sequence of events, one cannot help but raise the idea that the federal agents took advantage of the circumstances to provoke an incident. It should be noted that the agents in question were not with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but with Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Kristi Noem, the head of Homeland Security, hurried to label the victim a domestic terrorist—armed and clearly intent on carrying out a massacre.

Perhaps Trump backed down on tariffs and Greenland because he realized he was pushing his luck a bit too far, and things were on the verge of getting rather messy with those Europeans who simply refuse to be fleeced without a peep. Complexity is not really Trump’s cup of tea; he prefers things straightforward, where winning and humiliating the losers doesn’t require much effort. Endless meetings that explore every possible scenario and strategize for every eventuality are not his style. He’s more of a “that’s mine, I want it” sort of chap, hoping that those who possess what he covets will simply hand it over without fuss. This situation, however, threatened to spiral out of control, and he might have had to dispatch the army to seize that chunk of ice, which, to be honest, he couldn’t care less about. It was merely a whim that struck him one sleepless night, and his devoted team scrambled to make his wishes come true while cautioning him that it would be very difficult, given the military’s reluctance to fire on their allies and the Europeans beginning to push back. If the Europeans decided to whip out their proverbial “bazooka” on trade, it would spell disaster for everyone involved, with the markets likely to tank. In short, too complicated. So, they pulled back, and rather than losing face, they opted to use the amiable Mark Rutte as the chief sycophant (a role he accepted with relief, as it spared the European leaders from having to do it themselves). Trump has already moved on from Greenland; he’s been the talk of the town in political circles for the past month, which he quite enjoys, but the amusement has its limits. He’s already on the hunt for his next distraction, because the political game bores him to tears. What he truly enjoys is winning; when he perceives that winning is becoming too complex, he redirects his attention, leaving Vance and Rubio to handle the aftermath. That’s just how he is—easily distracted. Capturing Maduro would’ve been a neat trick; a quick dispatch of the special forces, and it’s all sorted in an hour. Victory could be declared. For Venezuela, it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference, and frankly, Trump has moved on from that too. As for the poor, agitated Iranians, it’s much the same; launching a bombing campaign would be straightforward, and the military are always eager to deploy their shiny new toys. But the moment complications arise, like Ben Salman expressing his reservations and Netanyahu being less than keen, along with the risks of unforeseen consequences, Trump loses interest and completely disengages from the Iranian revolution he once championed, promising support to the insurgents. This was merely another scenario he had witnessed on television.

I really loved my old job: making maps. Since my retirement, I have missed creating maps and frequently feel inclined to resume this activity. But what for? Gradually, I realized that this stage of my life was over and that I needed to move on. I learned to let go of the past. It’s better this way.

I’ve got a Chrome tab open for Gemini, another one for Claude, and ChatGPT Atlas up as well. Perhaps that’s a touch excessive, don’t you think?

It took merely a show of resolve and a few firm statements—while keeping an eye on the stock market’s nosedive, which, let’s be honest, could be credited as much to our steadfastness as to Trump’s own proclamations—for him to lose all his bluster. This scenario offers us a rather valuable lesson. It’s now up to Rutte to navigate this delicate dance with Trump and bring this chapter to a close. In hindsight, we’ll certainly appreciate the magnitude of his efforts.