Counting Down
Nov. 2nd, 2025 09:14 pmOh, deer.
That said, tomorrow I will finish up the draft scripts for Opening and Closing Ceremonies and we'll see where we're at.


My cognitive impairments mean I always mess up time zones. I’ve participated in many events in the past five years. Only one managed to sense my current time zone and adjust all the info on their site to match. (And of course I can't remember which one it was.)
Which is why I love https://dateful.com. It’s an excellent tool when you’re communicating across time zones. It’s free. It features:
And best of all:
All that info in a single link. You don’t need an account, but if you create one, you can go back and edit your Eventlinks.
I’m able to do these things with the keyboard; I welcome insights from readers using adaptive technology.
One of my favorite podcasts is "In the Dark". Madeleine Baran and Samara Freemark are, I believe, the core of the team. Their first season was about the Jacob Wetterling murder, and it was brilliant. Their second season was about the wrongful conviction Curtis Flowers, and their work was cited in the appeal to the Supreme Court and was instrumental in getting his conviction overturned. Their third season was a harrowing investigation into a specific war crime in Afghanistan, a murder of civilians in Haditha, which also resulted in a publicly accessible and searchable database of alleged war crimes, most of which have not been investigated. So, my impression of them is that they definitely do the work. Their reporting is exhaustive, their research detailed, and they have a gift for good story telling. It's the whole package, and I don't feel either mislead or cheated when I listen to their work.
The most recent season is done by a different reporter, Heidi Blake. I listened to her series on captive princesses of Dubai, which she did in conjunction with Madeleine Baran. It was interesting, but ultimately unsatisfying. It was messy in the way that real life is messy, and the ending was both ambiguous and sad.
The most recent season of "In the Dark" is reported by Heidi Blake, working with Freemark and Baran, and I had high hopes. And it is an interesting and compelling story. But there are so many threads that she doesn't pull on, and so many questions she sets on the table but makes no effort to answer, and I am actually kind of angry. I feel manipulated, and I don't like it. At the same time, I can feel the "true crime podcast" pull of wanting to delve into details and _prove_ things from sketchy to non-existent data.
The podcast is called "Blood Relatives" and is about a very famous murder case in Britain, sometimes referred to as the Whitehouse Farm murders. I believe that if you are a Brit, this will ring a bell. I am not a Brit, and knew nothing of it. Real briefly, and based entirely on what i learned from the podcast: Neville and June Bamberg owned a quite prosperous farm somewhere in England. Unable to conceive, they adopted two children, Sheila and Jeremy. June was a very troubled woman, and was committed for inpatient psychiatric care multiple times. It is assumed that she underwent fairly radical treatments, such as ECT. Their daughter grew up to be a beautful, troubled woman. For a time, she was a model under the name Bambi. She made a bad marriage, had twin sons, and did too many drugs...allegedly. She also suffered from severe mental illness, and was being treated for psychosis. Jeremy was evidently an annoying ne'erdowell who preferred partying and doing drugs to working the farm. He was disliked by his cousins, the staff at the farm, and the village in which he lived. Sheila came home to visit her parents with her two six year old boys. Later evidence shows that the twins hated visiting their grandparents, and one of them had drawn a picture of their grandmother, June, with sharp teeth dripping blood. Jeremy reports having overheard a conversation where Sheila's parents were saying they thought she could not care for her sons and should put them into foster care. At about 3 in the morning, he got a call from his father saying "Sheila's gone mad, and she has a gun." Jeremy called the cops, went to the farm, and then the cops and Jeremy stood around until about 7:30 am, at which point, the cops went in and found everyone dead of gunshot. The presumption was that Sheila had murdered her family, then herself. The cousins were distraught, and certain that it was actually Jeremy that had done this despite the fact that the farmhouse was locked from the inside. They searched about, and found a silencer which forensics showed had Sheila's blood on the inside. Given that all the wounds were ruled to be instantly fatal, if Sheila's blood was in the silencer, that meant that someone must have removed the silencer after she had been shot, as Sheila could not have done it herself, what with her being dead and all. A jury asked if the blood in the silencer could have been anyone's blood but Sheila's, and was told no. They convicted Jeremy, and he is still in prison.
There's a lot of other stuff, but those are the ones that are bothering me right now. I think that maybe Blake is just...telling the wrong story? But the overall feeling I have is that I have been manipulated, that important facts have been elided, and that the police are trash. But I did know that last. To be fair to Blake, a lot of what she has uncovered is important and may actually result in some useful reforms. And while the story she tells has me convinced that Jeremy is probably innocent and that the initial impression of a murder/suicide is probably correct, I feel far less confident of this than I would like. Because I can tell she's manipulating me into that impression. Honestly, I suspect Jeremy is innocent and also kind of a self-involved asshole that no one liked for good reasons. Just, you know, not a family annihilator.
Here endeth my rant. For now.

Philip Ball, The Water Kingdom: A Secret History of China. A history of China through its rivers. And other water, but really mostly rivers. Gosh they're important rivers. Some of it was more basic than I hoped, but the part where he talked about the millennia-long conflict between the Confucian and the Daoist views of flood management--that's the good stuff right there. That's what I need to think over.
Lois McMaster Bujold, Testimony of Mute Things. Kindle. A neat little murder mystery fantasy novella, earlier in the Penric and Desdemona timeline than most of the others in the series. I really like that Lois is feeling free to move back and forth in the timeline as fits the story she wants to tell.
Traci Chee, A Thousand Steps Into Night. Demons and time loops and complicated teenage relationships with oneself and others, this was a lot of fun.
Max Gladstone, Dead Hand Rule. The latest in the Craft sequence, and hoo boy should you not start with this one, this is ramifying its head off, this is a lot of implication from your previous faves bearing fruit. I love middle books, and this is the king--duly appointed CEO?--of middle books, this is exactly what I like in both middle books generally and the Craft sequence specifically. But for heaven's sake go back farther, the earlier Craft novels are better suited to read in whatever order, this has weight and momentum you don't want to miss out on.
Rebecca Mix and Andrea Hannah, I Killed the King. A fun YA fantasy murder mystery, better as a fantasy than as a murder mystery structurally but still a good time with the locked room and the suspects and their highly varied motivations. Are we seeing more speculative mysteries? I kind of hope so, I really like them.
Lauren Morrow, Little Movements. This is a novel about a choreographer who gets a chance to work slightly later in life than would be traditional, of a group of Black artists who deal with insidious racism, of a woman who has miscarried and is trying to put her life and identity and romantic relationship back together. In some ways it's a very straightforward book, but also it's a shape of story I don't think we get a lot of, the impact of being all of the people in my first sentence at once. It's a very intimate POV and nicely done.
Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, Our Dear Friends in Moscow: The Inside Story of a Broken Generation. The authors were journalists in Russia early in the Putin era and had a front row seat to watching people they respected and trusted become mouthpieces for Putin, and this is that book. Unfortunately I think some of the answer to "how could they do this" was that many of them--as described by Soldatov and Borogan!--were already those people, and Putin gave them the opportunity to be those people out loud. I was hoping, and I think they were hoping, for more insight on how someone could become that person; what we got instead was insight into how some people already are and you don't necessarily know it clearly. Which is not unuseful, but it's not the same kind of useful. Anyway this was grim and awful but mostly in a very grindingly mundane way.
Serra Swift, Kill the Beast. Discussed elsewhere.
Amanda Vaill, Hotel Florida: Truth, Love, and Death in the Spanish Civil War. Amanda Vaill does not like Ernest Hemingway any better than I do, bless her, but when she picked her other subjects in writing about a group of journalists and photographers in the Spanish Civil War, she was apparently kind of stuck with him. Did that mean she learned to love him? She sure did not, high fives Amanda Vaill. Anyway some of the other people were a lot more interesting, and the Spanish Civil War is.
Jo Walton, Everybody's Perfect. Discussed elsewhere.

Which of these upcoming books looks interesting?
Dreamland by Olivie Blake (August 2026)
12 (29.3%)
Make Me Better by Sarah Gailey (May 2026)
15 (36.6%)
Year’s Best Canadian Fantasy and Science Fiction: Volume Three edited by Stephen Kotowych (October 2025)
17 (41.5%)
Palaces of the Crow by Ray Nayler (March 2026)
16 (39.0%)
Outgunned Adventure by Riccardo“Rico” Sirignano & Simone Formicola, with art by Daniela Giubellini (October 2024)
9 (22.0%)
Some other option (see comments)
1 (2.4%)
Cats!
30 (73.2%)
I can’t believe that I haven’t yet posted this picture of a giant squid at the Smithsonian.
As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Listen to the Audio on NextBigIdeaClub.com
Below, co-authors Bruce Schneier and Nathan E. Sanders share five key insights from their new book, Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship.
AI can be used both for and against the public interest within democracies. It is already being used in the governing of nations around the world, and there is no escaping its continued use in the future by leaders, policy makers, and legal enforcers. How we wire AI into democracy today will determine if it becomes a tool of oppression or empowerment.
It’s been just a few years since ChatGPT stormed into view and AI’s influence has already permeated every democratic process in governments around the world:
The examples illustrate the diverse uses of AI across citizenship, politics, legislation, the judiciary, and executive administration.
Not all of these uses will create lasting change. Some of these will be one-offs. Some are inherently small in scale. Some were publicity stunts. But each use case speaks to a shifting balance of supply and demand that AI will increasingly mediate.
Legislators need assistance drafting bills and have limited staff resources, especially at the local and state level. Historically, they have looked to lobbyists and interest groups for help. Increasingly, it’s just as easy for them to use an AI tool.
Many of the use cases for AI in governance and politics have vocal objectors. Some make us uncomfortable, especially in the hands of authoritarians or ideological extremists.
In some cases, politics will be a regulating force to prevent dangerous uses of AI. Massachusetts has banned the use of AI face recognition in law enforcement because of real concerns voiced by the public about their tendency to encode systems of racial bias.
Some of the uses we think might be most impactful are unlikely to be adopted fast because of legitimate concern about their potential to make mistakes, introduce bias, or subvert human agency. AIs could be assistive tools for citizens, acting as their voting proxies to help us weigh in on larger numbers of more complex ballot initiatives, but we know that many will object to anything that verges on AIs being given a vote.
But AI will continue to be rapidly adopted in some aspects of democracy, regardless of how the public feels. People within democracies, even those in government jobs, often have great independence. They don’t have to ask anyone if it’s ok to use AI, and they will use it if they see that it benefits them. The Brazilian city councilor who used AI to draft a bill did not ask for anyone’s permission. The U.S. federal judge who used AI to help him interpret law did not have to check with anyone first. And the Trump administration seems to be using AI for everything from drafting tariff policies to writing public health reports—with some obvious drawbacks.
It’s likely that even the thousands of disclosed AI uses in government are only the tip of the iceberg. These are just the applications that governments have seen fit to share; the ones they think are the best vetted, most likely to persist, or maybe the least controversial to disclose.
Many Westerners point to China as a cautionary tale of how AI could empower autocracy, but the reality is that AI provides structural advantages to entrenched power in democratic governments, too. The nature of automation is that it gives those at the top of a power structure more control over the actions taken at its lower levels.
It’s famously hard for newly elected leaders to exert their will over the many layers of human bureaucracies. The civil service is large, unwieldy, and messy. But it’s trivial for an executive to change the parameters and instructions of an AI model being used to automate the systems of government.
The dynamic of AI effectuating concentration of power extends beyond government agencies. Over the past five years, Ohio has undertaken a project to do a wholesale revision of its administrative code using AI. The leaders of that project framed it in terms of efficiency and good governance: deleting millions of words of outdated, unnecessary, or redundant language. The same technology could be applied to advance more ideological ends, like purging all statutory language that places burdens on business, neglects to hold businesses accountable, protects some class of people, or fails to protect others.
Whether you like or despise automating the enactment of those policies will depend on whether you stand with or are opposed to those in power, and that’s the point. AI gives any faction with power the potential to exert more control over the levers of government.
We don’t have to resign ourselves to a world where AI makes the rich richer and the elite more powerful. This is a technology that can also be wielded by outsiders to help level the playing field.
In politics, AI gives upstart and local candidates access to skills and the ability to do work on a scale that used to only be available to well-funded campaigns. In the 2024 cycle, Congressional candidates running against incumbents like Glenn Cook in Georgia and Shamaine Daniels in Pennsylvania used AI to help themselves be everywhere all at once. They used AI to make personalized robocalls to voters, write frequent blog posts, and even generate podcasts in the candidate’s voice. In Japan, a candidate for Governor of Tokyo used an AI avatar to respond to more than eight thousand online questions from voters.
Outside of public politics, labor organizers are also leveraging AI to build power. The Worker’s Lab is a U.S. nonprofit developing assistive technologies for labor unions, like AI-enabled apps that help service workers report workplace safety violations. The 2023 Writers’ Guild of America strike serves as a blueprint for organizers. They won concessions from Hollywood studios that protect their members against being displaced by AI while also winning them guarantees for being able to use AI as assistive tools to their own benefit.
If you are excited about AI and see the potential for it to make life, and maybe even democracy, better around the world, recognize that there are a lot of people who don’t feel the same way.
If you are disturbed about the ways you see AI being used and worried about the future that leads to, recognize that the trajectory we’re on now is not the only one available.
The technology of AI itself does not pose an inherent threat to citizens, workers, and the public interest. Like other democratic technologies—voting processes, legislative districts, judicial review—its impacts will depend on how it’s developed, who controls it, and how it’s used.
Constituents of democracies should do four things:
These four Rs are how we can rewire our democracy in a way that applies AI to truly benefit the public interest.
This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in The Next Big Idea Club.
