View this post on the web at [link removed]

Hey, what’s up, everybody?
Welcome back to another Angry Files. I’ve been quiet this week because I hurt my back at the gym a couple of weeks ago. I’ve spent more time than I would like stuck on the sofa, nursing it and going to physical therapy.
Don’t cry for me, Argentina. I did it to myself.
This week, I finally started getting out and doing things again, which distracted me from sitting down and writing. But plenty has been on my radar, and I want to get into it.
Don’t forget to follow, share this with somebody and check out The Angry Ohioan for more of what is happening here at home.
AI Companies Can Slow Down If They Wanted To
Jacob Coxon’s resignation from Anthropic blew up this week. The post you’ve probably seen has nearly 170 million impressions. Coxon says he spent three years doing pretraining research at OpenAI and Anthropic, and he accused both companies of racing toward self-improving superintelligence and “gambling with our lives.”
There is always a possibility that a technology goes wrong. But I am not convinced that the catastrophic future being described is where we are right now, and I am especially skeptical of what the companies building this technology want the government to do about it.
My concern is regulatory capture [ [link removed] ]. I suspect the biggest companies see an opportunity to use fear to help build a system that protects their position, limits competition and makes it harder for open-source alternatives to survive.
That is not just about money. It is about political power, access to technology and control over the infrastructure everybody else would depend on. If only a couple of companies get to supply the most capable systems, they would have enormous influence over businesses, governments and the public.
David Sacks made the point I keep coming back to: if these companies believe their own products are becoming too dangerous, they can slow down themselves. They don’t need the government to tell them what to do.
As he put it:
“The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it.”
Maybe they have built something that genuinely scares them. Fine. Then limit it. Stop the training run. Delay the release. You control your own product.
It would be like Apple warning everybody that putting a fourth camera on an iPhone could be dangerous, then demanding a new regulatory system before agreeing not to install it. Just don’t put another camera on the phone.
I do not see why accepting a company’s preferred regulatory framework should become the price of that company acting responsibly. That is what makes me suspicious.
I also want people to remember the other side of this. If this technology becomes as powerful and economically important as its developers claim, falling behind would carry serious consequences too. I do not want fear to become the justification for giving a handful of companies permanent control over who gets to build and use it.
I’m working on more about historical technology panics. We have plenty of frightening images in our heads, from The Terminator to HAL 9000. But a frightening future scenario is not the same thing as proof that we should hand the companies describing it the power to write the rules.
Anonymity for Jurors is Paramount
The media scrutiny of the holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s trial bothers me. My concern is what happens to jury independence when disagreeing with the other jurors means becoming the next person whose life gets picked apart in public.
I am not asking whether you like his position. I am not asking whether you believe Clancy should have been convicted or acquitted. I am asking what message this sends to the next person sitting in a jury box. Or even if we can get anyone to sit in that box again? OR, if we do get people to sit in the juror’s box, then what kind of people are they considering they now will have to be masochistic.
We expect jurors to decide a case based on the evidence and the judge’s instructions. We tell them not to research the case, follow the coverage or let outside opinions influence them. Then, after a controversial outcome, we have jurors giving interviews about deliberations while the person who disagreed becomes the focus of another round of coverage.
Massachusetts’s own Trial Juror’s Handbook says dismissed jurors may discuss their service, but advises them to avoid revealing other jurors’ names, their votes or what was discussed during deliberations. That speaks directly to the concern I am raising.
My criticism is also about the media’s business model. I think the incentive is to keep the story going. A guilty verdict can generate attention. An acquittal can generate attention. A deadlocked jury and a fight among jurors can generate even more. I worry that protecting the jury process becomes secondary to finding the next clickable development.
I posted that concern on Facebook, and the comment breakdown was interesting.
The comments supporting my concern generally described the scrutiny as unfair, intimidating or potentially harmful to future jurors. Those defending it pointed to questions about the juror’s questionnaire, past allegations or whether he followed the law.
Watch Yemen and the Expanding Pressure on Energy
The Houthi advances within Yemen are another thing I’m watching. I believe we may already be in a wider war , maybe a world war, that is developing gradually, simmering and expanding instead of arriving as one clearly defined event.
What concerns me is how an economic shock or an energy crisis could push things further.
Reuters reported new attacks affecting Saudi oil infrastructure and regional shipping, alongside the Houthi capture of Perim Island near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. These are developments around routes that matter to the movement of energy and goods.
The combination of fighting, damaged infrastructure and pressure on shipping is worth paying attention to.
My concern is that we keep watching these developments individually while the overall situation becomes more dangerous. I think an energy or economic crisis could become the catalyst for something much bigger.
The Iran conflict, Israel/Gaza, Russia/Ukraine are all part of the same geopolitical conflict even if doesn’t appear to be on the surface. China, North Korea, South Korea, are involved too even though we do not hear much about them. The sharing of intelligence and arms movement between nations points to something bigger is brewing. Oh, not to mention the frothy stock market, and the surging bond market.
Amy Acton and the Canfield Fair Coverage
Moving to Ohio, Amy Acton continues to disappoint me.
An legally armed person charging toward a candidate is an alarming description. Of course people were concerned. But the sheriff’s office said the weapons were never brandished or removed from their holsters. Later, a prosecutor said the man wanted to ask Acton questions and was recording, which the Acton campaign said he was not allowed to do (weird and really shitty). Authorities found no threats on his cellphone.
It was also alleged that he knocked people down and caused injuries. The video doesn’t show that. I am waiting for more video and hopefully one from his angle.
He pleaded not guilty to charges including assault, disorderly conduct and inducing panic. Carrying weapons, brandishing them and intending to attack a candidate are different things.
This whole incident, in my opinion, is a cover-up for the horrible display onstage with her and Pete Buttigieg. The negative press surrounding that speech quickly faded as the campaign and media overamplified an incident involving someone who wanted access. The fact that they said “no cameras” while she was campaigning is absolutely crazy and, in my opinion, should be considered a violation of the basic expectations of campaigning.
My broader frustration is with access. If you are walking around in public with a campaign staff wearing your name, questions, comments and pictures are part of what you are there to do.
I want candidates to be accessible. I want them answering questions, including questions they do not particularly like.
Democrats cannot keep saying we want openness and communication while becoming defensive whenever that access something we don’t like. I criticized the same tendency around Chris Ronayne, and I am not going to stop criticizing it because another Democrat is involved.
Chris Ronayne’s Spend Spend Spend
That brings me to Chris Ronayne and the county’s finances.
His State of the County address laid out a vision for growth and prosperity. But according to News 5, the speech did not directly address the county’s significant budget problems. The report identified a projected $19 million general-fund deficit and an $18 million shortfall in the Health and Human Services levy fund.
The county is seeking 3.3 percent spending reductions from general-fund departments and 8 percent reductions in 2027 spending from departments supported by the HHS levy. Ronayne said the HHS cuts would be rolled back if voters approved the November levy. Sounds like extortion to me.
A small-business owner asked him to pledge against supporting additional tax increases during his second term.
His response:
“I can’t pledge to not support any tax increase in the future because I do believe there are things worth paying for.”
And that is where the frustration is. People are paying too much for everything right now and big ticket items are being passed by this county council with no accountability and it falls on the people of the county to pay for it. The possibility of another tax increase remains on the table while the county is already dealing with substantial shortfalls. Irresponsible!
Calling something an investment does not make is fiscally responsible. Announcing cuts does not answer the question about how the county got here. Lying to voters then spending billions is, IMO, fraud.
Looking around the audience, I recognized plenty of elected officials and political insiders. The audience seemed to be half filled with his Cuyahoga political buds, all sitting there loving more taxes. That is why these events feel so performative. The people already involved in the political system are there just rubbing each other’s rhubarb while the people are not in attendance. The pictures come out to make it look like it is a packed house.
The public has responsibility here too. We cannot keep leaving these conversations to the same people and then act surprised when they dominate the decisions.
I want less performance, more direct discussion of the bills and more residents showing up before those bills become another tax proposal.
It is also frustrating to see Chris Ronayne block reporters from attending fundraisers, even after they received invitations, while using his own campaign funds and holding fundraisers for candidates who are not speaking out against these budgets. These candidates appear ready to toe the line, abandon fiscal responsibility and serve as rubber stamps for whatever Ronayne wants to do. This is something we must pay attention to.
A Quick Note: Brian Poindexter
On a more positive note, Brian Poindexter has an upcoming fundraiser in Rocky River involving my old friend Michael O’Shea.
I wanted to pass that along because I encourage people to support Brian in his campaign against Max Miller. I have shared the invitation on my page so people can check the event information directly.
Apple Finally Folds. I’m Still Gonna Wait.
Finally, something completely different: Apple’s new phones.
Apple announced the iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max, along with its first folding phone, the iPhone Duo. The Pro models are scheduled to become available September 18, while the Duo arrives October 23.
To be perfectly honest, I think the folding phone looks really good.
Apple has often let other companies introduce a product or innovation, and work through some of the awkward early versions before making its own. Samsung and other manufacturers have already spent years refining folding phones, from book-style devices to smaller flip designs. Apple certainly did not rush to be first.
What interests me is whether that patience produces a better first attempt. From the presentation, I think the Duo looks promising. But I still want to see the reviews and hear from people who have actually used it.
That has generally been my attitude toward first-generation Apple products. I can appreciate the idea without wanting to be the person paying to discover all the compromises.
The original Apple Watch interested me, but later versions became just better. I felt similarly about the move from the original iPhone ( which didn’t have cope paste functions) to the iPhone 3G. And while I liked the iPhone Air’s design, I was less enthusiastic about the trade-offs.
The Pro and Pro Max look like continued refinement of a product Apple already knows how to make very well. That is not as exciting as a phone that folds, but refinement is not a bad thing when you are buying something you use all day.
The Duo looks like a strong first shot. I’m interested. I want to see how it performs. But my instinct is still to wait for gen 2.
Especially when we are talking about roughly $2,000 for a phone. Thats insane. But so is $4.50/gal gas.
Stay Angry.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?