We can endure and overcome the coming onslaught, but that requires not being overwhelmed or seduced by defeatism

But the fact is that cynicism and resignation are exactly what the reckless incompetents and miscreants, the self-serving billionaires, the fascists, the sadists, the Trump sycophants, the pillagers and plunderers who despise our system of self-governance are counting on. The more we indulge ourselves in fear, doubt and feelings of exhaustion, the easier it will be for them to win. This is not just the danger of obeying in advance, but obeying permanently so that they can win without a real fight.

With turnout consistently hovering far below peer democracies, we should ask: Why are millions of eligible voters disengaged? And critically, what does the evidence say about whether certain reforms bolster electoral participation?

Electoral systems have a powerful impact on voter turnout. Said differently, winner-take-all depresses electoral competition. And, if you look across different elections, voter turnout is closely tied to electoral competition. Why bother turning out if outcomes appear to be forgone conclusions?

Proportional systems produce higher turnout rates
Proportional representation — the main alternative to winner-take-all — dependably produces higher turnout rates. Unlike winner-take-all, proportional systems use multi-member districts and allocate legislative seats based on the proportion of votes each party receives.

Sydney Nicole Gifford has accused rival Alyssa Sheil of copying her bland style, in a $150,000 lawsuit over lost income and ‘mental anguish’. What’s behind this race to the bottom?

Sydney Nicole Gifford, a 24-year-old lifestyle influencer, was busy being her most authentic self when her carefully curated world suddenly shattered. One of her followers had contacted her with terrible news: someone had stolen her vibe.

What does this even mean? Well, that’s the question at play in what may be the saddest, beigest (and possibly most important) lawsuit in influencer history. Gifford, you see, is aggressively fond of neutrals. She likes wearing shades of white, black and cream, and lives in an incredibly organised house where her minimalist decor is also shades of white, black and cream. She reviews Amazon products that fit what is known as the “clean girl” aesthetic and, when her followers buy stuff from her affiliate links, she makes a commission from the sale.

The problem is, someone is said to have stepped on Gifford’s colourless turf. Gifford subsequently filed a lawsuit against the 21-year-old influencer Alyssa Sheil, a former acquaintance, alleging she “replicated the neutral, beige and cream aesthetic of [her] brand identity”. Gifford also accused Sheil of copying her style, as well as her photos and captions, and is now seeking up to $150,000 in damages for lost income and “mental anguish”. The bottom line? Gifford seems to want a court to decree that she is officially the most basic person on the internet.

One Amazon influencer makes a living posting content from her beige home. But after she noticed another account hawking the same minimal aesthetic, a rivalry spiraled into a first-of-its-kind lawsuit. Can the legal system protect the vibe of a creator? And what if that vibe is basic?

“It’s definitely very calming,” Sheil, 21, says of her decor. “Growing up, my parents had a bunch of pictures on the walls, they had rooms that had different colors… So when we moved into this place, I was like, ‘I don’t want a bunch of stuff on the walls. I don’t want mismatched things. I just want it to all be cohesive and plain.’” It is not just Sheil who prefers her space to be colorless — a generation of women dream in beige and cream.

If Gifford’s legal argument is successful, it could mean any influencer making content in an established genre could be liable — even though, in general, copyright law limits liability for use of genre tropes.

We can endure and overcome the coming onslaught, but that requires not being overwhelmed or seduced by defeatism

But the fact is that cynicism and resignation are exactly what the reckless incompetents and miscreants, the self-serving billionaires, the fascists, the sadists, the Trump sycophants, the pillagers and plunderers who despise our system of self-governance are counting on. The more we indulge ourselves in fear, doubt and feelings of exhaustion, the easier it will be for them to win. This is not just the danger of obeying in advance, but obeying permanently so that they can win without a real fight.

With turnout consistently hovering far below peer democracies, we should ask: Why are millions of eligible voters disengaged? And critically, what does the evidence say about whether certain reforms bolster electoral participation?

Electoral systems have a powerful impact on voter turnout. Said differently, winner-take-all depresses electoral competition. And, if you look across different elections, voter turnout is closely tied to electoral competition. Why bother turning out if outcomes appear to be forgone conclusions?

Proportional systems produce higher turnout rates
Proportional representation — the main alternative to winner-take-all — dependably produces higher turnout rates. Unlike winner-take-all, proportional systems use multi-member districts and allocate legislative seats based on the proportion of votes each party receives.

Perhaps the biggest harbinger of that was President-elect Donald Trump importing ideas and talent from Silicon Valley for his next administration. Young industries like venture-backed defense tech and crypto are hitching a ride to the Trump White House. But throughout 2024, there were a host of advances in technology and shifts in policy that are already redefining the years ahead.

It was a much better 2024 for Google’s Waymo and Chinese self-driving car platforms. Waymo surged ahead of its competition, quietly building a legitimate fleet of hundreds of robotaxis while its competitors stumbled through testing delays and financial woes. It hit a major milestone with 4 million driverless rides this year alone across Phoenix, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Gambling — on sports, stocks and crypto — is the new opioids

But the main way in which policy has contributed to America’s gambling epidemic isn’t what policymakers did, but what they didn’t do. As technology made gambling and speculation essentially frictionless, fueling the rise of predatory “limbic capitalism,” policy did nothing to protect Americans from their self-destructive instincts.

And while ordinary gambling can and does ruin people’s lives, gambling that takes the form of asset speculation can suck in far more people, because, as Robert Shiller pointed out long ago, widespread optimism about an asset’s price can for a while be self-fulfilling, because it initiates a “natural Ponzi scheme”:

1. My most read story came right after the election. Here are some predictions for what will happen to the administrative state in his second term. Hope I am wrong about a lot of it.

2. Muskawamy have been saying a lot of things about shrinking government. I explain why most of it is wrong, misleading, or implies draconian cuts to programs people really value.

5. People say Harris lost because of identity politics; but it’s closer to the truth to say that Trump won because of his identity politics.

The Pursuit of Happiness by Jeffrey Rosen

Offshore: Stealth Wealth and the New Colonialism by Brooke Harrington

Two Roads Home: Hitler, Stalin and the Miraculous Survival of My Family, by Daniel Finkelstein

The Best Minds: A Story of Friendship, Madness and the Tragedy of Good Intentions, by Jonathan Rosen

Romney: A Reckoning, by McKay Coppins

Everyone has principles until they are called upon to stand on them. Then the test begins. Even when principles hold at first, they tend to erode under the weight of time and the battle between idealism and cynicism.

Self-righteousness and blind entitlement are the toxic side effects of moral certitude and the conviction that the ends justify the means — or might makes right — because the other side is evil. Nietzsche made this point when he observed:

Sydney Nicole Gifford has accused rival Alyssa Sheil of copying her bland style, in a $150,000 lawsuit over lost income and ‘mental anguish’. What’s behind this race to the bottom?

Sydney Nicole Gifford, a 24-year-old lifestyle influencer, was busy being her most authentic self when her carefully curated world suddenly shattered. One of her followers had contacted her with terrible news: someone had stolen her vibe.

What does this even mean? Well, that’s the question at play in what may be the saddest, beigest (and possibly most important) lawsuit in influencer history. Gifford, you see, is aggressively fond of neutrals. She likes wearing shades of white, black and cream, and lives in an incredibly organised house where her minimalist decor is also shades of white, black and cream. She reviews Amazon products that fit what is known as the “clean girl” aesthetic and, when her followers buy stuff from her affiliate links, she makes a commission from the sale.

The problem is, someone is said to have stepped on Gifford’s colourless turf. Gifford subsequently filed a lawsuit against the 21-year-old influencer Alyssa Sheil, a former acquaintance, alleging she “replicated the neutral, beige and cream aesthetic of [her] brand identity”. Gifford also accused Sheil of copying her style, as well as her photos and captions, and is now seeking up to $150,000 in damages for lost income and “mental anguish”. The bottom line? Gifford seems to want a court to decree that she is officially the most basic person on the internet.

One Amazon influencer makes a living posting content from her beige home. But after she noticed another account hawking the same minimal aesthetic, a rivalry spiraled into a first-of-its-kind lawsuit. Can the legal system protect the vibe of a creator? And what if that vibe is basic?

“It’s definitely very calming,” Sheil, 21, says of her decor. “Growing up, my parents had a bunch of pictures on the walls, they had rooms that had different colors… So when we moved into this place, I was like, ‘I don’t want a bunch of stuff on the walls. I don’t want mismatched things. I just want it to all be cohesive and plain.’” It is not just Sheil who prefers her space to be colorless — a generation of women dream in beige and cream.

If Gifford’s legal argument is successful, it could mean any influencer making content in an established genre could be liable — even though, in general, copyright law limits liability for use of genre tropes.