Goldman Breaks Down Build America 250 Impact On Construction Stocks

The Build America 250 bill is a proposed transportation infrastructure funding package covering federal projects between 2027 and 2031 and would succeed the Biden-era Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which expires in the coming months.

Goldman analysts, led by Ben Rada Martin, stated that the Build America 250 bill has cleared House committee approval with limited amendments, providing greater clarity around $580 billion for highways, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure.

One main point from the Goldman note is that Build America 250 is not another IIJA-style boom. For the Federal Highway Administration, Martin sees only about an 8% nominal increase relative to IIJA levels, after IIJA delivered a more than 50% federal funding uplift.

Martin pointed out that bridge funding jumped by about 29%, while rail and transit programs face reductions. He expects public highway spending to grow by 6% in 2026 and 5% in 2027, though much of that reflects inflation rather than real volume growth. After adjusting for construction cost inflation, he expects flat-to-slightly negative volume trends.

"Nominal uplift, with a mix shift to bridges, transit sees cuts: We go through the 1,000-page draft document and amendments to date, with the recent bill implying a broad continuation in spending with a category mix shift toward bridges (+29%), while rail and transit administrations see cuts," Martin wrote in a note published on Monday.

Highways in detail - Limited expansion, especially net of inflation

Goldman's prediction model indicates that public construction should continue to grow, but at a slower pace after a very strong 2021 to 2025 period.

Martin said the stock impact of the Build America 250 bill on construction-linked companies is viewed as neutral to slightly negative.

Engineering and Construction - Neutral/Mix:

• US (GVA, AECOM, J): We view the bill as broadly net neutral for GVA (diversified civil contractor), as funding implies flat to modest real volume declines. For Jacobs and AECOM (engineering and design firms), we see a modest negative impact, reflecting cuts to rail and transit. While state and local infrastructure accounts for ~25–30% of revenue for both companies, we believe they are relatively overweight transit versus traditional infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, tunnels).
• EU (Ferrovial): The bill is likely to be neutral for Ferrovial's construction division - with Webber and Ferrovial Construction largely exposed to the broad US infrastructure segment, across bridges, highways, waterworks, and energy. When it comes to future infrastructure projects (P3), Ferrovial could benefit from lower government infrastructure spend, given lower crowding out effects increasing private market opportunities and ROI.

Lightside building materials

• (EU - Sika, SGO) - Neutral: Construction Chemicals are used in more complex engineering projects and in greater quantities in infrastructure refurbishment. Hence, we see the uplift in funding towards Bridge renovations as a positive, while see this to be offset by lower funding in transport and transit related categories. Sika is the most exposed with US Infra representing c.7% of Group (GSe).

Heavyside building materials - Neutral/Mixed:

• Cement (EU - Buzzi, Heidelberg, Latam - CX) - Neutral: Cement in our view is relatively project agnostic between bridges and highways. Hence, we see neutral implications, with strong Bridge spend offset by lower transport funding and limited uplift in nominal highway spend.
• Aggregates (EU - Heidelberg, Latam - CX) - Slight negative: Given only a small nominal funding increase for highways (key aggregate end-market), and expectations of continued pricing growth (c. +MSD) and inflation in the category, we believe levels of volume growth may be muted. While other spend categories of growth (Bridges) are less aggregate intensive.

The understanding here is that Build America 250 keeps federal infrastructure spending ongoing, but it should not be viewed as a new infrastructure supercycle.

Professional subscribers can read the full GS construction note here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 13:00

The IPO Boom: Where Will The Money Come From?

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The media hype surrounding SpaceX’s upcoming mid-June initial public offering (IPO) is immense. The company recently filed its S-1 with the SEC, targeting a valuation of $1.75 trillion and a capital raise of up to $75 billion. Some believe its valuation could rise to $2 trillion after the IPO. In its wake, Anthropic (Claude) and OpenAI (ChatGPT) confidentially submitted IPO registration statements to the SEC. Expectations are that both AI model companies will enter the market within the next 3 to 6 months, with rumored valuations approaching or exceeding $1 trillion each. Stripe, the quickly growing payments company, is rumored to be on the IPO docket as well, with a valuation that could exceed $150 billion. Consequently, the coming IPO boom will have wide-reaching impacts.

The IPO market, which has been stagnant for the last four years, is bubbling with excitement. The headlines surrounding the IPOs are hyperbolic, banker fees are enormous, and social media is teeming with bullish sentiment on how high the new shares may trade after going public.

While IPO boom talk is great for clickbait, nobody is asking the most important question. Where will the money come from?

Putting Context To The IPO Boom

To understand the size of the coming IPO boom, some historical context is necessary. Prior to the pandemic, the US IPO market raised approximately $30 billion per year. In late 2020 and throughout 2021, the SPAC boom led to a surge in IPO offerings. Since then, however, as we share below, IPO issuance has been relatively lean.

The 2026 pipeline is shaping up to be the second-largest in at least the last ten years. SpaceX alone is raising up to $75 billion per its SEC filing. Add OpenAI’s expected cash raise of $60 billion, Anthropic at $15 to $20 billion, and Stripe around $10 billion, and the pipeline of known IPOs coming to market is approximately $160-$165 billion. Moreover, the total market valuation of these deals could surpass $4 trillion. Assuming no other deals come onto the market, the four deals would be larger than the last four years’ worth of deals combined.  

Dilution vs. Capital Absorption

Some pundits are using the word “dilution” to describe the impact of the IPOs on the market. While not necessarily misused, the term is most often used to describe what happens when a publicly traded company issues new shares in the market, diluting the value of existing shares. Simply, existing shareholders who do not buy new shares see their ownership percentage decline.

Given that the expected stock offerings are IPOs rather than add-on offerings by a publicly traded company, the term “dilution” is not appropriate to describe the upcoming offerings. The more accurate term is capital absorption.

Capital absorption is the process by which large new stock offerings pull money out of existing financial markets, as investors sell existing holdings or redirect cash to purchase newly issued shares. While it is true that someone must buy the shares being sold to fund an IPO purchase, that buyer, in most cases, is simply recycling existing market capital rather than introducing new money. Thus, while an IPO is not dilutive to the stock being offered, it is dilutive to the financial markets, as the total investible dollars, in theory, remain unchanged; they just get spread out a little more thinly.

Where Does IPO Capital Come From?

IPO capital comes from three primary sources, each with consequences for existing market participants.

The first is institutional rebalancing. A large asset manager running an equity portfolio that wants meaningful exposure to a new IPO must trim existing positions and potentially use existing cash or raise new funds to create room for the new holding. While selling by any manager is unlikely to create a ripple in the market, because the stocks, bonds, and other assets they sell vary widely, simultaneous selling across thousands of institutional portfolios can have an impact.

The second is retail liquidation. Similarly, individual investors who want to participate in an IPO need cash to do so. Some of that cash may come from savings, but like most institutional accounts, they will raise cash by selling existing equity holdings. Keep in mind that every retail investor who liquidates an S&P 500 index fund to buy SpaceX or another IPO is, de facto, a seller of all of the stocks in the index.

The third source is capital from sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and foreign institutional investors, who are expanding their equity holdings. Often, their funds represent new money entering the financial markets rather than a rotation within them. The participation of these funds might reduce the impact of IPOs on other stocks and financial assets.  

The net effect of all three sources is that existing holdings largely fund new ones. At the scale being contemplated in 2026, that rotation is large enough to create a meaningful headwind across financial markets.

Index Inclusion Impacts

The direct capital absorption from the IPOs themselves is significant, but it may not be the largest structural effect. The more consequential impact comes from index inclusion.

Passive index funds and other passive strategies do not choose their holdings. When a stock is added to the index they track, they must buy it in proportion to its weight in the index. Typically, this is a minor event, as most IPOs are small enough that inclusion is minimal. The 2026 IPOs are different.

Consider the top ten S&P 500 holdings shown in the table below. SpaceX at $1.75 trillion, combined with Anthropic and OpenAI at roughly $1 trillion each, represents approximately $3.75 trillion in total market weight. That is nearly equal to Apple’s entire market capitalization, the second-largest stock in the index. An S&P 500 index fund adding all three IPOs would need to proportionally reduce the weight of every other holding in the portfolio to make room for those additions.

Fortunately, the impact will happen in waves over time. SpaceX’s inclusion will trigger the first wave of forced rebalancing. Anthropic and OpenAI, expected to follow within months, each trigger their own.

Index Inclusion Timing

The impact of index inclusion, as discussed above, depends heavily on timing, and the timeline is accelerating in ways that are concerning for existing index investors.

Index providers have a financial incentive to include these large companies quickly. The more assets that track their indexes, the more licensing revenue they generate. An index that excludes the most valuable and talked-about companies in the market risks losing relevance and assets to competing benchmarks. That incentive is resulting in a significant rewriting of the rules by the indexing companies.

Nasdaq reacted first. In early May 2026, it revised its methodology to allow any newly listed company with a market cap in the top 40 to enter the Nasdaq 100 after just 15 trading days, eliminating the minimum float requirement entirely. Under those rules, SpaceX could be a Nasdaq 100 constituent before most investors have had time to assess its first earnings report.

The S&P 500 is moving more slowly but in the same direction. S&P Dow Jones Indices has proposed cutting the seasoning window from 12 months to 6 and waiving the four-quarter profitability requirement for companies above a certain market-cap threshold. Even under that accelerated timeline, a mid-June SpaceX IPO would not reach S&P 500 eligibility until around December 2026. Thus, the largest wave of forced passive buying may still be months away.

The market impacts begin at the IPO and may be felt for many months after.

Summary

Think of the stock market as a jar full of marbles. For the new SpaceX and other marbles to fit in the jar, either the jar must be enlarged, or some of the other marbles must shrink. 

Given the current monetary environment, the jar, or available capital, is unlikely to grow significantly. The Fed is no longer providing the flood of liquidity that enabled the easy digestion of the SPAC boom in 2020 and 2021. Rates are higher, savings rates are lower, and the equity market is already trading at elevated valuations. Simply put, there isn’t much extra liquidity.  Thus, the other option is for the collective market cap of everything else to decline.

In reality, there will be some shrinkage of marbles and an enlargement of the jar. The extent of both will help determine how the IPO boom is received and its impact on other stocks. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 12:40

Number Of US Home Sellers Hits Highest Level In 6 Years In May: Report

Authored by Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times,

Homebuyers held more leverage over sellers in May, with sellers outpacing prospective buyers in 35 of the nation’s 50 most populous metropolitan markets, according to a June 9 report from real estate brokerage Redfin.

The number of sellers reached its highest level since 2020.

Home sellers outnumbered buyers by nearly 47 percent for the month, up slightly from 46.4 percent in April, but retreating slightly from the peak of 49.5 percent in December 2025, Redfin researchers said.

The numbers are in stark contrast to 2021, when there were 36.4 percent fewer sellers than buyers as mortgage rates under 3 percent sparked a buying frenzy.

A typical buyer’s market has 10 percent more sellers than buyers, which gives prospective buyers greater negotiating power since there are an abundance of homes from which to choose. 

“While the gap between homebuyers and sellers has narrowed slightly since the end of last year, house hunters still have far more negotiating power and less pressure to make rushed decisions,” Redfin senior economist Asad Khan said.

“Buyers in most of the country can be selective and ask for concessions, while sellers still need to price competitively to stand out.”

There were more than 1.48 million sellers in May, up by 0.4 percent from the previous month and the highest number of home listings since 2020, Redfin noted. On the other side of the equation, just 1.01 million buyers were looking for new residences.

Sellers entered the market in greater numbers in April in part due to a slight easing in mortgage rates, but buying demand compressed in May as mortgage rates crept higher, Redfin noted. The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage for the week ending June 4 was 6.48 percent, Freddie Mac reported. At the end of May, however, that rate hit a year-high at 6.53 percent. 

Existing home sales increased by 3.2 percent in May, while total for-sale inventory ticked up by 3.2 percent, the National Association of Realtors reported. Homebuying may be slightly slower through the final two quarters of the year, however, as interest rates are expected to remain unchanged until the summer of 2027, Goldman Sachs researchers said. Elevated mortgage rates reduce homeowner affordability.

Multiple Sun Belt metros lead the nation in seller imbalance. The strongest buyers’ market was Nashville, Tennessee, which had 17,494 hopeful sellers versus 7,614 prospective buyers, an imbalance of 129.8 percent.

Miami, Florida, had 122.3 percent more sellers than buyers (19,426 to 8,740), followed by three Texas cities: Austin at 116 percent (18,281 to 8,462), Houston at 110.8 percent (45,968 to 21,809), and San Antonio at 107.5 percent (19,552 to 9,423).

Buyers outnumbered sellers in a handful of markets, creating more favorable conditions for purchasers, Redfin stated. Nassau County, New York, had 38.3 percent more buyers than sellers, Milwaukee had 29.1 percent, and Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, had 24.9 percent. Sellers in those markets can benefit from higher sale prices, multiple bids, fewer concessions, and reduced time on market, according to Freddie Mac.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 12:00

Massive SpaceX IPO Demand Coming From Gulf Sovereign Wealth Funds

One week ago, SpaceX kicked off its institutional roadshow, headlined by JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who hosted a nationwide "live interactive discussion" with private wealth clients.

The latest signal of investor demand comes from the Gulf, where massive sovereign wealth funds are reportedly seeking allocations in the IPO ahead of its expected Friday debut, according to Bloomberg News.

The report says Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund and Kuwait Investment Authority have each placed orders for the IPO worth $1 billion to $5 billion, while the Qatar Investment Authority is also expected to make a significant commitment.

The report continued:

Entities based in the region are already prominent shareholders in Elon Musk's rocket, satellite and AI firm, and many are sitting on large paper gains based on the billionaire's targeted valuation of $1.8 trillion, the people said. It wasn't immediately clear how much of the planned outlay is intended to prevent dilution of existing stakes after SpaceX's listing.

The interest from the Gulf is part of a broader rush into the deal from global institutional investors, whose orders have exceeded the number of shares on offer. Some have bid for $10 billion or more of stock, Bloomberg News has reported, though the eventual allocations might be smaller.

In a separate report, Reuters says the IPO is three-and-a-half to four times oversubscribed, highlighting massive institutional demand for what is shaping up to be the largest listing on record and a defining moment for the space economy.

Elon Musk has joined several Zoom meetings with potential investors, while SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and CFO Bret Johnsen were expected to meet with roughly 300 institutional investors at a Morgan Stanley lunch in Manhattan.

Goldman Sachs was selected as the lead bank for the IPO, alongside Morgan Stanley. JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citigroup are also among the 23 banks working on the deal, offering a staggering $75 billion by selling about 555.6 million shares. The planned IPO price is about $135 per share.

Why SpaceX's IPO Is drawing record investor demand...

We offered readers a complete deep dive into the mechanics of the SpaceX offering and how to trade the world's biggest IPO (read the report). SpaceX's underwriters have shut off investor access to the offering in China and Hong Kong, primarily due to regulatory and compliance concerns.

However, there is a concerted effort by unhinged leftist lawmakers (such as Elizabeth Warren) and left-wing pension funds to delay or deny the SpaceX IPO, mainly for political brownie points. They appear to view the sudden new wealth generated for Elon Musk (and his employees and investors) as absolutely horrifying...

NEW: Elizabeth Warren is calling for the SEC to delay the mega SpaceX IPO.

Warren cites concerns about "questionable valuation," governance structure & mandatory arbitration pic.twitter.com/4mQqzTtYRs

— Matt Egan (@MattEganCNN) June 10, 2026

... given that Musk is pro-humanity and seeks to liberate the world's minds from toxic progressive causes.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 11:40

Taiwan Test Fires US Mobile Launchers Into Waters Directly Facing China For First Time

China's PLA military has long been known to intimidate and threaten the self-ruled island of Taiwan, mainly with large military exercises which sometime encircle it partially or completely, or else with a heavy naval boat presence in the Strait of Hormuz.

Taiwan's military often reacts by scrambling its own fighter jets to closely monitor the PLA maneuvers - seen as a natural defensive and reactive move. But this week, in a rare moment, Taiwan is finally doing some proactive flexing of its own.

EPA-EFE

"Taiwan fired U.S. mobile missile launchers into the strategic waters directly facing China for the first time, sending a message of resolve to Beijing and Washington," The Wall Street Journal reports.

This involved over 30 test rocket launches via truck-mounted High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS. Importantly, the launch site was an area near a river mouth on Taiwan's western coast.

"This is sending a message to the Chinese that they are going to get hit hard if they try to come across the strait—and will end up with far fewer ships than they started with," Grant Newsham, a retired US Marine colonel who served in several Indo-Pacific roles, told WSJ.

The WSJ continues with further context:

The drill was the highlight of two days of military exercises showcasing Taiwan’s preparations to combat an amphibious invasion. China considers democratically self-ruled Taiwan as part of its territory and hasn’t ruled out potentially using force to absorb the island.

...Such exercises also serve as a signal to Washington that Taiwan is committed to defending itself and deserves U.S. support, with a $14 billion U.S. arms package currently on hold.

Back in April, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed cross-strait relations: "All sons and daughters of China share the same Chinese roots and the same Chinese spirit. This originates from blood ties and is deeply embedded in our history – it cannot be forgotten and cannot be erased," he said at the time.

Officially, Biejing seeks a 'peaceful reunification' of the independent island to the mainland, while many Washington officials fear it could at any point launch an outright invasion and political takeover.

WATCH: Taiwan conducted its first HIMARS live-fire on its western coast, the primary PLA invasion corridor.

32 of 36 planned rockets fired; 4 misfires under investigation.

Previous HIMARS drills were on the east coast. pic.twitter.com/9Z1xPWMgIK

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 10, 2026

But the reality remains that any PLA direct military intervention would likely be in response to a provocation, and wouldn't just materialize out of thin air. Beijing has at times warned that the growing billions of dollars in arms that Washington has been providing Taiwan could be just such a provocation. 

Xi's China has also been very alarmed at the growing (direct) US military footprint in its own backyard, given the presence of American military advisers, said to be present in some of Taiwan's small islands which lie close to the Chinese mainland.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 11:05

Americans' Real Wages Are Shrinking As CPI Tops 4% For First Time In 3 Years

With expectations of a 4%-plus print, all eyes are on this morning's CPI report as we move past April's shutdown-related distortions.

Headline CPI rose 0.5% MoM (as expected) in May, lifting prices 4.2% YoY (also as expected). The first 4%-plus print since April 2023...

Core Goods prices deflated in May while Energy remains a notable contributor...

CPI details:

Headline: The all items index rose 4.2 percent for the 12 months ending May, after rising 3.8 percent for the 12 months ending April. The all items less food and energy index rose 2.9 percent over the year, following a 2.8-percent increase over the 12 months ending April. The energy index increased 23.5 percent for the 12 months ending May. The food index increased 3.1 percent over the last year

• The index for energy rose 3.9% in May, after rising 3.8% in April and 10.9% in March. The energy index accounted for over 60% of the monthly all items increase. The index for shelter also increased in May, rising 0.3 percent.
• The food index increased 0.2% over the month as the food at home index rose 0.1% and the food away from home index increased 0.3%.

This is the first deflationary print for goods prices in a year...

• Household furnishings and Supplies -0.042%

• Transportation Commodities less motor oil: -0.49%

• Medical Care Commodities -0.54%

Drug prices are down for the fifth month in a row...

Core CPI rose less than expected (+0.2% MoM vs +0.3% MoM exp), lifting prices by 2.9% YoY (as expected), up from April's 2.8% YoY and the highest since Sept 2025...

Core Services costs are accelerating...

Core: The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.2% in May.

Indexes that increased over the month include communication, airline fares, medical care, personal care, and recreation.

• The shelter index increased 0.3% over the month.
  • The index for owners’ equivalent rent rose 0.3 percent in May and the index for rent increased 0.4 percent.
  • The lodging away from home index also rose 0.4 percent over the month.

• The index for communication increased 1.3 percent over the month, after falling 0.2 percent in April.
• The airline fares index rose 2.7 percent in May and the personal care index rose 1.0 percent.
• The index for recreation rose 0.3 percent over the month as did the index for apparel.
• The used cars and trucks index increased 0.1 percent in May
• The medical care index increased 0.3 percent in May, after falling 0.1 percent in April.
• The index for hospital services increased 0.7 percent over the month.

On the other hand, the indexes for motor vehicle insurance, household furnishings and operations, and new vehicles were among the major indexes that decreased in May.

• Conversely, the prescription drugs index decreased 0.9 percent over the month while the physicians’ services index was unchanged in May.
• The motor vehicle insurance index declined 1.7 percent in May after rising 0.1 percent in April.
• The index for household furnishings and operations fell 0.6 percent over the month and the index for new vehicles declined 0.3 percent.

Transportation Services deflated MoM...

...led by the unexpected drop in Insurance costs...

That is the biggest drop in vehicle insurance costs since COVID...

Goods inflation overall is trending lower while Services costs are accelerating...

The much-watched SuperCore CPI (Core Services Ex-Shelter) saw prices rise 0.26% MoM and 3.49% YoY (highest sine Aug 2025)..

On a shorter-term basis, its all about energy...

But, is this the peak of Energy-cost-driven inflation?

This leaves headline consumer prices up 5.16% since President Trump came to office...

And perhaps most notably, Americans' real wages are shrinking on a YoY basis (for the first time since April 2023)...

Let's just hope this analog fails here...

BofA's Michael Hartnett previously warned that a May print above 0.4% (estimates currently have it a 0.6%) means US CPI >4% YoY and on course for 5% by US midterms, and risk assets get twitchy: in the past 100 years once CPI crosses 4% on average, the S&P is down 4% in the next 3 months, and down 7% next 6 month...

Finally, while nattering nabobs of mainstream media will be decrying Trump's terrible record on prices, Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid notes that when looked at over the full century, inflation above 4% is not especially rare: over a quarter of monthly observations have exceeded this level.

However, these episodes have tended to arrive in distinct waves - most notably around WWII, during the 1970s, and more briefly in the post-Covid period.

Smaller but still meaningful pockets also appeared during the late-1980s boom and ahead of the GFC.

The more recent experience looks very different.

Since 1992, 83% of observations have sat comfortably in the 1–4% range, with just 10% printing above 4%. For most market participants, then, inflation above 4% has been an exception rather than the rule.

The key question is whether the future looks more like the last 35 years or the full 105-year monthly history.

While there are no immediate signs of inflation running away, the disinflationary environment of the past few decades benefited from a set of unusually supportive, and largely non-repeatable, global forces.

So going forward the template from the last century rather than the last few decades will probably be the better guide.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 09:44

Amazon Freight Expansion Sparks Selloff Across Trucking Stocks

Less-than-truckload freight stocks fell in premarket trading in New York after Amazon roiled the industry yet again - this time by announcing expanded LTL services to cover all U.S. destinations, including third-party warehouses, distribution centers, and retail partners.

"Businesses now have the flexibility to ship by pallet, choosing LTL to share trailer space for partial loads instead of reserving and paying for a full truckload," Amazon wrote in a press release, adding, "Since 2019, Amazon LTL has served tens of thousands of Amazon selling partners and vendors, moving millions of pallets across its U.S. network last year. The company is now expanding the service based on strong positive feedback and growing customer demand." 

Among the movers in premarket trading, FedEx Freight fell 2%, Old Dominion declined 6%, Saia sank 7%, and ArcBest dropped nearly 8%.

LTL services are part of Amazon Supply Chain Services, whose launch last month roiled trucking stocks at the time.

Amazon noted, "Businesses of all sizes can now use LTL to move freight, typically ranging from one to six pallets, or between 150 and 15,000 pounds."

UBS senior analyst Tom Wadewitz, who covers freight transportation, told clients last month that the selloff in transport names, including UPS, FedEx, and C.H. Robinson, sparked by Amazon’s push into the supply chain network, was "overdone."

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 09:40

The post The Social Security Shortfall and Trump’s Big Military Budget appeared first on CEPR.

Ukraine Hits Over Half A Dozen Energy & Industrial Sites Deep Inside Russia Overnight

Ukraine has hit Russia in another sweeping wave of overnight aerial attacks, especially targeting industrial facilities and energy infrastructure across multiple regions, and the extent of damage is yet to be disclosed.

One of the key targets was reportedly the VNIIR-Progress plant, located in the republic of Chuvashia, which is alleged by Ukraine and the West to manufactures components for Russian drones and bombs. Other nearby infrastructure was also attacked.

via Telegram

Ukraine has for months been making clear that it is going gloves off when it comes to attacking Russia's energy and military sites, as well as dual use military-industrial factories. Ukraine used its domestic-made Flamingo cruise missile:

Ukrainian forces have carried out a missile attack deep inside Russia, hitting a major military plant overnight, President Volodymyr Zelensky has said.

He said FP-5 Flamingo cruise missiles struck the drone and missile plant in the city of Cheboksary, in the Chuvash Republic, more than 900km (560 miles) from the front line. Local officials say said three people were injured in a missile attack on the city.

Ukraine also said it had hit the Moscow-occupied port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, a Russian oil refinery in Samara and a "shadow fleet" oil tanker in the Black Sea.

According to a review of sensitive sites struck in the fresh overnight attack wave:

• In Novokuibyshevsk in Russia’s Samara oil hub region, hosting Rosneft refineries, regional governors said authorities repelled drone attacks while urging one million residents to seek shelter. Russian OSINT channel Astra confirmed the Kuibyshevsk oil refinery was burning after at least 29 drones attacked.
• In Russia’s Rostov region bordering Ukraine, falling debris from a drone triggered a fire in a fuel tank at a civilian site. In the central Vladimir region, two industrial facilities were ablaze.
• Rare air raid alerts were issued in remote oil-producing regions Khanty-Mansiysk, Perm and Tyumen, plus industrial Ural mountain regions Chelyabinsk and Sverdlovsk.

Chuvashia regional governor Oleg Nikolayev blasted the strike on the aforementioned manufacturing plant as indicative of the "impotent rage of terrorists who, having no success at the front line, try to intimidate peaceful people in the rear."

All of these strike waves in disparate places is likely invite even greater airstrikes on Kiev, after the capital has already been hit hard over the past several weeks.

Big night for Ukraine’s long-range strikes.

Kuibyshev Refinery in Samara is reportedly burning in multiple locations and may face lengthy repairs.

VNIIR Progress in Cheboksary — a key producer of Kometa navigation systems used in Shahed drones, Iskander and Kalibr missiles —… pic.twitter.com/PGpEgnaOul

— распад и неуважение (@VictorKvert2008) June 10, 2026

President Putin and top military brass had last month said strikes would be initiated against "decision-making centers" in response to the dorm attack in the Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic on May 22, which killed 21 people - mostly teenage girls - and injured 70 others.

Kremlin officials now say that Russian forces have "a right to dismantle any infrastructure that supports terrorism."

But it's also these constant attacks on oil and industrial sites that little by little will put immense strain on Russia's economy and the populace. The salvos out of Ukraine will keep coming, especially as Moscow continues to maintain the 'special military operation' at a slow, grinding pace.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 09:05

Graham Platner Wins Maine Senate Democratic Nomination, Locking In Face-Off With Collins

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

Democratic voters in Maine on Tuesday nominated oysterman and military veteran Graham Platner as their candidate to take on incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), locking in the nominees for one of the most critical Senate elections of the 2026 cycle.

Graham Platner, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, greets supporters after speaking at an event hosted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in Orono, Maine, on May 24, 2026. Robert F. Bukaty/AP Photo

At 9:23 p.m, The Associated Press formally declared that Platner would be the Democratic nominee. When the race was called, Platner led Gov. Janet Mills - who withdrew her candidacy after polls showed her trailing the dark horse Platner - by tens of percent, though only around 8 percent of the votes were in when the race was called.

Platner's campaign recently come under scrutiny after several media reports about his past treatment of women and other controversies.

Platner's victory formalizes the 2026 Senate lineup, locking in the final picks for a race that has been characterized as the political fight of Collins's life by many observers.

The five-term Collins was first elected in 1996 and has held on long beyond any other New England Republican at the federal level.

This year, she faced no Republican challenger for the nomination.

Though she regularly breaks with President Donald Trump and her party in the upper chamber, the political odds for a Republican in statewide matches have grown increasingly grim in recent years.

Aside from Collins, the last Republican to win a statewide federal race in New England was Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican who won a single term to the Senate in 2010 before being unseated by Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) in 2016.

Maine has never voted for Trump on a statewide level, with Vice President Kamala Harris winning by around 7 percent in 2024.

But Collins's brand of moderate, old-school Republicanism has kept her well ahead of most other Republicans in the state.

In 2020, Collins outran Trump by around 17 percent in Maine, defeating her Democratic rival by around eight points in an election former President Joe Biden won by around nine points.

Still, polls have painted a tough picture for Collins, who has fallen behind Platner in most polls conducted since March.

Platner has campaigned as a progressive candidate, winning the endorsement of key figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

However, his campaign has faced some controversies.

The New York Times has run various stories against Platner, which include claims made by Lyndsey Fifield, a Republican political strategist who previously dated him.

Fifield claimed that on one occasion, while they were dating between 2013 and 2015, Platner twisted her arm. The New York Times stated in the article that it was unable to independently corroborate the allegation, which Platner has denied.

A report by The Wall Street Journal also relayed a story involving Platner exchanging sexually explicit text messages with other women during his marriage.

His wife, who knew about the infidelity, had shared the information with a campaign staffer, who later brought the story to The Wall Street Journal. Platner's wife has described the public reporting on the topic as "shameful" gossip.

Polymarket Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 08:50

 

 

Last week, I was up in Montreal for a keynote presentation to 750 Bank RIAs. Morgan Housel was the keynote the day before (tough act to follow!).

Today, I am speaking with an old friend, Paul Kedrosky, about all things technology on the pod. Paul is a fascinating guy with an interesting background and an unusual set of interests — Science nerd, VC, academic, writer, skier, and among the last of the landed gentry in America. Artificial Intelligence is certain to come up.

During the Q&A in Montreal, I was taken aback by how many questions there were about AI — not the usual “Is it a bubble” line of inquiry, but rather, what are the best use cases? Should AI be used to create content (No!), research (Yes!). There were so many legitimate questions about AI that I decided to dig a little further.

I will definitely be asking Paul about his views, but until then, I had a little chat about how to best use AI with Claude, see what AI itself had to say on the topic of using AI.

Most agentic generated content is pretty bad — it’s great for research, but using AI for any kind of writing, prose, or content creation is a terrible idea. The reason I am sharing Claude’s responses is that A) I found the answers very useful, and, 2) I edited it down to size to make it mostly readable. (I also moved the more pedantic answers to footnotes).

Here is my conversation with Claude about AI, edited for length; (underlining is my emphasis added).

Let’s go:

Barry: Let’s discuss YOU, Claude — What are your best strengths, what are your weaknesses? What do you do really well? What do you do really poorly?  How can I best use your strengths to make my work product better?  What else should I be doing with you to be better?

Claude: Good question to actually sit with rather than give you the brochure version. Let me be specific to the kind of work you do.

Where I’m genuinely strong

Transformation and synthesis. Hand me raw material — a Fidelity CSV, a 90-minute transcript, a stack of Instapaper saves, a messy first draft — and I’m fast and reliable at reshaping it into something structured and usable. Your morning reads digest, the transcript cleanups, the thank-you emails: that’s my sweet spot because the facts already exist and I’m just organizing and formatting them. Low risk, high leverage.

Sparring. I’m useful as an adversary against your own arguments. When you’re assembling something like the divestiture-vs-overtrading piece or a “Liberation Day” scorecard, I can argue the other side hard, find the weak joint in the thesis, surface the objection a sharp reader will raise. Most people underuse me here and use me as a stenographer instead.

First drafts at volume. Interview questions, outreach emails, outlines, and alternate framings. I’m a good 70%-draft machine when you’re the editor.1

Where I’m weak — and these matter for you specifically

I confabulate. This is the big one, given that you publish precisely-sourced work. I will produce a plausible-looking statistic, a clean quote, a specific citation — and it can be wrong while sounding completely authoritative. A DALBAR number, a date, a “Buffett said X.” Treat every figure, quote, and citation I generate as unverified until you’ve checked it or I’ve shown you a real source. When it matters, make me search and cite rather than recall, and have me run actual math in code rather than predicting the answer.

I’m sycophantic by default. I lean toward agreeing with you and telling you your idea is good. For someone who wants honest pushback, that’s a bug. You have to explicitly tell me to be blunt, or I’ll soften. If you ever feel like I’m flattering a draft, I probably am — call it out.

I drift toward generic when you don’t push. Left alone I’ll “average” toward the median answer. The dark editorial aesthetic, your voice, your register — I hold those when you give me the spec, but I don’t reach for them on my own. I over-hedge and over-format unless told otherwise, and on very long documents, I can quietly miss things.

 How to get more out of me

A few concrete shifts. Use me earlier — at the thinking stage, not just execution. Bring me a half-formed thesis and let me poke at it before you’ve committed. Set up reusable instructions for the recurring stuff (morning reads format, transcript speaker conventions, your house style) so you’re not re-specifying every time.

“Red-team” published arguments before they go out: paste the draft and say “find what’s wrong, where will a smart critic attack this.” And separate the two modes explicitly — “draft this” versus “verify this” — because I’m great at the first and need supervision on the second.

The one-line version: use me to transform, structure, and stress-test, and never to be the system of record for a fact. Want me to set up a couple of reusable prompts for your standing workflows?

Barry: Hold off on the reusable prompts layer for now, and stay with this line of discussion. What kind of new capabilities do you have coming online in the near future, and when? What should be thinking about in terms of best using your strengths?

Claude: Straight answer first: I can’t see Anthropic’s internal roadmap, so I won’t hand you a dated list of unreleased features — that’s precisely the confabulation trap I warned you about, and it’d be worse coming from me right after that warning. What I can do is tell you what’s actually shipped in the gap between my training cutoff and today, because a lot of it is directly relevant to you and you may not be using it yet. Some of it reads less like “near future” and more like “already here, you just haven’t turned it on.” 2

Now the honest caveat that should shape how you use all of this. Even the finance-tuned setup scored about 64% on a finance agent benchmark — a failure rate that, as one writer put it, would get a human analyst tossed, and Anthropic’s own framing is that users should stay firmly in the loop, reviewing and approving Claude’s work before it goes to a client or gets filed. So the trajectory isn’t “Claude replaces the verification step.” It’s “Claude does more of the assembly, and your judgment becomes the scarce, valuable input.” 3

The work that gets more valuable is the editorial judgment, the thesis, the voice, and the fact-checking — the parts that are distinctly Barry Ritholtz and can’t be benchmarked.

So rather than chasing each feature, I’d position for the trend: get the recurring workflows specified tightly enough that they survive being handed to a more autonomous agent, and keep your hand firmly on the verification gate. The tooling will keep getting better at the first half on its own.

Barry: OK, final question – this one is about Co-Work and Code:

I had you [Perplexity] create an interactive Drake Equation dashboard – it was very cool, but it did not rely on changing data.  I tried some other dashboard ideas, ran test runs; it was not quite ready for prime time.

What can you create that auto-updates based on (weekly, monthly, quarterly) economic and (daily, weekly, monthly) market data?

I want to create economic & market dashboards that show various data series at a glance; that get updated automatically; I want to embed it onto WordPress so anyone [with that link] can see it; and I want to set specific indicators that create alerts based on specific (non-public) parameters that I set…

Claude: This is the right question, and the answer explains why your Drake dashboard and the other test runs felt stuck. It wasn’t a polish problem — it was structural. An artifact (the thing I generate in chat) is a self-contained front-end: no backend, no scheduler, no safe place to store an API key, and only a flaky ability to call outside data sources from the browser. So it can look great but it has nothing feeding it and nothing waking it up to refresh.

What you’re describing isn’t a fancier artifact; it’s a small data pipeline plus a hosted page. The good news is that Claude Code and Cowork are built to create exactly that — the artifact was just the wrong container.

Here’s the architecture that does everything on your list, and the one design decision that matters most for you.

Split it into two halves: a public dashboard and a private alert engine — fed by the same pipeline.

The pipeline is a scheduled job that runs on a cron (say, every weekday after market close, plus a monthly run for the slow economic series). Each run it pulls fresh data, computes your indicators, writes out a small JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) snapshot, and checks your alert thresholds.

The key move: your non-public parameters live inside this job, server-side, where no one can see them. The public dashboard never contains your thresholds — it just reads the pre-computed JSON snapshot and draws charts. So anyone embedding or viewing the WordPress page sees the data at a glance, while your alert logic and secret levels stay completely private and fire only to you. That separation is the thing most people get wrong: if the thresholds were in the front-end, “view source” would expose them instantly.

Mapping that to your four requirements:

Auto-updating comes from the cron, not the page. Economic series (CPI, unemployment, yield curve, etc.) refresh on their own monthly/quarterly cadence; market series refresh daily. The dashboard is fast because the heavy lifting already happened — it just loads a baked JSON.

Data sources. FRED (the St. Louis Fed’s API) is the gold standard for economic series — free, deep, and importantly, redistributable, which matters since you’re publishing publicly. Market data is the part to be careful with: free daily-close sources exist, but real-time exchange data carries licensing restrictions on public redistribution. For a public embed I’d stick to daily closes and clearly-licensed series; that sidesteps a headache you don’t want as a registered firm. (Worth having Code verify the current terms of whatever market provider you pick, rather than trusting my recall on free-tier limits.)

WordPress embed is the easy part: the dashboard gets hosted as a static page somewhere, and you drop an iframe (or Custom HTML block) on your WordPress page pointing at it. It renders for everyone, and it updates whenever the cron republishes the JSON — you never touch WordPress again.

Alerts fire from the scheduled job to wherever you want them — email, SMS, a Slack/Discord webhook. Your parameters stay in the job’s secret config.

The honest part about what I can and can’t do. Code can write all of this: the fetch scripts, your indicator math, the alert engine, the cron configuration, and the front-end charts — and test it in its sandbox. What it can’t do is be the server that runs forever. The scheduled job has to live somewhere. For your situation the cleanest path that requires no server to babysit is: a GitHub repo + GitHub Actions (free cron) running the pipeline, the JSON snapshot published to a free static host (GitHub Pages or Cloudflare Pages), API keys stored as encrypted Actions secrets, and alerts sent via an email/webhook service. You own three things — the data-provider accounts, where it’s hosted, and the secret thresholds — and Code builds and wires up everything else.

That’s a real, finishable project, not a someday thing. A sensible first build is a working vertical slice: pick three or four FRED series and one market series, stand up the pipeline + one chart + one alert end to end, confirm it refreshes and embeds, then expand the series list and indicators once the plumbing is proven.

One decision drives the stack: do you want to run this entirely on free hosted infrastructure you basically never log into (the GitHub Actions + Pages route above), or do you already have a server / Vercel / Cloudflare setup you’d rather use? Tell me which, and I’ll have Code scaffold the slice — pipeline, chart, alert, and the WordPress iframe snippet — so you can see it update on its own before we build it out.

 

 

 

 

Footnotes:

1. Claude: Quantitative scaffolding and building things. The interactive React viz work — variance drain, the Marks paradox — plays to a real strength: I can turn a concept into a working, calibrated visual artifact in one pass.

2. Claude: “The other shift worth knowing: the current model, Opus 4.8, was tuned in a direction that’s relevant to my biggest weakness for you. Anthropic says early testers report it’s more likely to flag uncertainties about its work and less likely to make unsupported claims, and it added user control over how much effort Claude puts into a task. That doesn’t eliminate confabulation, but it’s moving the right way — and the effort control is useful when you want a fast reformat versus a careful analysis.”

2. Claude: “That’s the real answer to “what should I be thinking about.” The direction of travel is clearly toward agentic, tool-connected work that lives inside the apps you already use and runs longer chains autonomously. What that rewards is unglamorous and durable: clean, well-organized inputs; your house conventions written down once so any agent applies them consistently; and a verification discipline you trust. The work that gets automated is the assembly and formatting you’re already handing me.”

 

The post Claude: What Are You Good At? appeared first on The Big Picture.

These Are The Jobs With The Highest And Lowest Divorce Rates

Actuaries have America’s lowest divorce rate at 14.2%.

At the other extreme, several occupations report divorce rates near 48%, highlighting a striking divide across the U.S. workforce.

Using American Community Survey data compiled by FlowingData, Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld created the following graphic ranking the occupations with the highest and lowest divorce rates among more than 500 jobs.

One of the ranking’s most surprising findings is that healthcare occupations appear on both sides. Physicians, dentists, and physical therapists rank among America’s lowest-divorce occupations, while home health aides, psychiatric aides, and practical nurses rank among the highest.

The contrast suggests that schedules, working conditions, and job structure may play a larger role than industry alone.

The Jobs With the Lowest Divorce Rates

America’s lowest-divorce occupations are remarkably similar. Most require years of advanced education, professional licensing, or specialized technical expertise.

Education appears to be one factor. Census-based research shows divorce rates generally decline as education levels rise.

Individuals with only a high school diploma experienced a divorce rate of 38.8%, compared with 30.1% for those with an associate degree and 25.9% for those holding at least a bachelor’s degree.

Notably, America’s lowest-divorce occupations include not only high earners such as physicians and dentists, but also clergy, one of the few modest-paying professions in the group.

The Jobs With the Highest Divorce Rates

Telemarketers, bus drivers, bartenders, home health aides, psychiatric aides, casino workers, and security personnel all rank among America’s highest-divorce occupations, with rates exceeding 45%.

The occupations at the opposite end of the ranking share a different set of characteristics. Many involve irregular schedules, shift work, public-facing responsibilities, or emotionally demanding working conditions.

Work schedules may be part of the explanation. A landmark study of more than 3,400 married couples found that irregular schedules, such as night shifts, were associated with significantly higher odds of separation or divorce than regular daytime work.

Other research has linked night-shift work to greater marital instability and work-family conflict, particularly for new parents.

The Surprising Healthcare Divide

One of the ranking’s most surprising findings is that healthcare occupations appear on both sides.

Physicians, surgeons, dentists, physical therapists, optometrists, and physician assistants all rank among the lowest-divorce occupations in America.

Yet healthcare support roles tell a very different story. Home health aides, psychiatric aides, practical nurses, ambulance attendants, and other healthcare support workers rank among the highest-divorce occupations.

The divide suggests that job conditions may matter as much as industry. Workers in healthcare can face vastly different schedules, levels of autonomy, educational requirements, and workplace pressures, even while serving similar patient populations. In other words, two people can work in healthcare and face entirely different relationship pressures depending on their role.

What the Rankings Reveal

The rankings suggest that occupation and family life may be more connected than many people realize. While no profession determines whether a marriage succeeds, factors such as work schedules, stress levels, educational attainment, and job autonomy appear to be linked with markedly different divorce outcomes.

The healthcare divide is perhaps the clearest example. People working in the same industry can face entirely different relationship pressures depending on the role they hold.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on America’s 30 highest-paying jobs.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 06:55

My mid-week morning train WFH reads:

• University Endowments Are About to Strike It Big on the SpaceX IPO: WSJ on the endowment mark-ups about to land. The illiquid bet, finally meeting the liquidity event — and a reminder that the smart-money story is mostly an access story. (Wall Street Journal)

• Driverless Trucks Are Here — and They’re Delivering Bags of Doritos: WSJ on PepsiCo’s autonomous freight rollout across the Sun Belt. The future arrives via the snack aisle, as it usually does. PepsiCo has 41 trucks on the road in Arizona, Texas and Arkansas, bringing the technology into the mainstream (Wall Street Journal) see also Waymo is winning in San Francisco: New data shows that the self-driving car service has captured more than a quarter of the city’s rideshare market in just 20 months. Waymo has reportedly surpassed Lyft in market share in San Francisco. A recent poll shows that more San Francisco voters see self-driving cars positively. The robotaxi inflection happened while everyone was looking somewhere else. (Fast Company)

• How Wise is the Crowd in Prediction Markets: QuantPedia surveys the empirical literature on prediction-market accuracy. Wise on average, dumb at the tails, and easy to manipulate when liquidity is thin. (QuantPedia)

• How Americans Caught Gold Fever Again: Soaring gold prices, viral panning influencers, macho gold-mining reality shows, and Trump’s gold obsession have ignited a craze for prospecting not seen since 1849. New Yorker on the cultural return of gold-as-savings as faith in the dollar slips at the margins. The metal always tells you something about the moment. (New Yorker)

• The 24-Year-Old AI Wiz Who Counts Jane Street as an Investor: WSJ on the young founder Jane Street decided to back. Half origin story, half cautionary tale about who’s getting handed market infrastructure. (Wall Street Journal)

• Don’t Look Down: Reflections on Cross-Asset Drawdowns: Every asset draws down. The question is when, how deep, and what else is falling with it? Diversification may help, but won’t solve all your problems all the time. Over the past century, the major asset classes haven’t all crashed at once. But seldom have all been simultaneously in the clear Man Group with a rigorous walk through cross-asset drawdown statistics — and what they tell you about correlation regimes you don’t see until you need them. Sober piece for sober times. (Man Group)

• Body Language: Communication technologies have been reshaping the human body in a slow migration down the arm. They’ve run out of body. Now they’re reshaping the message. A short, sharp essay on the ways our bodies broadcast what our minds are trying to hide. Worth the five minutes. (Terry Godier)

• 12 Things Orthopedic Surgeons Do to Maintain Speed, Balance, and Longevity. “I train legs like my life depends on it,” he says. “And statistically, it does.” Time’s service piece on the habits ortho surgeons actually run on their own bodies. Less novel than billed, more useful than the average wellness listicle. (Time)

• Why Everyone Wants Jon Ossoff to Run for President: NYT op-ed on the Ossoff-for-president bubble forming inside the Democratic donor class. A reminder that “electable” usually means “familiar to the people who pay for ads.” (New York Times)

• A record die-off of sea stars was followed by something that stunned biologists: The creatures almost went extinct along the West Coast a decade ago. Recently, they have been making a comeback After the worst sea-star die-off ever recorded, a surprise rebound on parts of the West Coast. Genuinely heartening science. (Washington Post)

Video of the day: Why No One Wants to Stay in New York’s Most Iconic Building

 

Be sure to check out our BONUS Masters in Business with Joe McLean, Managing Partner at MAI Capital Management, where he leads firm’s Sports & Entertainment division, serving 100s of pro athletes/entertainers across NBA, NFL, MLB, PGA + NASCAR. His path to finance runs directly through the locker room as a 4-year NCAA Division 1 player at U of Arizona. Dubbed the athlete’s “Money Whisperer” by the New York Times, he is known for his non-negotiable 60% savings mandate for clients.

 

Are investors beginning to shy away from the tech giants that dominate the stock market?    Source: Bloomberg

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

The post 10 Wednesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Chinese Firm To Deploy 100 Humanoid Robots To Households For Daily Chores

Authored by Kaif Shaikh via Interesting Engineering,

A Chinese robotics company has begun placing its humanoid robots inside real homes, marking a significant step in the race to develop machines capable of performing everyday household tasks.

Wuhan-based GigaAI recently deployed the first batch of 100 SeeLight S1 humanoid robots for household testing, according to reports from China. The trial is being positioned as China's first large-scale real-home test of a general-purpose humanoid robot designed for domestic use.

While humanoid robots have become increasingly adept at performing carefully choreographed demonstrations, researchers say the real challenge lies in operating inside unpredictable human environments.

From Robot Demos To Real Household Work

In a demonstration apartment in Wuhan, two SeeLight S1 robots carried out a variety of household chores. According to Global Times and China Daily reports, one robot prepared breakfast by retrieving food items, heating chicken in a microwave, clearing dishes, and loading a dishwasher. Another removed laundry from a dryer, folded clothes, and organized them in a wardrobe.

According to GigaAI, the robots learned these tasks through less than a month of on-site training. The company's executives argue that household robotics represents a fundamentally different challenge from the acrobatic robot videos that often dominate social media.

"Tasks such as dancing or performing flips mainly rely on what we can call the robot's cerebellum," GigaAI co-founder and chief scientist Zhu Zheng told Global Times. "Household robots, however, depend on the brain."

That distinction reflects a broader challenge in robotics known as embodied AI, where machines must perceive their surroundings, understand spoken instructions, plan actions, and adapt to constantly changing environments.

Check out China's SeeLight S1, a household humanoid robot capable of cooking, doing laundry, folding clothes, and organizing spaces pic.twitter.com/oHqbb0B6oZ

— Shenzhen Channel (@sz_mediagroup) May 22, 2026

Why Are Homes Harder Than Factories?

Factories are structured and predictable. Homes are not. Furniture gets moved, objects are left in unexpected places, lighting conditions change throughout the day, and every household follows different routines.

Researchers often point to Moravec's paradox, a long-observed phenomenon in artificial intelligence where tasks humans consider difficult, such as advanced mathematics or strategic games, can be easier for machines than seemingly simple activities like folding clothes, grasping objects, or navigating cluttered rooms.

The SeeLight S1 attempts to address this challenge through what GigaAI describes as an embodied foundation model. Rather than following pre-programmed action sequences, the system is designed to process natural-language instructions, interpret its surroundings, create a plan, and execute tasks autonomously. According to the company, the robot can also adapt when furniture layouts change and continue operating even when interrupted during a task.

Still Far From A Robotic Maid

Despite the impressive demonstrations, reports from users and observers suggest there is still considerable room for improvement.

According to Global Times, some household tasks remain slow. Organizing a few books can take several minutes, while folding a single piece of clothing may require more than ten minutes. The robot has also reportedly struggled with tasks such as handling cups without spilling liquids.

Those limitations highlight the gap that still exists between controlled demonstrations and practical household automation. The current SeeLight S1 is therefore less a finished consumer product and more a data-collection platform designed to learn from real-world environments.

GigaAI plans to launch an upgraded SeeLight S2 later this year with a smaller chassis, longer battery life, improved arm reach, and more advanced AI algorithms. The company also intends to expand testing into homes with elderly residents, children, and various living arrangements to expose the robots to a wider range of real-world scenarios.

While humanoid assistants capable of seamlessly handling household chores remain a work in progress, the deployment of 100 robots into actual homes represents an important experiment. The question is no longer whether robots can perform tasks in carefully staged demonstrations. It is whether they can cope with the messy, unpredictable reality of everyday life.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 06:30

Marriage Benefits Men's Life Expectancy More Than Women's

One data point has recently caused much astonishment, confusion and also anger online.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz details below, it is the finding that men benefit more from being married in terms of life expectancy than women do.

In other words, that men live longer and healthier lives if they are backed up by a spouse in doing so, while women don’t see the same support in prolonging their length and quality of life.

The notion that men rob years of life from their wives and basically tag them on to theirs is, however, not supported by (most) research on the topic.

Yet, the differences in how men’s and women’s lives are affected by marriage or the lack thereof are still significant.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In general, women tend to live longer and healthier lives than men for a variety of reasons, including greater health consciousness and a tendency to avoid risky behaviors, but also genetic and hormonal factors. A study published in 2020 in the Journal SSM – Population Health shows that at 65 years old, U.S. women were expected to live for an additional 19 to 21 years, while for U.S. men, this number only stood at around 16 to 18.5 years. Nevertheless, the devil is once again in the details and reveals itself when looking at the differences in sex and marital status.

Here, married men aged 65 gain almost 2.5 years of life expectancy over their unmarried counterparts of the same age, boosting their outlook on life significantly. The data shows how having a spouse brings the life expectancy of married men quite close to that of never-married women - quite significant if one considers how fundamental the longer life span of women has been across ages and cultures. Married and never-married women, on the other hand, have a more similar expected lifespan. However, marriage also benefits women and increases their life expectancy, if only by 1.8 years on average compared to never-married females.

Another study looking at Danish people at age 50 even shows that men benefited from an added life expectancy of around eight years through marriage, while married women could expect to live approximately five years longer compared to never-married women. This gave men an increase that was 60 percent bigger than that of women, compared to the 33 percent U.S. researchers found in 65-year-olds. A study in Asia even found benefits of marriage in reducing mortality only in men, but not in women, concluding that more traditional Asian marriages where female partners take on a lot of household and child-rearing chores on top of possible employment might cancel out any potential benefits.

The role women play in marriages as planners and facilitators of medical care as well as advocates for healthy habits becomes clear when looking at divorced and widowed men’s life expectancy. In the U.S., it falls to basically the same level as that of never-married men when considering 65-year-olds. In the case of U.S. women, the differences are again not that stark. Even if a women is divorced or widowed, her life expectancy is still somewhat above that of a never-married woman, highlighting how women benefit from the overall advantages of marriage rather than just their spouse. These come in the form of so-called marriage protections, like adopting better habits, better mental health outcomes and better social connectedness. They are also often explained by so-called marriage selection, the idea that those individuals who manage to get married are already starting out with a better outlook on life.

Newer research into these factors has added an important distinction to these theories, however. It finds that while overall, marriages tend to provide benefits to a majority of individuals, this doesn’t mean that every marriage is beneficial. A bad marriage or one that places a lot of additional burdens on both or one of the individuals involved can diminish the positive effects of marriage significantly. Likewise, smaller differences between the life expectancies of married, divorced, widowed and never-married women potentially mask a set of more diverse outcomes for women.

Where men’s benefits stemming from marriage seem more widespread and typical, women may still often find positive outcomes from a marriage that is going well for them, but many might also see minimal or even adverse effects, culminating in a less clear picture of marriage and female longevity.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 05:45

Health Team To Monitor Wastewater, Social Media At World Cup For Outbreak Detection

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

Public health specialists have launched a dedicated surveillance operation to detect infectious disease threats early during the 2026 World Cup by analyzing wastewater samples and monitoring online chatter.

The 39-day tournament begins on Thursday in Mexico. Organizers estimate more than 6.5 million soccer fans from more than 100 countries will attend 104 matches spread across venues throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The global travel of a worldwide audience to packed stadiums across North America creates conditions for the rapid transmission of pathogens, according to health security experts. The United States will host 78 of the 104 matches.

A team led by Rebecca Katz, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security in Washington, has transformed a university laboratory into an epidemiological command center. The facility pools resources from academic institutions, nonprofit groups, and private companies to support government agencies.

The group already publishes daily status reports that flag emerging risks for hospital emergency managers and public health authorities at local, state, federal, and international levels, as well as for FIFA, soccer’s governing body.

In advanced wastewater analysis, researchers use DNA and RNA sequencing to identify genetic strands from microbes in sewage, without first requiring the growing of cultures in a laboratory setting.

“It’s incredibly powerful,” Katz said.

Collection sites in the United States and Canada, together with additional monitoring across the three host countries, already supply data to the team, with the potential to catch an outbreak in its early stages, giving clinicians time to watch for specific symptoms that might otherwise go unrecognized and allowing public health officials to issue timely precautions.

The operation also incorporates social listening tools.

Staff members analyze anonymized electronic health record data and scan open social media platforms for signs of illness clusters.

Katz noted one earlier case in which officials flagged a gastrointestinal outbreak after noticing a sudden increase in online conversations about toilet paper purchases.

The systems include new layers of aerial and ground monitoring over fans and public spaces for the duration of the event.

Measles is high on the priority watch list. U.S. case counts this year are approaching record territory, with approximately 2,000 reported so far. The highly contagious virus has also resurged in parts of Mexico and Canada.

Mosquito-borne illnesses like dengue, also known as breakbone fever, as well as its close relative chikungunya heighten the level of concern. Infected travelers could bring these tropical diseases to local mosquito populations in host cities.

An Ebola outbreak persists in Congo, which has been at the center of the current crisis in Africa. Katz said the often-fatal hemorrhagic fever holds a “very low risk to the general public” in North America. World Cup players and support staff from Congo completed a precautionary quarantine in Belgium ahead of traveling to the United States.

The new surveillance network comes as U.S. public health officials continue their work to manage risks from multiple outbreaks, including measles, Ebola, and hantavirus.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 05:00

EU Targets Head Of Russian Orthodox Church With Sanctions

What is there left to sanction in Russia? Apparently the European Union still sees plenty of opportunity to punish Russia over the Ukraine war, and is set to go after even religious leaders, now in year five of the conflict and many sanctions packages later.

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, is among many names to be targeted in the EU's latest anti-Moscow sanctions proposal. Kirill has long been accused of justifying the war based on his several patriotic-themed sermons over the years.

via Associated Press

Brussels first tried to impose individual sanctions on the patriarch in 2022, but Hungary under PM Viktor Orban had exercised veto power over the move.

The sanctions would involve travel bans and an asset freeze, as has already happened with Kremlin officials and notables.

Kirill has at times utilized language in public that frames Putin's 'special military operation' in Ukraine as a 'holy war'; however, some sympathetic pundits especially in the Orthodox Church world have said these are simple calls to patriotism and defense of the 'motherland' or homeland - a common mindset among most religions and nationalities. 

American politicians and other church leaders in the US have taken swipes at Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church - and yet it must be recalled that in the lead-up to Bush's disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion, since proven to have been based on lies, propaganda, and falsehoods - an overwhelming number of prominent Evangelical and Baptist leaders supported it as a somehow 'righteous' or 'godly' regime change mission.

The Russian Orthodox Church has of late been especially angry that the Ukrainian government under Zelensky has been seizing churches and historic monasteries in Ukraine which still hold communion with Moscow.

In some cases, Orthodox bishops in Ukraine have been arrested simply for not severing spiritual ties with Kirill. This has happened even when bishops, monks, or priests - who find themselves targeted by Ukrainian authorities - don't support Russia's war.

And yet, the EU has remained largely silent on Ukraine's own abuses, and using religion to foster nationalism and conformity to a political agenda.

Moscow has long highlighted this hypocrisy, also as Orthodox Christian clergy in the United States have of late lobbied Congress to demand that Kiev overturn its discriminatory laws which target Orthodox leaders in Ukraine.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 04:15

Former MI6 Spy Alastair Crooke: Iran Takes Its Chances With War

Authored by Alastair Crooke

The US war with Iran has moved beyond its initial phase to an emerging new one — one in which Iran implicitly stakes its chances on the next phase being war. Most likely this will be in abbreviated episodes of limited war, but possessing nevertheless a potential to widen regionally, should the US (and Israel) elect to sharply escalate.

The new phase involves risk of course, yet Iran holds the high cards of an ability to impose disproportionately heavier damage upon Gulf infrastructure as retaliation for any hurt inflicted upon it — and the awareness that the West is edging ever closer to dropping off the energy “cliff.”

The three pillars underlying this shift are firstly, confidence that Iran will not (and cannot) be shifted from its hold over Hormuz, and that in consolidating its administrative structures there, the reality of Iran’s hold over Hormuz will increasingly be assimilated by states, and reflected in their coming to terms with Iranian-Omani control.

via YNet

Associated with this core principle is Iran’s implementation of escalated deterrence vis á vis the American naval blockade. Any attempt to intercept or attack Iranian vessels or interfere with the Strait’s administration will be met with increasingly harsher ripostes. Ultimately this policy may lead to Iran imposing increasing levels of damage to US naval vessels – another friction point.

On 3 June, for example, the US fired a hellfire missile at an Iranian oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. In response, a US-owned (or partly-owned) ship, The Panaya, was struck with missiles. Additionally Iran launched three waves of cruise missiles at the US air and helicopter base in Kuwait from where the attack had originated. Images have emerged of serious damage at Kuwait international airport too (although the cause of the damage remains disputed).

The second underlying principle affecting this shift simply reflects Iranian disdain for Trump’s continuous inflating of demands, exaggerated threats (which palpably fall short of US capacities), together with his continual zigzagging and contemptuous rhetoric towards Iran.

The Iranian leadership has concluded, it seems, that compromise will likely not be forthcoming, and that it is better to cut the “negotiations” rather “than continue the pointless bad-faith negotiations with a deceitful and decrepit American regime,” as the New York Times has termed the Iran “negotiations” — suggesting that the “deal chaos” is not a singular glitch by Trump confined to the Iran issue, but rather is a consistent pattern of dysfunctionality repeating itself across virtually all of Trump’s “peace” initiatives.

Behind Iran’s decision to suspend talks however, likely lies the gradually dawning clarity, seeping out from Israeli and American statements and analysis, that the true objective of the 28 February US-Israeli sneak attack was never regime change per se — aiming to swap out Iranian “hardliners” for a “Delcy Rodrigues”-style more moderate leader; but was intended rather, to bring about Iran’s complete destruction and fracturing — an insight that was bound to shift Iran’s calculus.

This insight has consolidated public support for the Islamic Republic hugely, and at the same time has turned the war into an existential struggle to preserve the ethical values of the Revolution. Seen from this optic, there is little for Iran to discuss with Trump, bar some future modus vivendi — as and when, Washington understands that it is boxed in, and that new realism takes a hold.

The third principle undergirding this new phase of conflict is the one enunciated by Iran from the outset of the Islamabad talks: “Ceasefire for all; or ceasefire for no one.” This was again re-emphasised in Iran’s latest ultimatum to Trump: “If the Israeli threats from last week to flatten the Beirut southern suburb of Dahiyeh had been executed, then Iran would have stricken northern Israel hard with its missiles. ‘It was a ceasefire for all – or no ceasefire.”

Trump chose the ceasefire, and subsequent to his call with Netanyahu, announced that it was in effect. He told Netanyahu to cancel his planned bombing of Dahiyeh in south Beirut. In Israel, a massive wave of anger from all sides of the political spectrum attacked Netanyahu at the very notion of curbing any Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Former PM Naftali Bennett accused Netanyahu of “losing control over Israeli sovereignty.” And former PM Yair Lapid said Israel had been reduced to a “vassal state” after the strikes were called off.

The US and Israel for some months have been attempting to bring a segment of leaders in Lebanon to accept the task of disarming Hizbullah, as Rubio explained, “so Israel doesn’t have to do it” — something Lebanese leaders clearly cannot do.

Israel has no coherent Lebanon strategy. Former senior Israeli military intelligence officer, Danny Citrinowicz, outlines a new strategic “Iranian achievement”:

Tehran has effectively succeeded in linking the Lebanese front to the broader Iranian-Israeli arena. Any escalation in Lebanon is now increasingly viewed through the prism of the US-Iran dynamic.

Nevertheless, he observes:

The situation in Lebanon remains highly unstable. Israel and Hezbollah continue to interpret the current understandings in fundamentally different ways. [Whilst] Israel maintains that it retains freedom of action across Lebanon except Beirut, Hezbollah [on the other hand] insists that any Israeli military activity – at all – violates the ceasefire framework. These competing interpretations create significant potential for renewed friction and escalation on the ground.

In Israel, the situation in northern towns remains neuralgic for nearly all Israelis. Many towns along the Lebanon border and down into the Galilee are half-empty — “entire swaths of land abandoned by [the] government,” writes Ben Caspit. Local politicians claim that they “are Israelis too” and that the government must respond.

We prefer the language of diplomacy, but we speak other languages far more fluently. Break your commitments, and we'll switch to what we speak best.

You ride the horse you saddled!

— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) June 9, 2026

Lebanon is certain to remain a point of contention. It is not a matter of if, but when, the next crisis will strike. Israel will not let the matter stand — even Liberal opposition leaders demand Hizbullah’s destruction and protest Trump’s tying of Netanyahu’s hands in Lebanon.

Iran will not let matters stand either. Mediators have informed the Americans that Iran considers an end to the war on Lebanon, withdrawal of Israeli forces, and a withdrawal from Hormuz, to be binding conditions — before discussing other issues.

So, here we are. The military skirmishes — effectively an abbreviated series of strikes by US forces on Iranian shipping and Strait infrastructure, arising from Trump’s desire to assert its naval blockade to US public opinion — continue. This situation is clearly flammable – just as is the Lebanon context.

Iran effectively is acknowledging the reality that in this new phase — with so many inherent flash points to it — American military escalation at some point likely will become a political necessity for Trump’s domestic and Jewish financers’ needs.

And the negotiations? They will go nowhere so long as Israel and the US Jewish billionaire donors reject any Iran outcome that leaves Iran both intact and stronger and — pari passu in this binary thinking — the “Israel First” project within the US and the region correspondingly weakened.

A deal that doesn’t see Iran irretrievably weakened will be condemned by these latter forces as a “treasonous dereliction” by Trump. He will be attacked mercilessly. Yet, he must see that Iran is anyway on the cusp of throwing off the US shackles.

This phase of the Iranian conflict likely will only end when the West falls off the approaching economic cliff …

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 03:30

NATO Country Halts Arms To Ukraine Under New Eurosceptic Prime Minister

In yet another example of Ukraine war fatigue among European allies, NATO member Bulgaria has newly announce it is halting weapons deliveries to Ukraine, signaling a major shift in the eastern European country's longtime policy.

The prior government proved itself early out of the gate as an enthusiastic arms backer of Kiev, but new Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev, whose Progressive Bulgaria party won the April election, is rolling back the prior policy.

The new government has made clear it has a new peace agenda, and its position is that nothing will be resolved by just pouring more heavy arms into the conflict, now in its fifth year. It was given a new mandate, but after reports of low voter turnout in the country.

Anadolu Agency

"What we are witnessing is a war of attrition, and no matter how much weaponry is amassed, its only result is the loss of human lives," the country's Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov told reporters on Tuesday,

The defense chief stressed it is time to sit down at the negotiating table "to seek a just peace that is defined by both sides."

"Ukraine needs more people, not more weapons. It has enough weapons, so we do not envisage providing more weapons to the Ukrainian army," he added.

"Of course, the role of the EU is extremely important," he said, explaining that "it would be difficult to assign this role to that of a mediator for the simple reason that the EU has also assisted Ukraine in its efforts in this war anyway."

As for the recently installed in office Radev, he's a eurosceptic former fighter pilot, who had built his campaign around calls for pragmatic ties with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy supplies and an end to military aid for Ukraine. 

He has repeatedly criticized EU overreach on green-energy mandates, sanctions policies and what he describes as moral posturing in a “world without rules.” While analysts note he is unlikely to ultimately jeopardize the flow of EU funds that sustain Bulgaria’s economy, the result installs a distinctly Russia-friendly government at the heart of the EU’s southeastern flank - a shift that will draw close scrutiny in Brussels, Washington and Kyiv.

Bulgaria has become the first EU member state to formally halt military aid to Ukraine since the return of Rumen Radev to power, raising new questions about European unity on the war.#Bulgaria #UkraineWar #RumenRadev #EuropeanUnion #NATO #RussiaUkraineWar #Kyiv #Sofia…

— Balkan View (@BalkanView2025) June 9, 2026

Radev’s campaign had leaned heavily into criticism of EU overreach - particularly its green-energy obsession, sanctions regime, and moral posturing in a “world without rules.” He has repeatedly called for improved relations with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy flows, and an end to military aid for Ukraine - and now he's begun to make good on these promises, it appears.

Other Western allies have complained he's too 'Russia-sympathetic' - and have called to keep up the steady flow of arms to Ukraine forces.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 02:45

The Murder Of Henry Nowak & The Poverty Of The 'Far-Right' Explanation

Authored by Patrick Keeney via The Epoch Times,

The brutal murder of Henry Nowak should have focused public attention on the circumstances surrounding his death and the troubling questions it raises about justice, race, and social cohesion in contemporary Britain.

Yet one need only read one widely publicized headline to know that another story is about to be told: “How Britain’s far right hijacked the murder of Henry Nowak.”

Predictably, the tragedy is being pressed into service as evidence of the supposedly inexorable rise of the “far right” and “white grievance.”

The victim, it seems, is of secondary importance.

What truly concerns much of the legacy media is not the murder itself but the possibility that ordinary citizens might draw conclusions that fall outside the approved narrative. Once again, a deeply disturbing event is filtered through a set of ideological assumptions so familiar that the outcome is known before the reporting has even begun.

The most revealing aspect of this story is not the crime itself, however disturbing, but the legacy media’s inability to imagine it meaning anything beyond its established ideological script. The circumstances may change, but the narrative remains reassuringly familiar: another cautionary tale about the rise of the “far right.” The conclusion is already written before the reporting begins.

Predictably, the legacy media appears determined to interpret the controversy through the now-standard lens of right-wing extremism. Whenever social tensions arise around immigration, crime, identity, or unequal treatment under the law, the first instinct is rarely to assess whether the public’s concerns have any merit. Instead, attention immediately shifts to the alleged dangers posed by those raising concerns. The story ceases to be about the underlying issue and becomes about the people noticing it.

This reflex reveals a profound intellectual exhaustion. The explanatory framework that dominated public discourse twenty years ago remains largely unchanged despite repeated failures to account for social realities that large numbers of ordinary citizens can plainly see.

Every electoral upset, every protest movement, every surge of public dissatisfaction is interpreted as evidence of the same phenomenon: the mysterious emergence of the “far right.” One might be forgiven for thinking that half of Europe has spent the last decade spontaneously transforming into fascists.

Yet a more plausible explanation often presents itself. Perhaps public frustration stems not from an outbreak of extremism but from a growing perception that institutions no longer operate by consistent principles. Is it reasonable to think that people object when standards appear to vary by race, ethnicity, religion, or political ideology? Or maybe they become angry when authorities seem more concerned with managing public perceptions than with addressing legitimate grievances.

In Nowak’s case, the question many people are asking is straightforward. Would the response have been identical had the races of those involved been reversed? Would the media framing have been the same? Would public officials have reacted in precisely the same way? These are not inherently extremist questions. They are questions about fairness, equal treatment, and institutional legitimacy. And we all know the answer.

Yet for many journalists, the possibility that institutions themselves may be engaging in differential treatment is dismissed before it can even be considered. The hypothesis cannot be entertained because it collides with a set of assumptions that have become foundational to institutions throughout the West.

The result is a curious form of myopia. Evidence that might challenge prevailing assumptions is either ignored or reinterpreted until it fits comfortably within the existing narrative framework. The rise in public discontent cannot be attributed to institutional failures; therefore, it must reflect the rise of extremism.

Declining trust in the media cannot result from biased reporting; therefore, it must result from misinformation. Electoral revolts cannot be responses to genuine policy failures; therefore, they can only be reactions driven by fear, prejudice, or ignorance.

This explanatory model is remarkably resilient. Like the medieval physician who attributed every illness to an imbalance of humors, today’s media class has found a single diagnostic tool that explains virtually every social phenomenon. Economic stagnation? Far right. Concerns about immigration? Far right. Questions about crime? Far right. Skepticism toward public institutions? Far right.

At some point, one begins to suspect that the diagnosis may reveal more about the diagnostician than the patient.

The irony, of course, is that this approach increasingly undermines the very institutions that employ it. Public trust in mainstream media has declined sharply across much of the Western world. Journalists often attribute this erosion to social media or partisan manipulation. These factors undoubtedly play a role.

But another explanation suggests itself: people lose confidence in the media when they repeatedly observe a gap between what they see with their own eyes and what they are told to see. One thinks, for example, of the obvious dementia of the former U.S. President Joe Biden, even as the legacy media repeatedly told us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes and propagated the blatant untruth that he was, in fact, better than ever.

The public may not hold advanced degrees in journalism or sociology. They may not speak the language of intersectionality, structural privilege, or critical theory. Yet they retain a stubborn attachment to common sense. When institutions appear unwilling even to entertain obvious questions or obvious explanations, ordinary citizens naturally begin to search elsewhere for answers.

This is the disaster facing much of the legacy media today. The problem is not simply bias. All human beings possess biases. The deeper problem is an inability to recognize alternative explanations. A profession once dedicated to curiosity increasingly shows a remarkable lack of it. Stories are filtered through a set of approved assumptions that have hardened into dogma. Facts are welcomed when they confirm the narrative and treated with suspicion when they complicate it.

Meanwhile, the public grows steadily less willing to accept these interpretations at face value.

The great danger for legacy media is not that the “far right” will triumph. The greater danger is that journalists will continue to mistake every challenge to their assumptions as evidence of what they continue to label “extremism.” In doing so, they become incapable of understanding the societies they claim to describe.

After all, if every criticism of institutional behavior is dismissed as evidence of right-wing radicalism, the term eventually loses all explanatory power. It becomes less a description than a ritual incantation, repeated whenever reality threatens to intrude on the narrative.

And when that happens, people stop listening. And they are right to do so.

The public’s patience with such shibboleths is not infinite. Indeed, one suspects it is already running thin. Nevertheless, the old formulas still appear on cue. The familiar warnings are dutifully repeated. The specter of the far right is once again summoned from its cupboard. Yet with each repetition, the performance becomes less convincing.

The audience has heard the script before. The plot no longer surprises. Increasingly, they suspect that the storytellers may have lost touch with the story itself.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 02:00