Recommendations of 25 medieval manuscripts to explore online. “Almost every institution with a significant collection of medieval manuscripts digitizes many of their most significant works and makes them freely accessible online.”
Polymarket hosts a future hellscape
- Iran leader by end of 2026? (the current Ayatollah is on the list)
- Will the Iranian regime fall by (numerous dates available to bet on)?
- Will the Iranian regime survive US military strikes?
So-called “assassination markets” are some of the most heavily traded markets on Polymarket. Despite the death of Ayatollah Khamenei being among the most popular prediction markets, Kalshi, as per its terms and conditions, didn’t pay out when he died. Polymarket, however, did, and half a billion dollars changed hands in the process..
Donald Trump and US politicians noticeably absent. Polymarket seems to purposely avoid including US politicians or the current US president in any possible assassination markets, but the same cannot be said for nearly every other major leader in the world…it’s almost certainly down to the fact that Polymarket is based in the US, that its founder, Shayne Coplan, is a US citizen, and that Donald Trump Jr. is an advisor to and investor in the company…the Biden administration had effectively stopped Polymarket from advertising to or onboarding US citizens. These hinderances to the platform’s growth came to end in 2025 thanks to the Trump administration dropping multiple probes into its practices, which could have led to lawsuits and possible criminal prosecutions. Instead, Polymarket now finds itself at the forefront of a world where leaders of countries have public hits put on them via vague market questions that leave murder open as an interpretation and solution.
The Hidden Hope in the Darkness
On the occasion of the release of her latest book, The Beginning Comes After the End, Rebecca Solnit sat down for an interview with David Marchese of the NY Times. Here’s the video version:
This is a great interview. Marchese’s first question is about how we find the positive in a world filled with grim news:
Even the right tells us something encouraging, if we listen carefully to what they’re saying. They tell us: You are very powerful. You’ve changed the world profoundly.
All these things that are often treated separately — feminism, queer rights, environmental action — are connected, so they’re basically telling us we’re incredibly successful, which is the good news. The bad news is that they hate it and want to change it all back. There is a backlash, and it is significant. But it is not comprehensive or global.
And I loved this part (emphasis mine):
One of the great weaknesses of our era is that we get lone superhero movies that suggest that our big problems are solved by muscly guys in spandex, when actually the world mostly gets changed through collective effort. Thich Nhat Hanh said before he died a few years ago that the next Buddha will be the Sangha. The Sangha, in Buddhist terminology, is the community of practitioners.
It’s this idea that we don’t have to look for an individual, for a savior, for an Übermensch. I think the counter to Trump always has been and always will be civil society. A lot of the left wants social change to look like the French Revolution or Che Guevara. Maybe changing the world is more like caregiving than it is like war. Too many people still expect it to look like war.
Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him
“….These are among 198 lawsuits in the past year identified by The New York Times [Gift Article] that challenge how Mr. Trump has leveraged federal funding to carry out his agenda without the consent of Congress. And they reflect one remarkable feature of the campaign: It has proceeded undeterred by losses in court.
With that persistence, the administration has been hammering away at a new kind of reality in Washington, one where the president wields far more control over spending, and where his opponents aren’t entitled to the services of their federal government.
“Anyone in the country who relies on federal dollars is depending on the president to get that money,” said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor at Emory University. “And that’s a new thing.” The president has threatened money to states that don’t adopt his policies, universities that don’t bend to his will, hospitals that don’t alter their services, school districts that don’t abandon diversity efforts, nonprofits that don’t embrace his gender views, and researchers who study the wrong subjects.
These moves have tested whether Congress, granted the “power of the purse,” still holds the ultimate authority over spending. And they have challenged the courts with a flood of cases — 37 separate suits from the state of California; four from the Association of American Universities on virtually the same question; one from King County, Wash., that has grown to include as plaintiffs 75 communities and agencies.
“You would think there would be some conditioning here: You do an action, you get sued, you lose, maybe you don’t do that action anymore,” said Rob Bonta, who as California’s attorney general has brought many of those suits. “He’s continued to repeat offend. And repeat lose.”
The administration’s approach has amounted to “a game of three-card monte” in the courts, said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Each injunction covers the parties suing and the specific programs at issue, but doesn’t necessarily stop the administration from blocking funds to other groups it disfavors. The result, Mr. Bagenstos said: “‘Oh, well, you think I can’t do this thing over there? Well I’m going to do it over here.’”…