The Standard

Daily review 08/07/2026

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, July 8th, 2026 - 19 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

19 comments on “Daily review 08/07/2026 ”

  1. Incognito 1
    8 July 2026 at 5:35 pm

    A provocative article on AI from a less-than-enthusiastic lecturer in the University of Otago’s Department of Media, Film and Communication.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/07/08/why-large-language-models-are-an-economic-dead-end/

    Over the last few years, I’ve found myself yoyo-ing from pretty warm to shivering cold on AI (LLM-based gen-AI to be more precise). So, I found this article offering a refreshing perspective.

    Being a left-wing critic of AI is a bit of bizarro world experience. I find myself constantly insisting upon capitalist arguments about poor unit economics, the lack of return on investment, revenue and use cases that fall far short of revolutionary claims.

    I confess to being a slow-follower of most things and a borderline luddite. I eschew fads and hype (and loudmouths who know nothing without realising it).

    So how should the left take gen-AI and LLMs seriously? This is a Silicon Valley power grab, to “eat the world” as US venture capitalist Marc Andreessen would put it. The AI industry has produced confidence machines that pander to the fantasies of bosses, middle managers and corporate consultants. In Aotearoa New Zealand AI is allowing the Government to do DOGE-style cuts and wage war on ‘woke’ bureaucrats. The assumption being that Silicon Valley helps them fill in the blanks when it’s time to do real work, just don’t ask how much tokens cost.

    I’ve never had to pay for my gen-AI use other than giving away my prompts on Google. As soon as I’m asked to pull out my credit card, I’ll stop using it because AI is not an existential necessity for me and I’m fully aware of this.

    Reply
  2. Incognito 2
    8 July 2026 at 5:38 pm

    But the real problem with National’s proposal isn’t in the [home solar loans] policy at all. It’s in the party’s track record with climate- and renewable-friendly policies.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/07/07/the-real-problem-with-nationals-home-solar-loans-policy/

    There may be little to criticise about the policy itself, but there’s a valid question as to whether it will actually be implemented in anything resembling a timely manner.

    I’ve already stated today on OM that I think National’s policy is too thin. The bigger problem is that National is running a huge credibility deficit.

    Reply
  3. Dennis Frank 3
    8 July 2026 at 6:21 pm

    When your local hegemon is transactional, do try to reciprocate:

    Meloni’s bridge isn’t just a public works project. She declared the infrastructure investment critical to Italy’s national defense. It’s a clever, if comical, maneuver to help Italy meet onerous military spending targets pushed by President Donald Trump and enforced by NATO. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/08/business/nato-defense-spending-europe-trump

    So here's a way for the GP to get essential infrastructure done in partnership with the Nats: reframe a project as defensive. No need to say who or what you are defending, right? The power of logos is inexorable. It will weigh Seymour down like a crucifix!

    Reply
    • alwyn 3.1
      8 July 2026 at 6:57 pm

      You are going to follow the technique used by US President Dwight Eisenhower are you? Worked for him. Whether it would work for the GP may not be quite so simple but it might be worth a try. Would the GP MPs go along?

      Ike, having been involved in a War Department exercise to cross the United States from Washington to San Francisco in 1919 in a trip that took 62 days, knew only too well how bad the US roading network was.

      When President from 1953 to 1961 he pushed for the Interstate Highway system. In order to get general support he proposed that it was necessary for the purpose of defending the United States. At that time there was nobody who was willing to argue with him on anything involving activities that were able to be argued as being necessary for the defense of the country.

      The network was built and proved to be a great success. Unfortunately it is now breaking down after 70 years because maintenance has been neglected. Just like the Wellington water supply system I suppose.

      Reply
  4. Dennis Frank 4
    8 July 2026 at 6:39 pm

    Comparative state wealth update available here with text & diagrams showing relativity effect over the long-term: https://researchfdi.com/global-gdp-largest-country-ranking-2026/

    In today’s breakdown, we’re dissecting the global GDP ranking for 2026, starting with an overview of the global economy before drilling into:

    • The top GDP countries
    • High-growth economies outside the top tier
    • What these shifts mean for foreign direct investment strategy

    Along the way, we will connect the data to what matters most for economic developers: investment attraction, supply chain positioning, and competitiveness. At the highest level, 3 forces define the 2026 global GDP landscape:

    • North America remains the financial and investment anchor, supported by capital markets, innovation, and consumption.
    • Asia continues its long-term rise, driven by scale, population, manufacturing depth, and technology adoption.
    • Europe stabilizes without fully rebounding, reflecting demographic pressure, energy transition costs, and slower productivity growth.

    Site framing in that quote consists of a triad of triads: an obvious bullet-point triad. Then their framing for economic development gurus: sucker-pull, dysfunction, darwinism. Then another bullet-point triad.

    From a Deep Green view, this metaframing comes from 3 as archetype, patterning stuff in nature and culture. Concepts exert influence via representation & symbol usage, then resonate collectively via field effects in our natural ecosystemic relations.

    Then try factoring in the exponential wealth graph over recent centuries, with inflexion early in the 19th century warping the curve sky-high. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/2000-years-economic-history-one-chart/

    Reply
    • Drowsy M. Kram 4.1
      8 July 2026 at 6:49 pm

      I didn't think it was possible, but you've outdone yourself – “a triad of triads“.

      Maybe extract this paragraph from the quoted text – I can't believe it's not Dennis 🙂

      Site framing in that quote consists of a triad of triads: an obvious bullet-point triad. Then their framing for economic development gurus: sucker-pull, dysfunction, darwinism. Then another bullet-point triad.

      Reply
  5. Dennis Frank 5
    8 July 2026 at 6:52 pm

    Gordon Campbell could become a foreign policy specialist, eh? Check this out:

    • May 20, 2026: Another Minuteman III intercontinental missile was fired by USAF Global Strike Command from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, and splashed down some 6,700 kilometres away, at the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site in the Marshall Islands.

    The last time I looked, the Marshall Islands were fully paid up members of the Pacific Islands Forum. You get the picture: American militarism = Good. Conversely, Chinese militarism = Bad was definitely the message being conveyed this week on RNZ by an Otago University “specialist in China’s foreign policy,” who told listeners that the “prime mover” of military tensions in the Pacific was certainly China. Bizarrely, associate professor Nicholas Khoo depicted these developments as China’s response to being criticised by Australia over Covid, which he said, had ”catalysed” the military chain reaction now going on. Really? These explanations felt more like news and information you can’t trust.

    When the RNZ presenter suggested that perhaps Australia’s plan to acquire nuclear submarines under the AUKUS pact might be relevant to China’s strategic concerns, Khoo absurdly contrasted Australia’s military capabilities with those of China. “There’s no way they [Australia] can match China.”

    To state the bleedingly obvious: Australia is obtaining those second hand nuclear submarines from the US on condition of serving as an American proxy within the AUKUS military alliance alongside the US and the United Kingdom. The AUKUS trio enjoys an overwhelming superiority over China’s military capabilities.

    Has anyone told Lux that the yanks simulated an attack on Pacific Islanders? He'd be hopping mad, and would issue some kind of claim about running a strong & stable govt.

    I find Gordon's citation of that AUKUS triad reassuring. Elite superiority does the same for adults that a security blanket does for toddlers. As long the king continues to deploy patronage, everyone will keep calm and carry on. Bit tricky in Marlborough.

    [Link required to Gordon Campbell’s citation – Incognito]

    Reply
    • Incognito 5.1
      8 July 2026 at 7:06 pm

      Mod note

      Reply
      • Dennis Frank 5.2.1
        8 July 2026 at 7:33 pm

        As for this bit, it tends to push my pragmatism button:

        Who then is the real provocateur here? Australia has just signed a mutual defence pact with Fiji against “a common danger” which Australia has previously identified as China. Every two years, Australia, the US, New Zealand and a raft of other countries participate in the massive Talisman Sabre war drills, which – among other things – have involved invasion simulations carried out up island beaches.

        I did military training at college: it was compulsory. I even spent '63-'65 in the ATC by choice, becoming a shooter, but moved on permanently. Gordon's sense of aesthetics kicks in (a cool war):

        Essentially, we are being led by the nose into a re-run of the Cold War of the 1960s, with China subbed in for the old Soviet Union as the arch villain, both regionally and globally.

        Dunno about you but I haven't felt a tug on my nose. What's he on?

        China’s troops and generals have had no battleground experience whatsoever over the past 30 years. Also, a large number of PLA generals have recently been purged by Xi, leaving China’s armed forces with even less in the way of seasoned guidance at the top. Finally, China is also ringed by a large number of huge US military bases from Korea to Japan to the Philippines to Guam… In order to combat China’s phantom threat to US dominance, we are being fed inflated views of China’s military build-up and its scary intentions, in order to justify the huge increases in our defence spending. This massive waste of taxpayer money will be highly lucrative for the military industrial complex that is driving our policy formation, in exactly the way that President Dwight Eisenhower (a former general) warned us all against, way back in 1961.

        Gordon makes several salient points in this section. I'm inclined to share his overall stance but would like to hear from others as well…

        Reply
        • SPC 5.2.1.1
          9 July 2026 at 8:52 am

          1960's?

          The Cold War began post 1945 with the division of Europe between democracy and Russian controlled communist satellites. Formalised with the formation of NATO (1949) and the Warsaw Pact.

          This was exacerbated later that year when the USA refused to recognise the new Government of China and allow its membership of the UN (belatedly in 1971).

          Russia and China responded with the Korean War, no diplomatic response was possible without recognition of Beijing.

          Later Russia tried to place nuclear weapons in its new communist satellite Cuba – a stand-off ended with the removal of such weapons from US NATO ally Turkey.

          The membership of China in the UN in 1971 (part of the ending of the Vietnam War Asian domino scare era), was ultimately followed with the European reprise of the 1961-1962 quid quo pro in the 1980's.

          Russia moved missiles into Eastern Europe, USA moved some into Western Europe in response. Then the agreement for the withdrawal of them was followed by the end of USSR communist imperialism – end of the Warsaw Pact and break-up of the Soviet Union into its component parts, ending the Cold War and thus the peace dividend.

          The Cold War has been revived by Russian revanchism (actions in 2014 and 2022) thus calls for higher NATO defence spending (Obama wanted a NATO minimum of 2% by 2024).

          As per China, its practice of loan aid then claim of settlement via bases and or access to ports has caused concerns about its designs in the South Pacific under cover of economic development.

          It appears untrustworthy because it lied that it would not militarise atolls it turned into islands and rejects UNCLOS decisions. Its move towards a singular Chinese cultural hegemony internally and externally (efforts at suppression of minorities abroad and expectation of Han Chinese nationalist allegiance among those with foreign residency/citizenship) mirrors concepts of Lebensraum (German for "living space") in that it is premised on the idea of removing foreign presence from its region (lines on the map).

          This is the same policy as Iran (removing US and Israel from the ME) – though here, it is an independent Taiwan and US bases in South Korea, Japan, Guam and Australia.

          Its target is the Treaty of Rarotonga, it will compete for influence (and contest for equal military presence) in the region and accept the exclusion of USA military – its nuclear powered ships and weapons as a compromise – see Europe).

          Reply
          • Dennis Frank 5.2.1.1.1
            9 July 2026 at 9:05 am

            That does seem an excellent overview. Competing for influence is what humans do so can't blame either Chinese or Americans for that. Can blame them for any harm done thereby. Can report ethical transgressions & any other misbehaviour.

            Reply
    • SPC 5.3
      8 July 2026 at 9:17 pm

      Neither the USA nor the Marshall Islands have ratified the Treaty of Rarotonga.

      The USA signed it years ago, the Marshall Islands in 2025 and is in the phase before ratification – should it choose to go ahead (one issue is the said missile testing).

      The USA cites concerns over limitations to the free passage of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed vessels in the region as the reason it has not ratified.

      Another motive for the Chinese to do the test on the day of the Oz-Fiji defence agreement.

      Reply
  6. Incognito 6
    8 July 2026 at 9:05 pm

    Mate! You’re dreaming!

    https://theconversation.com/you-can-dream-while-youre-awake-the-boundary-between-wakefulness-and-sleep-is-a-lot-blurrier-than-youd-think-284899

    I love the irony of using a machine [learning algorithm] figure out when/whether we’re dreaming.

    In total, we collected 375 experiences during the sleep onset period. Rather than deciding ourselves what counted as a dream or a waking thought, we used a Machine Learning algorithm to group these experiences into “mental states” without defining in advance what they were supposed to be.

    Some people forget to clock off or perhaps this test subject volunteer was dozing off at work:

    “I was thinking about what I was going to do tomorrow”

    If you wish you can participate in the research and “discover your own sleep onset profile and can compare yourself with others”. [link in link]

    Reply

Leave a Comment