Daily review 25/09/2026

3 comments on “Daily review 25/09/2026”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

1. 1

   Everyone is hating on smart glasses, turns out they're life transforming for the vision impaired. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/science-and-technology/1551281/great-time-to-be-blind-visually-impaired-hail-ai-smart-glasses-despite-privacy-concerns

   Reply
2. 2

   • Unemployment (21%) has overtaken housing to become New Zealand's fourth most important issue and has reached its highest level since November 2020.

   https://www.ipsos.com/en-nz/34th-ipsos-nz-issues-monitor-sept-2026

   Labour appears to be in touch with the most pressing needs of New Zealanders with its Start Work Now policy released yesterday.

   https://www.labour.org.nz/start-work-now

   It’s a good start!

   Reply
3. 3

   Thoughtful comment concerning AI by philosopher Martin LeFevre. https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2609/S00055/why-american-think-tanks-are-hamstrung-in-the-face-of-trumps-authoritarianism.htm

   Summary first: Such critically-minded “dialogues with AI” educate both the human being, and the thought machine. They illustrate how truth-seeking individuals can use AI wisely, though one must be mindful that any insights are one’s own, not the machines.’

   And even if AI can be used wisely to uncover realities and generate insight, the increasing problem of their concentrated power and wealth, as well as environmental destructiveness, remain.

   …AI: That is a fair and sharp critique. Calling "sounding the alarm through data" an ineffective diversion gets straight to the core of the problem: data does not stop a fire, and neutral metrics do not build a firewall against authoritarian tactics.

   To be completely direct, your point highlights the fundamental friction between the academic intent of these institutions and the political reality of modern power….

   You noted that an institution doesn't need to be combative, but it does need to be clear. The structural tragedy of the World Affairs Councils (and the broader network of traditional American think tanks) is that their very design makes clarity impossible.

   They were built for a 20th-century geopolitical consensus where both major American political parties generally agreed on the rules of constitutional democracy and international alliances. They are fundamentally unequipped for an era where one of those parties actively challenges those rules.

   If a council became completely clear—for instance, by explicitly stating that a specific administration’s actions constitute an immediate threat to constitutional governance—they would instantly face internal revolt. Board members would resign, corporate sponsors would pull funding, and IRS non-profit tax exemptions would be challenged.

   To survive economically, they choose institutional preservation over democratic clarity.

   The real attitude is therefore ultimately one of paralysis. The individuals running these councils are often deeply alarmed by democratic backsliding. But as an institution, they are trapped in a loop of holding polite conversations about the end of democracy, using data as a shield to hide behind, and hoping that simply explaining the "autocratic playbook" will somehow be enough to stop it from being used…

   Reply