* “Hollywood’s New Rules: The old boys club is dead. But a new one—with its own litmus tests and landmines—is rapidly replacing it. ‘This is all going to end in a giant class-action lawsuit.'” One wonders how this intersects with what seems to be Hollywood’s creative desert, and Hollywood’s obsession with sequels.
* “Stop Fetishizing Old Homes: New construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure.” Seems obvious, and prices reflect these preferences.
* It appears that international relations people have expected war over Ukraine for decades. I had no idea. Apparently no one in Europe did, either, or they, and Germany in particular, would have built out nuclear energy infrastructure, rather than relying on Russian gas.
* Julian Barnes on Penelope Fitzgerald.
* The Last Psychiatrist writes his book that’s nominally about porn. The book itself is a mess, unfortunately, to my eye and it seems to many others’ eyes.
* “America’s Top “Environmental” Groups Have Lost the Plot on Climate Change.” Seems obvious: we could have dramatically improved our emissions profile 40 years ago with nuclear, but we didn’t, and at the time the Sierra Club and many other “environmental” groups opposed nuclear power and opposed building denser housing—leading us to where we are today. The ability of organizations to fail to pursue effective strategy for their stated ends is notable.
* “ ‘It’s ugly out there’: Rail thefts leave tracks littered with pilfered packages.” It seems L.A. and perhaps other cities are having to re-learn why we have basic law enforcement.
* “China looks to the Western classics.” Does interest in classics demonstrate a country or culture on the upswing? Does disinterest show the opposite? Or is neither correct?