I think it was the economist Romer who said that orthodox economics is methodologically unself-aware. Steve’s lectures on methodology are therefore particularly relevant. I knew that Karl Popper, as Steve explained, didn’t properly describe the methods of science. But I didn’t know some things that I subsequently saw in Wikipedia’s page on Popper - that he was a firm opponent of those alternative routes to knowledge (variants of epistemology, the theory of knowledge) that were not based on empirical testing. He argued for falsification-through-test rather than confirmation-by-selective-observation that characterised the inductivist method of classical science. I therefore also read Wikipedia’s voluminous page on epistemology, which says - “Epistemology explores how people should acquire beliefs.”. I was surprised by how many different variants of that ‘how’ the page goes on to describe, such as ‘justification’, ‘rationality’, ‘contextualism’, ’skepticism’, ‘internalism, ‘externalism’ and ‘empiricism’ among others. Later it says - According to the correspondence theory of truth, to be true means to stand in the right relation to the world by accurately describing what it is like. This means that truth is objective: a belief is true if it corresponds to a fact.” and then “The coherence theory of truth says that a belief is true if it belongs to a coherent system of beliefs. A result of this view is that truth is relative since it depends on other beliefs.”. So ideas that are coherent can - in the ‘coherence’ definition- be seen as true even if they don’t correspond to reality.. I confess to shock at just how much of a ‘loose-fit’ to reality some of these methodologies about knowledge allow themselves to be. I guess science may have made me naive, in the sense that C P Snow was on about …

The best way to describe my encounter with Dr Keen is from my what’s app messages below: I requested Wong Chan Min Principal to view Dr Keen’s YouTube “On the Origins of Energy Blindness” with a self torturing remark saying that I encountered another “stupid” guy like me. The reply was: [21:07, 13/02/2024] Wong Chan Min Principal: Datuk Hong, this professor is similar to you. For him neo classical economics is wrong tracked, whereas your MiT debunked wealth creation theories from classical economics to neo classical. [08:27, 15/02/2024] Wong chan min Principal: Datuk, say more about it after spending two solid hours listening and realizing there was another “stupid” being like you. Yes, it should be kind of Deja Vu for you. Both of you are the modern day of either Newton or Leibniz. Have you contacted your alter ego? If not by now you should have secured his book. So much for one hour listening. [16:21, 15/02/2024] Wong chan min Principal: Only one and one factor of production: Energy. Labor without energy is corpse, capital without energy is statue. [16:24, 15/02/2024] Wong chan min Principal: Datuk, you might as well send him your work for comments. You could possibly share his Nobel Prize, if ever awarded. [16:44, 15/02/2024] Wong chan min Principal: That's the effort from more than two hours listening. He's revising my acquired knowledge of economics. So nothing news except the comments I made.

For 3 months, shipping in the Gulf has basically flatlined 😬 While the news covers the political peace deals, the real macroeconomic crisis is the quiet depletion of global reserves. We've spent 90 days burning through our backups of 3 critical inputs: helium for tech, sulphur dioxide for manufacturing, and fertilizer for farming. The fighting might be pausing, but the global supply shocks are just starting. Steve just put out a solid breakdown explaining how this supply chain squeeze works and why it will reshape the market. It's a must-watch if you want the actual data instead of political spin 🔥: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2VjUB9dhG8&views Which sector do you think feels this inventory pinch first? 👇

Younger Skool members may not believe it but, at the weekends around town when I was young, there would often be someone walking around carrying a sandwich-board-frame on their shoulders with the message, written in big, bold letters “Repent - for the End is Nigh”. Of course, the intent was a religious one. A recent article makes me wonder if any Californians are soon going to be doing likewise, carrying the same message but with a different interpretation and target attached to the word “Repent”. California is set to experience climate change in big, bold reality. See - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/01/snowmelt-american-west

The journalist Jamie Bartlett has wriiten a book about how to talk to AI amorally. He describes the subject in a newspaper article at - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/29/meet-the-ai-jailbreakers-i-see-the-worst-things-humanity-has-produced Maybe it’s unsurprising that the ‘AI hackers’ he interviewed were emptionally drained and sometimes damaged by the experience of being deliberately coercive in language for apparently bad - yet ultimately good - ends. He says something I’ve seen elsewhere, but find hard to fully believe - “No one – not even the people who build them – knows precisely how these models work, which means no one knows how to make them fully safe, either. We pour vast amounts of data in and something intelligible (usually) comes out the other end. The bit in the middle remains a mystery.” Is that really true? He concludes - ““I’ve seen other jailbreakers go beyond their limits and have breakdowns,” says Tagliabue. Originally from Italy, he recently moved to Thailand to work remotely. “I see the worst things that humanity has produced. A quiet place helps me stay grounded,” he says. Every morning he watches the sunrise from the nearby temple, and a picture-perfect tropical beach is five minutes’ walk away from his villa. After yoga and a healthy breakfast, he switches on his computer, and wonders what else is going on inside the black box, and what makes these mysterious new “minds” say the things they do.”.