“Rerum cognoscere causas” – to know the causes of things, taken from Book 2 of Virgil’s Georgics poetry. The full quotation is “Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas”.
Big news news from my alma mater. Sources say the award ceremony was delayed by three hours of LSE professors arguing about the best algorithm to determine the most efficient way to accept the trophy:
The Times and The Sunday Times Good University Guide has ranked LSE as the top university in the UK and named the School as its ‘University of the Year 2025’. This is the first time the Good University Guide has awarded LSE the prestigious ‘University of the Year’ title, and the first time we have been ranked number one in the country. […] This fantastic result follows other high rankings in university league tables over the last year. In September 2024, The Guardian placed LSE as the top university in London, and as the best place to study Accounting and Finance. Likewise, the Complete University Guide 2025 named the School as the number one university in the capital.
LSE students are reportedly “cautiously optimistic” about the news, as they’re still trying to calculate the long-term societal and economic impact of celebrating rankings. LSE’s Director, beaming with indignation, announced, “This recognition validates our long-standing belief that if you can’t measure it, it doesn’t matter. And if you can measure it… why? We look forward to quantifying this award in terms of social good. We’re thrilled, of course, but we need to consider the opportunity cost of joy.”
In a final stroke of genius, the LSE administration has decided to commemorate this achievement by commissioning a statue of a giant invisible hand.
Meanwhile, well-appointed representatives from Oxford and Cambridge were spotted in a corner, drowning their sorrows in spiked lukewarm tea. Overheard mutterings included phrases like “patronage failure” and “maybe unresolved bad legacy is bad,” suggesting a dawning realization that rowing prowess and ancient stone blocks carved to resemble elephantine profits from colonialism might not be the best metrics for educational excellence in the 21st century. An anonymous don was heard lamenting, “Perhaps we should have focused more on direct and honest economic models and less on which tie to wear for dinner.”
…the state is targeting vehicles that do not meet FMVSS, with a focus on vehicles the state identifies to be in the Kei class. The RMV identifies a Kei vehicle through the above list and through a short VIN. The state’s logic is that this will be for safety since a Kei vehicle is not built to FMVSS.
I’m sure you can see the problem here. Not only does the above list include vehicles outside of the Kei class, but the state doesn’t seem to be aware that short VINs are not limited to Kei vehicles. A large Nissan Civilian bus will have a short VIN, as would a Toyota Century. I asked Natasha about how the state will interpret short VINs and she told me that they will be applied only to vehicles believed to be in the Kei class with a short VIN. The state is not looking to deny registration to vehicles imported from other countries, either. So, you could import a Japanese car that was sold in Europe and the state wouldn’t care. But that same car from Japan would be a problem.
Notably, states have the authority to ban cars, and they do so based on claims of adhering to federal safety rules. Here’s the clever part: States say they are following federal guidelines, while the federal government claims it’s up to the states. This creates a situation where actual inexpensive, intelligent, and safe cars—vehicles with a history of minimal or no harms—are banned under the pretense of safety, even though the real reason has nothing at all to do with actual safety.
Fun history fact. An initial popular Kei car (keijidosha — light vehicle) in Japan was a U.S. occupation-managed 1947 Tama EV, which sported hot-swap battery bay doors that would still be considered advanced technology.
Nissan’s car making origin story is this E4S-47i (Electric 4 Seater of 1947 initially) with rapid battery replacement on both sides. Top speed was 35km/h.
Americans clearly want smaller, more affordable cars, but the major car brands loathe the low margins those cars bring. Instead, they manipulate the system to ensure their higher-margin, larger vehicles dominate the market. The result? Larger vehicles threaten safety, creating a race to excess that defies common sense. Political and corporate interference blocks sane, practical engineering that could improve the quality of life for Americans.
One absurdity in these regulations is the enforcement of a 35 mph speed limit on small cars. This rule is a relic from the 1990s [1], when American car manufacturers exploited low-emission laws by arguing that electric golf carts should count as full cars within their “low emissions” fleet. They imposed a federal 35 mph cap on these vehicles, preventing their widespread use as actual cars. Essentially, they used the low emissions credit to pad their numbers for environmental compliance while continuing to profit from selling higher-margin, gas-guzzling vehicles.
Tesla has merely replaced this golf cart strategy with a new loophole. Instead of golf carts, Tesla sells “clean” credits [2], allowing companies like Stellantis to continue producing massive, polluting vehicles. Worse yet, Tesla’s cars—unnecessarily fast, overpowered electric vehicles often charged using electricity from coal and diesel plants—are marketed as environmental solutions when, in fact, they enable continued environmental damage. Tesla profits from selling credits that fuel the production of gas guzzlers, allowing corporate giants to dodge real emissions reduction, all under a fraudulent “green” banner.
This has led to the worst of both worlds becoming the American standard: inefficient, dangerous cars flooding the market while genuinely affordable, safe, and environmentally sound alternatives are banned.
And then, we come to Tesla’s Cybertruck—the culmination of all these systemic problems. It’s not only a symbol of excess, but also the worst vehicle in history, riddled with basic safety flaws and involved in a string of tragedies.
Despite its glaring design issues and its threat to public safety, it’s not even being considered for a formal ban. The irony is palpable: the vehicles most deserving of being kept off the roads, like the Cybertruck, sail through without much resistance. It’s a bizarre and dangerous reality when a vehicle as inherently unsafe as the Cybertruck is left unchecked.
To draw a parallel: If this were about diet, it would be like banning fresh organic vegetables for being “too dirty” while subsidizing corporations that sell cancer-causing lumps of coal as fast food.
[1] The 25 mph speed limit for small electric vehicles, like Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) and Low-Speed Vehicles (LSVs), originated in part from America’s Clean Air Act and low-emission regulations in the 1990s. Automakers used bogus concepts of NEVs and similar vehicles to sponge up credits toward their environmental compliance targets, primarily by buying golf carts and abruptly classifying them as part of an overall vehicle fleet. The speed cap was a cynical ploy for manufacturers to fulfill low-emission quotas without having to do any actual work on their production of gas-powered vehicles. They continued selling larger, high-margin gasoline-powered models while falsely claiming they were making strides toward emissions reduction. The NEVs were shamelessly marketed for “local use” (such as fleet sales to private campuses, with no benefit to urban areas or public roads) by forcing them to stay under speed limits of 35 mph or lower with federal regulations. The baked-in limitation of these “special” fleet numbers prevented adoption of actual widespread urban alternatives to conventional cars.
[2] Tesla has been leveraging the sale of regulatory credits to generate significant revenue, benefiting from emissions credits sold to other automakers who fail to meet strict emissions targets. Tesla made nearly $9 billion by selling these credits (arguably its primary income), particularly to companies like Stellantis, allowing entrenched “gas guzzler” models to avoid fines while continuing to produce high-emissions. This predatory model by Tesla intentionally delayed serious efforts to cut emissions by misrepresenting “clean” credit sales. Tesla itself, fraudulently promoting its vehicles as an environmental solution, has faced not enough scrutiny for how it prefers electricity generated from coal or diesel plants, and how it lied to reduce sales of more popular and environmental EV models (e.g. Nissan LEAF, Chevy Bolt). The anti-science dynamic has raised concerns about the corruption and effectiveness of current regulations in genuinely reducing global emissions, since Tesla’s stock is based on propping up the continued production of large, gas-guzzling vehicles while aggressively undermining other brands’ meaningful reductions in pollution (e.g. lying about safety, lying about range).
One of the most remarkable aspects of Admiral Nelson’s extraordinary successes against Napoleon’s French Navy (which one might consider the naval “hegemonic power” of the late 18th century) lies in his repeated employment of similar tactical approaches with devastating effectiveness. Nelson’s genius was not primarily in surprising his adversaries with novel strategies, but rather in repeatedly demonstrating tactical principles that the French command structure proved incapable of assimilating into their operational doctrine.
If that sounds like how the Russians have been sorely failing in their invasion of Ukraine, you’re in the right ballpark.
This persistent French vulnerability as aggressors stemmed significantly from a critical institutional deficiency in Napoleon’s military leadership paradigm. The Emperor’s systematic removal of competent officers in favor of those whose primary qualification was demonstrable personal loyalty created a command environment ill-equipped for adaptive response. This politicization of naval leadership rendered French fleets particularly susceptible to Nelson’s characteristic strategic manoeuvres.
The tragedy for the French Navy was not that they faced an incomprehensible tactical genius, but rather that their institutional architecture precluded learning from repeated encounters with the same strategic principles. Nelson’s victories at the Nile, Copenhagen, and Trafalgar thus represent not merely brilliant individual engagements, but a devastating commentary on the brittleness of military hierarchies that prioritize political reliability over professional competence.
A particularly salient illustration of Napoleonic naval deficiencies can be observed in both the Battle of the Nile and Trafalgar, where the French (and subsequently Spanish) forces deployed exceptionally large vessels at their formation’s center. These imposing ships, while impressive in scale, unwittingly became primary targets for Nelson’s signature tactical approach: the application of concentrated, localized firepower.
The operational disadvantage was further compounded by these oversized vessels’ markedly reduced maneuverability relative to their British counterparts. Nelson’s celebrated ‘breaking the line’ strategy thus gained additional efficacy against what were effectively static targets.
One might conceptualize the tactical mathematics thus: when Nelson’s 14 vessels approached a linear formation of 14 enemy ships of substantially greater tonnage, he would bisect their line and effectively deploy his 14 more agile and seasoned vessels (with a superior firing rate of 3:2) against merely half the enemy force. This fundamental arithmetic of targeted engagement is remarkably straightforward, which explains how Nelson’s captains could operate with such remarkable autonomy during combat operations.
The Battle of the Nile presents a particularly striking case study, where the French command made the extraordinary tactical error of manning only the seaward side of their vessels, operating under the flawed assumption that the shoreline provided adequate protection to leeward. This miscalculation rendered Nelson’s bifurcated assault devastatingly effective, as British ships could engage unmanned broadsides with impunity.
Again, it has to be said that these examples illuminate not merely Nelson’s tactical brilliance, but more significantly, the institutional inability of the French naval command structure to adapt to repeated demonstrations of superior principles across multiple engagements.
Perhaps most notable was the collapse of coordination and communication within the French fleets. Once their line was broken and subjected to concentrated fire, Nelson maintained a relentless, unified theory of localized assault, while the French struggled to devise any effective counter-strategy other than to fade away. Perhaps ironically, Napoleon used the same tactics on land against the Italians and Austrians yet lacked any competence or translation to sea.
The absolute defeat of French naval forces in both the Nile and Trafalgar was lopsided, swift, and devastating to the soft underbelly of Napoleon.
It’s a lesson that resonates today, where even the largest AI platforms, under attack by aggressive and nimble adversaries—like with Napoleon’s easily routed naval juggernauts—are seemingly setup and operated to invite catastrophic breaches.
Big Tech in a race to create the biggest AI platforms possible and stuff their leadership with adherents to a CEO recalls the fate of the gargantuan L’Orient in 1798, blown apart off the coast of Egypt, sinking France’s entire “unsinkable” campaign fortune.
Perhaps France’s infamously aggressive “move fast, break things” dictator should be referenced today more often as Mr. Napoleon Blownapart? The gargantuan French warship L’Orient explodes at 10PM. Source: National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London
And lest anyone forget, Nelson’s swift lopsided victories at both the Nile and Trafalgar were supported by an exceptional depth of talent.
Vice-Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, a name almost nobody remembers yet who earned THREE Naval gold medals, perhaps deserves even more credit for applying the aggressive line-breaking localized fire tactics than Nelson himself at Trafalgar.
Flag officer’s Naval gold medal awarded to Vice-Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood (1750-1810). Source: National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London
Are you now saying Collingwho? Here are some fun history facts about the underappreciated “Salt Junk and Sixpenny” (cheap food and booze) Collingwood who rose quickly to become one of the most decorated Admirals in history: Denied his first gold medal on a technicality, he protested and was awarded it retroactively after earning his second. Though excluded from a role in the Nile rout, he led the charge at Trafalgar and is credited with preserving the entire British fleet during both the battle and a subsequent horrific storm. Allegedly, even after suffering the loss of their fleet, the Spanish respected his executive actions so much that his leadership helped them overthrow the French. While Nelson inspired his fleet with strategic brilliance and daring tactics, Collingwood was a hard-core system administrator who excelled in operations—Nelson wisely deployed his vice-admiral as a man capable of fighting harder and better than any fleet three times his size.
Collingwood was a tough, resourceful individual who rose from humble, rough conditions to achieve the highest awards and greatness despite his unprivileged background. He was much more modest than an attention-seeking Nelson, preferring to focus on smooth operations and combat discipline rather than seeking fame or fortunes. He was even criticized for not being more aggressive about hunting foreign treasure and bounty in combat. His steady, reliable command did not seek the spotlight given he felt success was best measured as victory in combat—hence why his amazing historic contributions, though significant, are often unknown.
So who will historians look back upon and discuss as the Collingwood of our day, the quiet hero who routed the overly confident Napoleon(s) of Big Tech AI?
“Rear-Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, 1748-1810, 1st Baron Collingwood” adorned with medals, posing on the poop deck. Source: National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London
As I’ve said since forever, VW was a much easier target for America than America was. Dropping a regulator hammer on the Berkeley Professors and Marin Dairy Farmers driving a diesel VW station wagon is like a walk in the park.
Sure, VW got raked over the coals and there was serious fall-out in Germany (e.g., a $4.3 billion fine). In some sense, idling with low emissions isn’t quite the problem people made it out to be, which is why lying about it was such a stupid strategy. But the real story always was that direct action against the huge number of American diesel cheaters was only being signaled instead of enforced — a big overseas takedown on VW was like warning shots that every diesel-head should have heeded immediately.
It’s almost like regulation in Europe somehow emboldened those prone to abuse in America. In fact, on the news of VW getting in hot water, Tesla’s CEO ran out and started operating a huge bank of dirty diesel generators. It was egregiously bad behavior, made even worse by Tesla marketing these generators as clean energy because they were wrapped up and sold as an EV charging station.
And now, finally, wheels of justice are starting to make the rounds on the actual emissions problem being in America. It’s amazing just how intentionally dumb and blind about harms the good ol’ American “tuners” have acted, flaunting laws, even while watching regulators clean up Germany.
Feds Nail Another Diesel Shop With $10M in Fines for Deleting Emissions Equipment: It was caught selling, installing, and manufacturing tuning devices that imitated another company’s products.
So dumb. And of course it was run out of the infamous “what do you mean slavery is wrong” state of North Carolina.
That $10 million seems pitifully low for the intentional harms that generated huge revenues in the 10s of millions. When set low, the fines become rationalized as a cost of doing business instead of a proper prohibition to exploitative practices.
“Those selling defeat devices are willing to pollute the environment so that they can personally profit,” said U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves for the District of Columbia. “Today’s sentencing makes clear that there will be significant consequences for those who traffic in these devices. Anyone considering peddling or installing these devices is on notice of the substantial costs of doing so.”
Fun history fact, the Department of Justice and National Parks were created by President Grant after he won the Civil War, to stop the KKK-minded southern states from trying to profit from massive systemic harms in America including pollution.
Fast forward to today and the Department of Justice is busy shutting down dangerous and dumb North Carolina business models like it’s the 1870s again.
But my favorite part of the story is actually this buried lede:
Rudy’s then started faking these tuners in-house. This involved an $850,000 laptop purchase, as the computer contained the software to convert other tuners into Mini-Maxxes and XRT Pros. Until stopping in July 2018, Rudy’s sold nearly 44,000 imitation tuners and generated about $33 million in revenue from them. All this is as reported by the DOJ.
In 1808 America banned import of slaves so North Carolinians started making them “in-house” (systemic rape of Black women) instead.
See the parallels?
And should we really call it an $850,000 laptop purchase? The computer “contained” valuable software, while the laptop was likely worth next to nothing on its own. The idea someone could license software on just one laptop for nearly $1M tells you just how stupidly lucrative causing intentional environmental harm had become even after the VW takedown.
To put it another way, think about a $10 million fine as the cost of 10 laptops on a diesel cheater’s balance sheet. Is there a business that can afford to buy 10 laptops?
Related: North Carolina was the first to secede to start a Civil War meant to preserve their business of slavery. As the rest of the world was very openly ending slavery towards the late 1700s (shout out to the colonies of Vermont and Georgia), America primarily fought its Revolutionary War to preserve and expand slavery instead. George Washington literally recruited soldiers to fight by asking if they opposed their British King being too progressive and setting free the Blacks in America. And Washington himself went on to keep his slaves even when it became illegal in Pennsylvania, ordering his lawyer to find loopholes that allowed keeping hostages and raping them for profit. Thus we see precedent for the haters in North Carolina who apparently had a hard time accepting a regulation that ended harms. It’s on that note we can see how President Grant was the best President in history. And Washington? An awful cheater. French historians now say he didn’t even fight his own battles.
a blog about the poetry of information security, since 1995
