Eric Ries’s new book Incorruptible: Why Good Companies Go Bad… and How Great Companies Stay Great names a question that haunts anyone who’s built a business they care about: whether their creation can survive the forces of success. He calls that pressure financial gravity: the doctrine of shareholder primacy pulling every company toward extraction. Ries’s answer is structural. Costco’s governance. Patagonia’s ownership handed to the earth. GitLab’s values embedded so deeply in process that no one has to be in the room to enforce them. Build the right scaffolding, he argues, and the mission survives contact with success.
Sara Wolk, Executive Director of the Equal Vote Coalition, was invited to present on voting reform at TEDx.
The Equal Vote Coalition advocates for voting methods that more accurately reflect what voters actually want, rather than forcing them into strategic, lesser-evil choices.
I commented on HHS-OASH-2026-0232-0001, the Request for Information regarding the proposed 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) scheduling threshold.
Comment Tracking Number: mry-8nrd-tg5g
I am submitting this comment in response to the Request for Information regarding the proposed 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) scheduling threshold (Docket HHS-OASH-2026-0232).
First, on the imminent-hazard finding itself: temporary scheduling under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) is meant to address genuinely urgent threats that cannot wait for ordinary scheduling procedure. I would ask OASH to specify the comparative risk data—overdose rate, dependence liability, and ER visits per capita of users—that establishes 7-OH at the proposed threshold as more hazardous than legal, widely available substances such as alcohol, which carries well-documented acute toxicity and tens of thousands of attributable deaths annually without triggering emergency scheduling. Absent that comparative showing, it is difficult to evaluate whether the proposed threshold reflects an evidentiary emergency finding or a policy preference.
This is my remix of Vitalik’s Dec 30 essay of the same title.
Modern civilization depends on powerful institutions—corporations, governments, and mass movements—to drive progress, yet these same forces threaten freedom and flourishing as they concentrate power. This essay examines how Big Business, Big Government, and Big Mob each become dangerous through specific mechanisms: corporations through profit optimization that diverges from social welfare and through homogenization driven by scale; governments when they shift from neutral frameworks to active agents pursuing their own agendas; civil society when diverse institutions collapse into unified mobs.
I am writing as your constituent in [City], Oregon, to express my concerns about HB 3000’s ban on synthetically derived cannabinoids by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC).
The Current Problem
The OLCC has banned all artificially derived cannabinoids based on health concerns, specifically worries over consumers ingesting or inhaling the residue of chemicals used to process CBD into other cannabinoids. While I understand the intent to protect consumers, this blanket prohibition creates several significant issues:
I am writing to urge you to consider the full legalization of drugs in Oregon—not merely decriminalization, but a comprehensive shift away from criminal enforcement and toward a public health approach. The current strategy of criminalizing drug use continues to waste valuable police resources, fails to address the root causes of addiction, and diverts funding from effective solutions.
Despite years of debate and reform, Oregon continues to allocate significant law enforcement resources to the policing of drug possession and use[1]. Even after the partial decriminalization under Measure 110, recent legislative changes have returned us to a system where police are once again tasked with arresting individuals for minor drug offenses[3]. This approach has proven ineffective at reducing drug use or overdoses, and it diverts officers from addressing violent crime and other public safety priorities.
James Carse’s The Religious Case Against Belief provides a fascinating framework for analyzing political rhetoric, particularly that of Donald Trump’s recent address to Congress. While Carse focuses on religious contexts, his insights about belief systems, boundaries, and poetic authority offer valuable tools for understanding Trump’s speech and the political moment it represents.
Trump’s address exemplifies what Carse would recognize as a mature belief system. It creates clear boundaries between supporters and opponents, establishes Trump as the ultimate authority, and provides a comprehensive explanation of America’s problems and their solutions.
I am writing to express my concerns about current copyright policies.
The landscape of academic publishing and information access has transformed with the
advent of artificial intelligence. Institutional policies remain rooted in an outdated
paradigm. Recent developments highlight this disconnect: major AI companies are
training language models on vast collections of academic literature and books.
Since at least January 2025, both American and foreign companies are using bulk text collections.
This technological revolution in how knowledge is processed and utilized demands a fresh
examination of our approach to academic access. While I fully support protecting
intellectual property rights and compensating creators fairly, the current system
creates barriers to legitimate academic inquiry and learning.
We don’t make lettuce illegal because it might be contaminated
with salmonella. We regulate it. We should be doing the same
for Federally legal hemp-derived cannabinoids. The state can
mandate independent lab testing for contaminants.
September 20, 2026