
Episode 195 ā June 19th, 2025 ā Available at read.fluxcollective.org/p/195
Contributors to this issue: Ben Mathes, Ade Oshineye, Erika Rice Scherpelz, Justin Quimby, Boris Smus, Neel Mehta, MK
Additional insights from: Alex Komoroske, Chris Butler, Dart Lindsley,Dimitri Glazkov, Jasen Robillard, Jon Lebensold, Julka Almquist, Kamran Hakiman, Lisie Lillianfeld, Melanie Kahl, Robinson Eaton, Samuel Arbesman, Scott Schaffter, Spencer Pitman, Wesley Beary
Weāre a ragtag band of systems thinkers who have been dedicating our early mornings to finding new lenses to help you make sense of the complex world we live in. This newsletter is a collection of patterns weāve noticed in recent weeks.
āPeople get obsessed with āchangeā as a substitution for āleadershipā so they interpret ālittle changeā as evidence that leadership is missing.ā
ā Joshua Foust
āļøš Dancing with many partners
Albert O. Hirschman frames our choices in response to dissatisfaction as a trade-off between exit, voice, and loyalty. We don't just pick one; we operate on a sliding scale, constantly managing their interplay.
Thereās another layer of nuance, though. The mixture that defines your stance does not perfectly match the stance you present to others. Itās a simplification, a projectionāand if your integrity is at risk, felt and presented stances can become a contradiction.
This tension is especially strong when you need to project different stances for different audiences. For example, a manager maintains two stances at once: one for leadership and one for the team.
The upward-facing stance is tuned for loyalty and measured voice. You need to be seen as a team player to get things done. The downward-facing stance is tuned for loyalty to the team, and that means being deeply attuned to the stances of your team. You want all their voice, and you accept that sometimes they may choose exit over loyalty.
It requires integrity to manage the gap between multiple stances. When they feel like different projections of one internal stance, the tension is managed. The stress test is when somethingāsuch as a corporate mandateāforces your presented stances into conflict. This often comes up with unpopular decisions where you have to disagree and commit (or exit).
Perhaps itās a āReturn to Officeā (RTO) mandate. You fought it, but itās final. This forces your upward stance toward 100% loyalty (unless you decide to exit). Now itās time to face your team. Your choices arenāt great:
The upward dominant stance: You tell the team, āThis is the decision weāve made, whether you like it or not.ā The upward-facing stance completely dictates the downward-facing one. You've erased your loyalty to the team.
The downward dominant stance: You show them the new reality while indicating that youāre more loyal to their desires. āWe need to make this change, but letās figure out how to keep as much as possible of our current way of doing things.ā
A hybrid approach: You signal in advance that things like this will happen. āHey, sometimes Iām going to have to toe the line on decisions I donāt agree with.ā When a specific hard decision is made, you signal that this is one of those situations indirectly: āThis company believes in-person work is just better.ā This dance between the upward and downward stances can work well, but when the gap is deep, it can look like shifting the blame.
This sampling of options shows that while you can't pretend the upward constraint doesn't exist, you can decide how transparently to surface the tensions between your stances.
Thereās no perfect move here. The downward dominant stance might preserve trust with your team but fray alignment with leadership. The hybrid approach can maintain coherence across audiences, but it risks being perceived as two-faced or evasive. Even silence is a stance. Every configuration comes with risks to one of your relationshipsāor yourself.
The challenge isnāt finding the right posture; sometimes there isnāt one. Itās knowing what trade-offs you're making, and how long you can hold them. When the divergence becomes undeniable, loyalty fractures, voice breaks, and exit becomes the last stance left.
š£ļøš© Signposts
Clues that point to where our changing world might lead us.
ššŖļø The US is spending $1 trillion a year on climate damage
A new analysis from Bloomberg reveals that the US spent $1 trillionāa full 3% of GDPāon ādisaster recovery and other climate-related needsā in the 12 months from May 2024 to May ā25. Skyrocketing insurance costs (which have doubled since 2017), power outages, and post-disaster repair are major drivers. (Interestingly, scientists estimate that many geoengineering schemes would cost just a few billion dollars a year, which makes one wonder whether a single insurer or country could run a geoengineering project that benefits everyone and still make a profit individually.)
šāµ Denmark is trialing āself-drivingā sailboats for military surveillance
The Danish armed forces are testing uncrewed, autonomous sailboats called āVoyagersā for surveillance operations in the Baltic and North Seas. The solar- and wind-powered boats can operate autonomously for months at a time, and they combine sensors (sonar, radar, infrared cameras, etc.) with ML and AI to āgive a full picture of whatās above and below the surfaceā for 20 to 30 miles in any direction. The boats will help Denmark keep tabs on regions they previously didnāt have the manpower to patrol; use cases include monitoring undersea infrastructure like fiber-optic cables and power lines, tracking down smugglers, and keeping an eye on the Russian Navyās āshadow fleet.ā
šš® Hong Kong is banning a video game using national security laws
Authorities in Hong Kong have warned users not to download or play a Taiwanese video game called Reverse Front: Bonfire, an anime-style game where players can āpledge allegiance to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mongolia, Tibetā or other Chinese-adjacent regions and act as spies or guerrillas to āoverthrow the Communist regime!ā The government invoked Hong Kongās infamous national security laws to justify the ban (the first time the laws have been used to ban a video game), and officials warned that players were committing offenses like āincitement to secessionā and āseditious intention.ā
ššø Nasdaq-listed Chinese stocks are running pump-and-dump schemes on American investors
Over the last five years, nearly 60 Chinese companies have listed on Nasdaq with small initial public offerings (raising under $15 million). Itās challenging for Americans to obtain much information about these obscure foreign companies, which makes them attractive targets for pump-and-dump schemers. Networks of traders buy up these stocks, run Facebook ads or send WhatsApp messages to Americans (often posing as financial advisers) to get them to invest, and then dump the stocks for a huge profit. The scammers behind one company dumped 50 million shares, netting $480 million; many investors lost tens of thousands of dollars each.
šā³ Worth your time
Some especially insightful pieces weāve read, watched, and listened to recently.
Why Our Leaders Fail Us and Then Save Us (Shreyas Doshi) ā Observes that āany complex organization will, over time, tend to incentivize problem creation more than problem prevention.ā People who narrowly avert disaster are feted, while those who responsibly steer clear of trouble get no attention. Thus, leaders have a perverse incentive to create problems for their organizationāproblems that they can then get credit for solving.
Something Is Rotten in the State of Cupertino (Daring Fireball) ā Longtime Apple commentator John Gruber argues Apple has lost a lot of credibility by promising blockbuster AI features that are nowhere to be seen; they havenāt even done private demos with the media. To Gruber, this is reminiscent of Appleās dark days of 1987āā97, when they repeatedly promised hardware and software that never shipped.
Shapeshifting Email (Wesley Finck) ā A simple explainer for Blueskyās ATProto protocol, positioning ATProto as the equivalent of SMTP and IMAP (the classic email sending and receiving protocols) but for a more modern set of social applications.
Why Itās So Difficult for Robots to Make Your Nike Sneakers (Wall Street Journal) [Archived] ā Details how, in 2015, Nike spent millions to partly automate their sneaker manufacturing. The project failed because the robots were unable to handle the squishy, stretchy, and irregularly shaped parts integral to shoemaking, as well as the wide variety of shoes and Nikeās constantly shifting, fashion-dependent lineup of models. Perhaps mass production of uncomplicated shoes could succeed, though.
š®š¬ Postcard from the future
A āwhat ifā piece of speculative fiction about a possible future that could result from the systemic forces changing our world.
// Companies building AI models that have unique training data can get an edge in model performance. As the easy data gets scraped from the open web, what lengths might companies go to for new data?
// 2027. A Crimson Intelligence Systems Signal group chat.
[Taylor] Hey folksāIāve got novel training data. 10k books and scrolls. Never been digitized!
[Rowan] What?!? Thatās like saying, āHey, I happen to have 10,000 tons of pre-atomic steel, anyone interested?ā
[Alex] Look, as the engineer in charge of training our model, Iāll take it. You sure itās legit?
[Taylor] Itās legit. Iāve been working with a folklore instructor named Albert W. in New England who is sitting on a massive collection of correspondence, journals, and texts from the 1920s. They havenāt given anyone access to it in the last hundred years. Iāve got a lawyer in Providence who figured out a way to get around the original collectorās last wishes and instructions prohibiting anyone from outside the family from looking at it. The family has heard that new texts might be valuable, so they are willing to let us exclusively scan the collection in exchange for cash.
[Rowan] We can raise our Series B on this! You got samples?
[Taylor] I have a few. Authors include R. Carter, C. Ward, and H. West. Uploading now.
// Several months later, in the cramped office of Crimson Intelligence Systems, as the champagne flows.
[Rowan] A toast, everyone! Our newest model, Kadath One, is crushing the competition! Stratechery wants to interview us, and weāve got investors lined up around the block. Microsoft and Amazon are competing to see who can roll it out first globally to their data centers! [Cheers echo through the room]
In the corner of the room, a worried Alex ignores the celebration and hunches over a laptop, watching the status of the model rollouts. Once every data center turns green on the map, they shakily exhale, then begin typing:
> Report: Kadath-One status?
ā¦> Status: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Their eyes grow wide when they cut and paste the phrase into Google Translateā¦
> Status: āIn his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreamingā
Alex stands up, running across the room to grab Taylor by the shirt, and begins to yell, frothing at the mouth: āWhere did you get that training data?!? Tell me it wasnāt from the Miskatonic Universityās archives!!!
[Taylor] āWhat? How did you know?ā
[Alex] āYouāve doomed us all, you fool!ā
Ā© 2025 The FLUX Collective. All rights reserved. Questions? Contact flux-collective@googlegroups.com.