Zero Rss

The Last Places Standing When The Sky Turns To Ash

Authored by Madge Waggy,

“We are standing at the precipice of something we cannot comprehend, and the silence from those who know is deafening. The mechanisms are already in motion, the chess pieces positioned with mathematical precision while the world sleeps. I have seen the projections. I have read the classified briefings that never reached your evening news. What comes next will not be war as your grandparents understood it - it will be something that rewrites the very definition of survival. The question is no longer if, but when. And when it happens, the concept of ‘safe’ will become the most precious commodity on Earth.” 

- Dr. Elias Vance, Former Strategic Analyst, NATO Defense College

The Last Sanctuaries Where Humanity Might Endure When the World Ends

The clock isn’t just ticking anymore... it’s screaming.

You feel it in your bones when you wake up at 3 AM, drenched in sweat, the residue of dreams you can’t quite remember but know involved running, always running. You see it in the way world leaders speak in coded language now, how the word “tactical” has replaced “nuclear” in press conferences, how the maps on television show arrows pointing toward borders that didn’t matter yesterday but suddenly matter more than your next breath. The architecture of global stability is cracking in places the architects never anticipated, and the rest of us are living in a house whose foundation has already turned to dust—we just haven’t felt the collapse yet.

But some of us are paying attention. Some of us have been watching the patterns long enough to recognize that history doesn’t repeat, as the cliché goes, but it rhymes with terrifying precision. The 1910s had their assassination in Sarajevo. The 2020s have their powder kegs scattered across multiple continents, each one guarded by fingers hovering over buttons that could reduce civilization to radioactive ash and memory. And when—not if, but when—those fingers finally press down, the world you know will vanish not with a bang that you hear, but with a silence that swallows everything you’ve ever loved.

This isn’t fear-mongering. This isn’t conspiracy theory dressed in journalism’s clothing. This is the mathematics of survival in an era where we’ve built machines capable of ending all life while simultaneously convincing ourselves that nobody would ever be irrational enough to use them. It’s the same delusion that preceded every catastrophe in human history—the unshakeable belief that tomorrow will look like today, until suddenly it doesn’t.

So let’s speak plainly about what comes after. Not the immediate horror, the blinding light and the shockwave that turns cities into memories, but the long, dark aftermath where survival becomes the only morality left.

Where do you go when the northern hemisphere becomes a graveyard of poisoned air and toxic rain? Where can you breathe when the jet stream carries death on its back, circling the globe like a vulture waiting for the last heartbeat? Where does humanity hide when the weapons we’ve spent eighty years perfecting finally sing their song of annihilation?

The answer lies in geography, in the accidents of tectonic plates and ocean currents that created pockets of isolation in a world that has otherwise grown terrifyingly small. These aren’t paradise destinations or luxury retreats—the rich have already bought their bunkers in New Zealand, carving out survivalist compounds that would make feudal lords jealous. No, these are places defined by their relationship to distance, by how far they sit from the crosshairs of nuclear targeting computers that don’t care about your dreams or your children’s names.

What follows is not a travel guide. It is a map of the possible, a cartography of the places where the human experiment might continue when the laboratories of civilization have burned down. Read it with the understanding that survival is never guaranteed, only slightly less impossible.

The Fortress at the Edge of the World: Milford Sound and the New Zealand Sanctuary

There is a reason the billionaires have been buying land here with the desperation of men who can read the writing on the wall. New Zealand sits at the absolute extremity of the habitable world, separated from Australia by the Tasman Sea—a body of water wide enough to function as a moat against the poisons that would sweep eastward from any nuclear exchange in the Northern Hemisphere. When the winds carry death across continents, New Zealand’s position in the roaring forties creates atmospheric circulation patterns that would delay, though not entirely prevent, the arrival of nuclear winter’s embrace.

The image you see above is Milford Sound, located deep within Fiordland National Park on New Zealand’s South Island. This is not a place that welcomes human habitation easily. The sheer cliffs rise vertically from waters that plunge to depths of 400 meters, creating a landscape that looks more like the imagination of a fever dream than geography that actually exists. The waterfalls that cascade down these granite walls—some dropping over 150 meters—would provide fresh water long after conventional sources become contaminated. The sound itself, technically a fjord carved by ancient glaciers, represents the kind of natural fortress that no army could penetrate and no fallout could easily reach.

The country’s isolation is its armor. Over 2,000 kilometers separate it from its nearest neighbor, a distance that becomes insurmountable when fuel supplies collapse and the global supply chains that feed the world become memories of abundance. But this isolation cuts both ways. New Zealand possesses something almost no other developed nation can claim: genuine agricultural self-sufficiency. Its dairy industry, its sheep stations stretching across landscapes that look like Middle Earth because they are, its capacity to feed a population many times its current size—these aren’t economic statistics. They are survival infrastructure disguised as farming.

The terrain itself offers protection. The Southern Alps create natural barriers against whatever contamination might drift southward, their peaks catching radioactive particles in ice and stone before they can reach the coastal plains where most of the population lives. The country’s geothermal activity in the North Island provides energy independence that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels that would become inaccessible or nuclear plants that might melt down when the technicians stop coming to work. And the water—God, the water—fed by glaciers and rainfall that originates in the cleanest skies left on Earth, carrying none of the industrial toxins that poison the aquifers of more “developed” nations.

But there’s a darkness here too, one that the survival guides don’t mention. New Zealand’s very attractiveness as a refuge means it will be overwhelmed when the exodus begins. The wealthy have already purchased citizenship through investment visas, carving out estates in Queenstown and the Wairarapa that will be defended by private security when the desperate arrive by boat. The Māori population, who have lived through one apocalypse already when European colonization arrived, understand better than anyone that the land remembers and protects its own—but there may not be enough land left to protect everyone who needs it.

The nuclear targeting maps, those classified documents that theorize which cities must be destroyed to cripple an enemy, barely acknowledge New Zealand’s existence. There are no missile silos here, no nuclear submarines prowling the harbors, no strategic bases that would warrant the expenditure of a warhead that could be used elsewhere. In the calculus of mutual assured destruction, New Zealand is a rounding error—and that mathematical insignificance might be the only thing that saves it.

When the ash falls and the sun disappears behind clouds of radioactive dust, New Zealand’s latitude means it will still receive enough solar radiation to grow crops when other regions enter permanent winter. Its location in the Southern Hemisphere places it opposite the primary nuclear targets of the north. The Coriolis effect, that invisible force that spins storms and distributes fallout, becomes a shield rather than a weapon. The same isolation that made New Zealand a laboratory for bizarre evolutionary experiments—the kiwi, the kakapo, the absence of mammals that allowed birds to rule—now makes it a laboratory for human survival.

But survival here won’t look like survival in the old world. The cities—Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch—would become death traps as refugees arrive by the hundreds of thousands, bringing with them the diseases and desperation that follow collapse. The real New Zealand, the one that might endure, exists in the small communities scattered along the coasts and valleys, places where people still know how to fish and farm and fix machinery without waiting for parts to arrive from overseas. The Māori concept of kaitiakitanga—guardianship of the land—takes on new meaning when the land is all you have left.

The billionaires in their bunkers will discover what the locals already know: New Zealand’s weather is capricious and cruel, its isolation absolute, and its beauty a mask for how quickly the elements can turn hostile. But when the alternative is the northern hemisphere’s nuclear winter, even a hostile paradise becomes sanctuary.

The Island That Shouldn’t Exist: Iceland’s Geological Fortress

Iceland shouldn’t exist, not as a place where humans can live. It sits astride the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates are slowly tearing apart, bleeding magma onto the surface in displays of geological violence that make human warfare look like children’s games. The photograph above captures Thingvellir National Park, where you can literally stand with one foot on each continent, watching the earth tear itself apart at a rate of two centimeters per year. The island is volcanic in the way that other places are rainy—it’s not a feature but the fundamental nature of the place. And yet, this violence creates the conditions for survival in a poisoned world.

The country’s energy independence is absolute in a way that no other nation can match. While the rest of the world relies on fossil fuels that would run out or nuclear plants that would melt down, Iceland draws 100% of its electricity and 90% of its heating from geothermal sources. The same volcanic activity that makes the ground shake provides hot water that flows through pipes beneath Reykjavik’s streets, heating homes without combustion, without supply chains, without the infrastructure that would collapse when the bombs fall. In a world where energy becomes life, Iceland has already solved the equation.

But it’s the water that matters most. Iceland’s aquifers are fed by glaciers that have been frozen since before humans invented war, water that filters through volcanic rock for decades before emerging as the purest liquid on Earth. When the rest of the world’s water sources become contaminated with fallout and industrial toxins, Iceland’s springs will still run clear. The country has already experienced what happens when the global system breaks down—during World War II, when Europe burned, Iceland’s isolation kept it safe even as it was occupied by Allied forces who recognized its strategic value as a staging ground.

That strategic value cuts both ways. Iceland sits between North America and Europe, a stepping stone across the Atlantic that has made it important in every major conflict of the last century. But in a nuclear war, its importance diminishes precisely because there’s nothing here worth destroying. No military bases that couldn’t be rebuilt elsewhere, no population centers large enough to matter in the calculus of civilian casualties, no industry that would cripple an enemy if removed. Iceland becomes valuable not as a target but as a void—a place where the missiles won’t fall because there’s no reason for them to fall there.

The darkness here is different from other places. Icelanders have lived with the knowledge that their island could erupt at any moment, that the ground beneath their feet is temporary in geological terms, that survival here has always been a negotiation with forces that don’t care about human plans. This psychology—the acceptance of impermanence, the preparation for catastrophe, the community bonds that form when you know your neighbor might be the only one who can dig you out when the volcano erupts—creates a population uniquely suited to endure what comes after.

The language itself reflects this reality. Icelandic has changed so little since the Viking age that modern Icelanders can read thousand-year-old sagas without translation, a continuity that represents more than linguistic curiosity. It is the preservation of knowledge across generations, the understanding that what matters isn’t the individual life but the continuation of the story. When the world ends, the Icelanders will still be telling their sagas, still remembering how their ancestors survived the dark winters of the past.

But the real survival value of Iceland lies in its fish. The surrounding waters are among the richest fishing grounds on Earth, feeding not just Iceland but Europe for centuries. When agriculture collapses in the poisoned lands of the continent, when the grain silos empty and the livestock die, the fish will still swim in the North Atlantic, indifferent to human catastrophe. The Icelandic fishing fleet, small enough to be maintained with local resources, large enough to feed a population many times its current size, becomes the ark that carries humanity through the flood.

The cold is the price you pay. Iceland’s winters are brutal in a way that southern climates cannot imagine, months of darkness where the sun barely crests the horizon and the wind carries knives of ice that cut through any clothing not specifically designed for the environment. But that same cold preserves food, prevents disease, keeps the desperate refugees who would overwhelm warmer climates away. Iceland’s harshness is its protection, its indifference to human comfort the very thing that makes it survivable when comfort becomes a memory.

The Continent at the End of the World: Antarctica’s Frozen Sanctuary

There is nowhere on Earth more hostile to human life than Antarctica, and that is precisely why it might be the safest place when the bombs fall. The image above shows McMurdo Station, the largest settlement on the continent, a collection of buildings that looks like it was dropped onto an alien planet—and in many ways, it was. Antarctica is not a place where humans evolved to live. It is a place where humans survive only through the massive importation of resources from the rest of the world, a dependency that seems to make it the worst possible refuge in a collapsed civilization.

But look closer at what the photograph reveals. The Dry Valleys visible in the background represent some of the only ice-free land on the continent, areas where the mountains are so high that they block the glaciers from flowing, creating deserts where it hasn’t rained in millions of years. These valleys contain microbes that survive in conditions that would kill anything else, life forms that have adapted to extreme cold, extreme dryness, extreme radiation. They are the closest analogues we have to what life might look like on Mars, and they suggest that survival is possible even in the most hostile environments imaginable.

Antarctica’s protection is absolute in ways that no other place can match. It is the only continent with no indigenous human population, no history of warfare, no borders to dispute because there is nothing here worth fighting over. The Antarctic Treaty System, signed in 1959, demilitarized the entire continent before the nuclear age reached its maturity, creating a space that is legally prohibited from hosting military installations or weapons of mass destruction. When the missiles fly, there are no targets here worth hitting, no cities to destroy, no infrastructure to cripple.

The ice itself becomes a shield. The Antarctic ice sheet, averaging over 2 kilometers thick, would absorb radiation that would kill surface dwellers elsewhere. The extreme cold would prevent the spread of diseases that would ravage warmer climates in the aftermath of collapse. The isolation, the distance from any population center that might produce refugees, the impossibility of reaching the continent without sophisticated transportation—all of these become assets rather than liabilities when the alternative is the radioactive wasteland of the north.

But the real value of Antarctica lies in what it represents rather than what it is. It is the proof that humans can survive in environments that evolution never prepared us for, that technology and community and sheer stubborn will can overcome conditions that should be fatal. The research stations that dot the coast—McMurdo, Palmer, the various national bases that maintain a continuous human presence—are experiments in closed-system survival that have been running for decades. The scientists who winter over, who spend months in darkness with the same small group of people, eating frozen food and breathing recycled air, are the unwitting pioneers of post-apocalyptic living.

The darkness is literal. During the Antarctic winter, the sun disappears completely for months, plunging the continent into a night that has driven people mad with its absolute blackness. But that same darkness preserves knowledge, prevents the degradation of materials that sunlight would destroy, creates conditions where preservation becomes possible on timescales that would be impossible elsewhere. When the world ends, the records stored in Antarctica—already designated as a place to preserve the seeds of civilization in the Svalbard model—might be the only records that survive.

The cold would kill most who tried to reach it. The journey across the Southern Ocean, the most violent body of water on Earth, has claimed thousands of lives even in times of peace and plenty. But for those who make it, who establish the foothold that could become a colony, Antarctica offers something no other place can: time. Time measured not in the frantic pulse of civilization but in the slow rhythm of ice, the patient accumulation of snow that will become the glaciers of future ages. Here, if nowhere else, the human story might continue long enough to outlast the consequences of its own madness.

The Spine of the World: Patagonia’s Mountain Sanctuary

The Andes Mountains run like a spine down the western edge of South America, and at their southern extremity, where the peaks meet the Southern Ocean, lies a region that might be the most defensible territory on Earth. The photograph above captures Torres del Paine National Park in Chilean Patagonia, granite towers that rise vertically from the Patagonian steppe, creating a landscape that looks designed by a deity with a taste for the dramatic. These mountains are not just beautiful; they are fortress walls that have never been breached by invading armies because no invading army has ever been foolish enough to try.

Patagonia’s safety lies in its geography of extremes. The Andes create a rain shadow that makes the eastern side of the mountains a desert while the western side receives some of the highest rainfall on Earth. The result is a region of microclimates where survival is possible even when conditions become impossible elsewhere. The mountains themselves contain glaciers that feed rivers running to both the Atlantic and Pacific, fresh water that would remain uncontaminated long after the aquifers of the north become poisoned.

The photograph shows the Torres del Paine themselves, three granite towers that rise over 2,500 meters above the surrounding landscape. These peaks are climbable only by the most experienced mountaineers, their faces sheer enough to repel any force that might try to scale them. The valleys between contain forests of lenga and ñire, southern beech trees that grow in conditions that would kill their northern cousins, providing timber and shelter in a region where both are scarce.

But the real protection of Patagonia is its emptiness. This is one of the least populated regions on Earth, with population densities measured in fractions of people per square kilometer. The towns—Puerto Natales, El Calafate, the scattered estancias that raise sheep on land too marginal for other agriculture—are small enough to be self-sufficient, large enough to maintain the skills and knowledge that collapse would destroy elsewhere. When the global system fails, these communities would barely notice, their isolation already complete, their dependence on the outside world already minimal.

The wind is the guardian here. Patagonian winds blow with a ferocity that has shaped the landscape and the people who live in it, bending trees into permanent angles, preventing the accumulation of snow that would bury other regions, scouring the air of contaminants that would linger elsewhere. The same wind that makes life difficult becomes the mechanism of survival, the natural ventilation system that keeps the atmosphere breathable when other places choke on their own pollution.

The darkness of Patagonia is the darkness of the end of the world. This is the southernmost habitable land on Earth before Antarctica, the place where the continents break apart into islands and the islands dissolve into the Southern Ocean. The indigenous peoples who lived here—the Tehuelche, the Selk’nam, the Kawésqar—were driven to extinction or marginalization by European colonization, their knowledge of survival in this harsh environment lost to the violence of “civilization.” Those who remain are the descendants of colonizers themselves, Welsh and German and Croatian immigrants who came seeking freedom from the oppression of the Old World and found instead a land that demands everything and forgives nothing.

But that harshness is the point. Patagonia doesn’t welcome you; it tests you. The weather changes with a violence that can kill the unprepared, the distances between settlements measured in days of travel rather than hours, the resources scarce enough that waste becomes impossible. These are the conditions that create survivors, that select for the traits—stubbornness, community, the willingness to endure discomfort—that would matter when the world ends. The people who live here have already survived the apocalypse of migration, of leaving everything familiar behind to build something new in a land that didn’t want them. They would survive the next apocalypse too.

The Bunker in the Mountains: Switzerland’s Fortress Democracy

Switzerland has been preparing for the end of the world since before the world had ends. The photograph above shows the Gotthard Military Fortress, a complex of tunnels and bunkers carved into the granite of the Swiss Alps, part of a defensive network that covers the entire country in a web of underground shelters capable of protecting the entire population. This is not paranoia; this is policy. Switzerland’s neutrality is not a moral stance but a military strategy, the recognition that survival in a world of great powers requires making invasion so costly that no potential aggressor would consider it worth the price.

The Gotthard fortress complex represents the culmination of this strategy. The mountains themselves have been hollowed out to create spaces where the Swiss military could continue fighting even if the surface was completely occupied by enemy forces. The tunnels connect to reservoirs of fresh water, to ammunition depots, to living quarters designed to sustain thousands of soldiers for months or years. When the bombs fall, the Swiss won’t be scrambling for shelter—they’ll be walking into spaces that have been waiting for this moment for generations.

But the military bunkers are only the most visible part of Switzerland’s survival infrastructure. Every building constructed since the 1960s is required to have a nuclear fallout shelter, spaces that would protect the civilian population from radiation, from blast, from the chaos that follows. There are enough of these shelters to protect the entire population of the country, a statistic that becomes meaningful when you realize that most nations have shelter space for less than one percent of their citizens. The Swiss don’t plan to survive as individuals; they plan to survive as a nation, as a culture, as a continuity of the experiment that began with their confederation in 1291.

The photograph reveals the aesthetic of this survival: concrete and steel blended into the natural landscape, the entrance to the fortress disguised as part of the mountain itself. This is the Swiss approach to apocalypse—not to run from it but to dig in, to make the cost of destruction higher than any potential benefit, to create a nation that is literally too difficult to destroy. The Alps provide the raw material for this strategy, granite mountains that have resisted erosion for millions of years and would resist nuclear fire with equal indifference.

The darkness here is the darkness of preparation, of a nation that has never been able to take its survival for granted. Switzerland’s wealth is recent, the product of banking secrecy and pharmaceutical innovation that transformed a poor mountain nation into one of the richest countries on Earth. But the psychology of insecurity remains, the memory of being surrounded by larger powers who could crush you if they chose, the knowledge that neutrality must be defended with weapons to have any meaning at all.

The food supply is part of this preparation. Switzerland maintains stockpiles of essential goods—grain, medicine, fuel—sufficient to sustain the population for months without any imports. When the global supply chains collapse, when the ships stop sailing and the trucks stop running, the Swiss will still have bread, still have medicine, still have the infrastructure that makes civilization possible. This is not accident; this is law, government policy that mandates the maintenance of reserves against exactly the catastrophe that now approaches.

But the real protection of Switzerland is its geography of inconvenience. The mountain passes that connect northern and southern Europe are narrow, easily defended, easily destroyed if defense fails. An invading army would have to fight for every kilometer of ground, would have to maintain supply lines through terrain that offers no forgiveness for error, would have to face a population that has been training for guerrilla warfare since childhood. The Swiss militia system requires every adult male to maintain military equipment in his home, to train regularly, to be prepared to mobilize within hours of a threat emerging. This is not a population that would collapse into chaos; this is a population that has been preparing for collapse for generations.

The bunkers would become cities when the surface became uninhabitable. The Swiss have thought through what comes after the bombs, the years of darkness and cold that would follow a nuclear exchange, the social structures that would need to be maintained when the old structures burned. They have planned for the end of the world with the same thoroughness they bring to watchmaking, the same precision that makes their trains run on time. And in that planning, they have created the possibility that their world—their specific, peculiar, mountain democracy—might survive when the larger world that surrounds it becomes ash.

The Geography of Survival

What connects these places is not their beauty, though they are beautiful. It is not their resources, though they have resources. It is their relationship to the networks of destruction that define modern civilization. Each of them sits at a node of isolation created by geography, by history, by the accidents of plate tectonics and ocean currents that placed them far from the centers of power that would become the primary targets of nuclear war.

The targeting computers don’t think in terms of survival; they think in terms of damage, of counterforce and countervalue, of silos and submarine bases and command centers. New Zealand doesn’t have these. Iceland doesn’t have these. Antarctica, Patagonia, Switzerland—their value lies precisely in their lack of value as targets, their exclusion from the calculus of destruction that would determine where the warheads fall. They are the negative space in the map of annihilation, the places defined by what they are not rather than what they are.

But this safety is temporary and conditional. Nuclear winter doesn’t respect borders; fallout travels on winds that don’t care about neutrality; the collapse of global agriculture would reach even the most self-sufficient nations eventually. The safety of these places is measured not in certainty but in probability, in the mathematics of delay and diminishment that might allow something human to survive long enough to rebuild.

The darkness that accompanies this knowledge is the darkness of selection, of the recognition that not everyone can reach these places, that the journey itself would kill most who attempted it, that the survivors would be those who had the resources and foresight to prepare before the crisis became obvious. This is not justice; this is not fairness; this is the brutal arithmetic of catastrophe that doesn’t care about your moral worth or your good intentions.

And yet, there is something hopeful in the mapping of these sanctuaries, in the recognition that the world is larger than our conflicts, that geography provides refuges that politics cannot destroy, that life persists in conditions that would seem impossible to those who have never tested the limits of survival. The mountains will remain when the cities fall. The ice will persist when the fires burn out. The ocean will continue its ancient circulation, indifferent to the temporary disruptions of human violence.

The question that remains is not whether these places can survive—they can, or at least they have better odds than anywhere else. The question is whether the survivors will be worth the name human, whether the qualities that allowed us to build the weapons will be the same qualities that allow us to survive their use, whether we can learn from the catastrophe or whether we are doomed to repeat it in some future age when the memory of the last apocalypse has faded into myth.

Dr. Vance’s warning, the one that began this exploration, was not a call to despair but a call to attention. The mechanisms are in motion, yes, but they can still be stopped. The chess pieces are positioned, but the game is not yet over. The places described here are not destinations but possibilities, not endpoints but reminders that survival is always possible for those who prepare, who pay attention, who refuse to let the darkness have the final word.

When the sirens sound—if they sound, when they sound—remember that the map of destruction is not the only map. There are other geographies, other ways of being in the world, other possibilities for survival that don’t depend on the continuation of the systems that created the danger. The mountains wait. The ice waits. The remote places at the edges of the world wait, as they have always waited, for those who can reach them and learn to live in the conditions that they demand.

The end of the world is not the end of everything. It is only the end of this world, this specific configuration of civilization that we have built and that now threatens to destroy us. What comes after—if anything comes after—depends on who survives and what they carry with them into the darkness. The places described here are the places where the carrying might be possible, where the seeds of whatever comes next might find soil deep enough to take root.

Choose wisely. Prepare quietly. And remember that the maps we make before the catastrophe are the maps that will guide us through it, if we have the wisdom to read them and the courage to follow where they lead.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 23:25

Oil Markets Price In An Iran Deal That Does Not Exist Yet

Oil prices tumbled Tuesday as traders once again priced in a U.S.-Iran agreement before anyone had actually signed one.

West Texas Intermediate was trading at $75.64 per barrel shortly before 2 p.m. ET, down $4.70, or 5.85%, while Brent had fallen $4.61 to $79.16. Both benchmarks touched three-week lows as hopes rose that an agreement could reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

As reported earlier, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a deal could come Tuesday or Wednesday, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said talks involving Iran and Oman had made progress. Qatar also said diplomatic efforts were continuing. President Donald Trump went further, calling an agreement to reopen the strait and denuclearize Iran “imminent.”

Iran, naturally, offered a less tidy version. As OilPrice notes, Tehran has denied holding direct talks with Washington and says it is negotiating through mediators in Oman. Iran is also seeking control over inbound shipping and visibility over outbound traffic, with the ability to intervene when it sees fit.

US and Iran are finalizing a 60-day interim agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, with an announcement expected tomorrow – Axios.

Under the proposed deal:

• Ships entering the Gulf would use the northern lane through Iranian waters.

• Ships leaving the Gulf for the… pic.twitter.com/IcrptBohbu

— Current Report (@Currentreport1) August 5, 2026

Actual shipping data offered little support for Tuesday’s enthusiasm. Just six vessels were tracked moving through Hormuz on Monday, down from seven a day earlier, while traffic through Bab el-Mandeb was also largely unchanged. A cargo vessel was also struck near Oman, adding another complication to the negotiations.

Before the war, roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas supply moved through Hormuz. Persian Gulf producers have since been forced to slash output, and Saudi Aramco estimates the world has lost more than 2.6 billion barrels since fighting began in February.

Goldman Sachs expects Brent to remain between $80 and $90 until there is either a confirmed agreement or another major escalation. Brent was already below that range Tuesday afternoon, suggesting traders may have gotten a little ahead of the diplomats.

Oil has spent months whipping between peace headlines and missile strikes while physical flows remain badly impaired.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 23:17

Socialist Wisconsin Gov Candidate Won't Back Down After Calling To "Cancel Thanksgiving"

Far-left Wisconsin gubernatorial contender Francesca Hong appeared to double down on resurfaced comments demanding that Thanksgiving be abolished, declining to walk back the post when confronted about it on national television.

"Cancel Thanksgiving. Should have done this in 1621," Hong wrote on X in a post she later deleted, according to Fox News.

"If it takes a worldwide pandemic for us to realize we should stop celebrating colonialism and the original superspreader event that killed indigenous folx [sic] and women, so be it," she added.

On Monday, Hong appeared on CNN's "The Source with Kaitlan Collins," where the Democratic socialist was pressed about her controversial comments.

"Do you still believe that Thanksgiving should be canceled?" Collins asked.

Rather than answer directly, Hong clumsily pivoted to her resume.

CNN: “Do you still believe Thanksgiving should be canceled?”

Francesca Hong: “I'm a chef, one of the first meals I made for the community was a Thanksgiving meal. But Thanksgiving is also an incredibly painful time for many people in our communities.” pic.twitter.com/R4PVClfGu2

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) August 4, 2026

"I'm a chef, and one of the first meals that I made that was for the community when I was 16 [years old] was a Thanksgiving meal," Hong said. "I always think my hospitality background in owning a restaurant for seven, eight years, that bringing folks around the table to share conversation and build community is always a good thing."

"But Thanksgiving is also a time that's incredibly painful for many people in our communities," Hong continued. "And so I think there, I wanted to make sure that people understood that there are multiple views, but views can evolve."

"And the position that I'm running for right now, and I think my background as a chef will actually help me become a better governor that's able to bring more people to the table," she added.

The refusal to back down comes as Hong sits atop the Democrat primary field. A Marquette University Law School Poll conducted July 22 to 27 surveyed 407 Democrat primary voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 6.6%.

Hong led the field with 38%, followed by Mandela Barnes, who has since dropped out of the race, at 16%, David Crowley at 7%, and Joel Brennan and Kelda Roys at 2% apiece, with 34% of voters still undecided. When undecided voters who lean toward a candidate are counted, Hong climbs to 46%, Barnes to 21% and Crowley to 11%.

Oh and she also hates white people. 

Anti-white Frannie Frowner also said she was also relieved her son looked more like his white father than her pic.twitter.com/fsWgwwooTk

— Wuhan Fourth Turning Swan (@TheWuhanClan) August 3, 2026 Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 22:10

Florida's Ban On Children Attending Drag Shows Is Constitutional, Appeals Court Says

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court says Florida’s ban on children attending sexualized drag shows is constitutional. On Tuesday, the court overturned a lower court’s decision that had blocked the state’s law.

Hamburger Mary’s, a bar and restaurant chain that holds drag shows and previously held what it called “family friendly” performances for children on Sundays, sued the state over the ban. The chain claimed its law was unconstitutional, but judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in an 8–5 ruling.

Judge Andrew Brasher, writing on behalf of the majority opinion, said, “We are convinced the district court erred” for two reasons.

“First, the district court lacked authority to impose a universal injunction that prevented the enforcement of the Act,” Brasher said.

“Second, Hamburger Mary’s was not entitled to even a more limited preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the Act because its claims do not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”

Lawyers for Hamburger Mary’s did not respond to a request for comment.

The restaurant claimed Florida’s 2023 Protection of Children Act violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

The law would make it a misdemeanor for businesses to knowingly allow a child to an “adult live performance” that “depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or specific sexual activities.”

The act further identified prohibited adult live performances as those that “predominantly appeal to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest” and “taken as a whole, [are] without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present.”

Businesses in violation of the Protection of Children Act could face suspension or loss of license as well as a $5,000 fine for a first offense and a $10,000 fine for each subsequent offense.

A district court previously sided with Hamburger Mary’s, granting a preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the law and applied it to all venues in the state.

Gov. Ron DeSantis petitioned for the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the injunction, but the justices refused.

“This shouldn’t even be controversial, yet our law protecting kids required us to fend off lawsuits and win a case before a divided appellate court,” DeSantis wrote in a post on X after the appeals court’s Tuesday ruling.

A three judge-panel for the 11th Circuit also sided with the restaurant in a 2–1 ruling last year, upholding the injunction. Writing for the majority in the three-judge panel’s decision in May 2025, Judge Robin Rosenbaum said the act “wields a shotgun when the First Amendment allows a scalpel at most.”

But the court granted a re-hearing en banc, meaning all the judges on the 11th Circuit could consider the district court’s injunction and the Florida law’s constitutionality, and issued its 8–5 ruling affirming the legislation.

“There is no doubt the Act is rational. We will not second-guess the Florida Legislature’s decision to regulate obscenity,” Brasher said in the majority opinion. “Preventing children from attending adult live performances obscene for them is rationally related to Florida’s interest in safeguarding the well-being of minors.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier praised the 11th Circuit’s decision, calling it a “huge victory.”

Judges writing in dissent of Tuesday’s decision gave sharp criticisms of the majority’s ruling, accusing the state of giving no assistance to businesses of what is age appropriate for a child.

Hamburger Mary’s, with no guidance, faces jail time, thousands of dollars in fines, and loss of its license if it guesses the standards of Florida’s law incorrectly, Rosenbaum said in dissent.

“As it turns out, chilling all drag performances when those under the age of eighteen are present appears to be the point,” she said. “In other words, Florida purposely created a mess-around-and-find-out statute to chill drag.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 21:45

Physical AI Faces One Critical Chokepoint, And Here's How To Profit

The rise of physical AI is already underway, with humanoid robots entering factories, warehouses, and other industrial environments, and soon the modern battlefield. 

Global shipments of humanoid robots are expected to accelerate in 2027, but the broader robotics revolution faces one critical chokepoint: access to the rare-earth magnets that power high-performance motors and actuators. China controls most of that supply chain.

Bernstein analyst Dien Wang told clients Monday that humanoid robots require an estimated 3.5 to 4 kilograms of rare-earth magnets per unit, compared with roughly 1 to 3 kilograms for an EV motor.

"A humanoid robot can consume more than twice as much magnetic material as an EV motor (Exhibit 3), highlighting the growing strategic importance of rare-earth magnets. Beyond well-known neodymium (Nd) and samarium (Sm), rare-earth elements such as dysprosium (Dy), terbium (Tb), and praseodymium (Pr) are also critical for magnetic performance (Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5). We therefore see the entire rare-earth magnet value chain as strategically important," Wang said.

Rare-earth magnets (NdFeB) are composed of multiple raw materials, including various rare-earth elements.

The magnets provide the torque density, compact size, and heat resistance needed for high-performance motors and robotic actuators.

Wang outlined that China's dominance in rare-earth magnets is troubling in an "increasingly multipolar world." He said there are only three conclusions to draw from this:

1. Chinese EV (e.g. BYD) and humanoid OEMs could benefit from an improved competitive position overseas.
2. Chinese robotic actuator (e.g. Tuopu, Sanhua) and EV-motor suppliers (e.g. Inovance) could gain share globally, as rival supply chains remain more vulnerable to rare-earth magnet disruptions.
3. Non-Chinese rare-earth magnet players (Exhibit 17) could benefit from growing requests for supply-chain diversification.

Rare-earth magnet value chain spans a series of technically demanding stages

China controls about 59% of global magnet rare-earth mining, 91% of refining and 94% of magnet manufacturing, according to the analyst.

The International Energy Agency expects China to retain more than half of mining and over 75% of refining through 2040, while recycling is unlikely to meaningfully reduce near-term supply risks.

Beijing has weaponized its dominance of rare earths as a geopolitical tool against the US. China imposed controls on seven medium and heavy rare-earth products in 2025, extended licensing requirements to some overseas transactions, and restricted exports to dozens of US, European, and Japanese companies.

Those 2025 measures caused an immediate, though temporary, collapse in Chinese magnet exports.

China/Asia Production of NdFeB magnets

Comparing with the US and Europe...

Here's how to profit across the entire magnet supply chain ex-China:

"As Physical AI emerges as a strategic battleground among leading nations, control of critical chokepoints could ultimately determine who gains the upper hand," Wang noted.

China may already hold a structural advantage in humanoid robot development, supported by its massive manufacturing ecosystem and dominance of the rare-earth supply chain. On Monday, Hugging Face's CEO told CNBC that China is winning the AI race and increasingly dominating open-source models. Taken together, these signals suggest the West's lead in AI might be eroding against China.

Professional subscribers can read more color on humanoid robots here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 21:20

Is 'Communist' No Longer A Slur?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

It is not difficult, these days, to see the neo-communist flipside of “Democratic Socialists”—once they find power.

Indeed, the more the ossified Democratic Party claims that its growing cadre of socialist renegades are not really socialists, the more they act like—and even appear comfortable being called—communists.

With every new policy they propose, the socialists have been dropping the pretense that they are not Marxists.

How about declaring capitalism a failure?

All the socialists now do that—and even Democratic California governor Gavin Newsom has also started agreeing that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work either.” Oddly, Newsom himself, a multimillionaire and a beneficiary of arch-capitalist Gordon Getty’s largesse, seems to have done quite well under capitalism.

Confiscating private property?

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani claims he will do just that if New York’s landlords, in his opinion, are poor custodians of their own property.

Dismantling the U.S. Constitution?

Almost all Democrats have long called for destroying the 238-year-old Electoral College. And now the socialists openly brag that, when they take over the Democratic Party and then the nation, they will, as good Bolsheviks, go much further: destroying the Senate, destroying the Pentagon, destroying prisons, destroying the police, and destroying our borders.

And they want to take over utilities, break up or absorb corporate agriculture, and own major industries. Apparently, socialists believe that with a snap of their fingers they can destroy key elements of the U.S. constitutional order. Would these “socialists” even resent their agenda being called “communist”?

They also seem to have taken their cue for such radical change from “mainstream” Democrats—for example, Kamala Harris. Now in her third vain bid for the presidency, she has adopted the doctrine of “if you can’t beat them, join them.” So Harris now promises that if she is elected, she will pack the court, admit two new blue states (to snag four liberal senators), end the filibuster, and junk the Electoral College. How she plans to amend the Constitution to that effect she never tells us.

Like all good Marxists, these “ends-justify-the-means” leftists show an utter lack of principle: if two new red states wished to join the U.S., they would lecture us on the sanctity of a 50-state union. If they were a permanent Senate minority, they would, as in the past, honor the filibuster. If they had lost the popular vote in two recent elections but won the Electoral College, they would praise the wisdom of the Founders. If they had their Earl Warren-era majority again, they would laud the continuity of the 157-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court.

How about making “enemies of the people” lists and forcing sales of private property?

Mamdani just sent out a public list of nearly one million New York homeowners. He sent official warnings to 17,000 of these property owners that, if within four weeks they cannot prove that they have lived full-time in their own properties, the city will levy a huge surtax on them to drive home the point that no one should own an additional high-value home. Are show trials next for those who decline to reply?

In other words, Mamdani has flipped the American tradition of “innocent until proven guilty.” Instead, almost 20,000 New Yorkers are now automatically presumed guilty of being house-hoarding, capitalist leeches who owe the exploited classes tens of thousands of dollars a year in reparations, unless they—the newly presumed guilty—can prove themselves innocent.

Welcome to Mamdani’s revolutionary court.

Mamdani’s new surtax could add from $40,000 to $350,000 a year to tens of thousands of homeowners’ taxes—in addition to already-existing steep property taxes that often range from $5,000 to $150,000.

Most owners will do the math and see that the new aggregate tax payouts in just a few years could be more than the value of the home itself.

Why is Mamdani doing this?

The socialist mayor’s aim here seems twofold:

First, he wants to flush out and dox anyone owning two homes as a purported enemy of the people.

And so, Mamdani created a list of his targets, including their addresses, and published it. To the extent that many properties really were second homes, Mamdani has now made sure that all New Yorkers, including envious rubberneckers, would-be squatters, and hardened criminals, know exactly where they might target a sometimes-vacant home.

Second, he wants to force a massive fire sale of second homes that would crash home values in general and so redistribute now “affordable” houses to those whom Mamdani considers, as victims of capitalism, to be more deserving of these properties.

Recently, on cable news, the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Megan Romer, was asked a series of questions about her group’s published agenda. Far from denying its communist radicalism, she gleefully confirmed it all—from destroying the border to ending prisons, the military, and the police.

But it is in Spain, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s corrupt and unpopular regime, where we see what one-eyed-jack socialists can do when they are finally in power, especially when they are hated and on their way out.

Sánchez has given amnesty to 600,000 illegal aliens. One result was that 60,000 Muslim men from North Africa in a single day recently swarmed Spain’s colonial outpost on the Moroccan coast at Ceuta, demanding amnesties and free subsidized passes into European Spain—while looting and vandalizing businesses and attacking Spaniards.

So why do European socialists and American leftists, once elected, destroy borders, create conditions of mass chaos, and welcome in millions of illegal aliens—poor, often angry, and unassimilated—from the Third World?

Aside from their belief that the capitalists and their bourgeois hirelings deserve chaos, violence, and upheaval, they hate the fact that capitalism is too class-fluid to furnish a permanent exploited proletarian underclass.

And so they import a huge victim class, and virtue signal their purported moral superiority. Then they spend lavish social largesse upon the influx, and, in quid pro quo fashion, thus bind their imported underclass with their welfare-state assurances.

Mail-in and early ballots, no-ID voting, same-day registration, ballot harvesting and curing, and no final verdicts on Election Day were all leftist projects, all designed to enroll as many illegal voters as possible.

The Left has also learned from experience that the time between immigrant parents fleeing third-world hellholes to find safety, freedom, and prosperity in the U.S. and their children hating the very generous host that welcomed them—and demanding that America be radically transformed to resemble the catastrophe from which they or their parents fled—is often only about 20 years.

So if one enjoys watching the careers of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, AOC, or Zohran Mamdani, then one should certainly vote socialist to ensure that they are the new model for American elected officials.

It is the paradox of our age that anyone can flee Somalia, the West Bank, Puerto Rico, or Uganda and then win the global lottery by being accepted into America’s constitutional society and free-market economy—only to do their best to repay the generosity of their host by turning their new country into something unrecognizable to the prior 10 generations of Americans.

But then again, America might become quite similar to the mess they abandoned.

So far, the model holds true: socialist candidates (as opposed to registered socialist activists) hide their communist-adjacent agendas during elections. But once in office and drunk with power, they find socialism too wishy-washy and go full communist. So they destroy borders, institutions, names, dates, statues, norms, customs, and traditions to replicate the illiberalism and concomitant failures of a new Haiti, a West Bank, or a Morocco in the West.

In sum, to make a new socialist America, you must first destroy everything that made Americans and all that they hold dear.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 20:55

The Byproduct Ate The Product: Inside America's Proteinmaxxing Cheese Glut

For most of the history of dairy, whey was the stuff you got rid of - the watery byproduct left after milk becomes cheese, fed to hogs or poured out while the actual product went to market. In 2026, with an entire nation proteinmaxxing its way through GLP-1 prescriptions and 40-gram breakfast bars, the 'cheddar' isn't in the cheese itself: America is now producing record amounts of cheese because that's how you get whey.

According to NBC, this has resulted in record-high US cheese production, with processors making more cheese to capture the whey stream and exports absorbing the growing pile nobody specifically ordered. The USDA's latest Dairy Products report shows total cheese output excluding cottage cheese hit 1.28 billion pounds in May, up 2.0% from a year earlier - while the whey side of the ledger ran considerably hotter, with total dry whey production up 12.2% year-over-year and whey protein concentrate up 3.0%. Cheddar output actually fell 1.2% in the same month, which tells you the growth is not being driven by anyone's sudden craving for cheddar.

Whey Cool

The demand shock behind all this has been building for two years. The average US supermarket now carries 38,708 products advertising their protein content, according to NielsenIQ figures cited by AP, as food companies bolt whey onto cereal, chips, bagels, tortillas and coffee drinks to chase consumers who have been told - by their trainers, their doctors, and increasingly their Ozempic prescribers - that every bite needs protein in it. The GLP-1 craze has been a huge catalyst: the drugs suppress appetite so aggressively that getting enough protein becomes a challenge, and a widely-cited concern holds that rapid weight loss on semaglutide strips muscle along with fat. The STEP 1 body-composition substudy found roughly 40% of the weight lost on semaglutide came from lean mass - though how much of that is actual contractile muscle, as opposed to water, glycogen and liver fat that body scans miscount, is contested, with some researchers arguing the muscle loss is no worse than ordinary dieting. Either way, the perception has been enough to send GLP-1 users reaching for protein, and the industry has followed the money.

High-grade whey wholesale prices were up roughly 250% year-over-year by early summer, per that same reporting, and the squeeze got tight enough that US exports of 80% whey protein to China fell 47% in the first four months of the year, with Vesper dairy analyst Jasper Endlich telling AP that exports have been "paused as much as possible" because there is not enough product for American customers. China, displaced from US supply, is now bidding up European whey, which is also short - a global scramble for a substance the industry spent a century treating as drainage.

USDA's own forecasting desk noted the inversion months ago. In its December World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, the department cut its 2026 cheese price forecast to $1.6750 per pound on persistent weakness while raising its 2026 dry whey forecast to 63.50 cents on strong demand - and the cash market has since overshot both calls in the whey-friendly direction. Per USDA AMS's latest National Dairy Products Sales Report, 40-pound cheddar blocks averaged just $1.49 per pound for the week ending July 18, well below the department's full-year forecast, while dry whey fetched 65.3 cents and rising. 

Every Boom Builds Its Own Glut

According to dairy economists, whey is now driving a growing share of the farmer's milk check, which creates a direct incentive to overproduce cheese simply to get at the whey - and industry boards are already scouting export markets in Latin America, Asia and the Pacific to offload surplus cheese that domestic demand will not clear at current prices. The new cheese plants under construction are, functionally, protein-extraction facilities that happen to emit cheddar and mozzarella as a co-product, engineered around WPC-80 and isolate output rather than the cheese case. 

The precedent the industry itself reaches for is the chicken wing - a low-value scrap until Buffalo, New York found a use for it in 1964, now the part that drives poultry economics. Whey is running the same play at commodity scale, with one difference: every incremental pound of protein powder for the proteinmaxxers arrives bolted to roughly ten times its weight in cheese that somebody, somewhere, will eventually have to eat. Long whey, short whoever ends up holding the gouda.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 20:30

Oil Tumbles On Iran Deal Buzz As Rubio Still Insists 'Denuclearization' Is The 'Ultimate' Goal Summary

• Rubio: The "ultimate deal" is the denuclearization of Iran, while Omani talks focus on reopening Hormuz.
• Stalemate persists: Iran refuses nuclear negotiations until the conflict ends, leaving both sides far apart.
• Deal optimism sees oil slide: Brent fell below $80 on reports of progress in Oman-mediated Hormuz talks.
• Bessent claims a Hormuz agreement could come "today or tomorrow".
• Major doubts remain given Iran denies formal talks, security risks persist and the reported Oman plan could leave Tehran with broad control over Hormuz traffic.

//--> //--> //--> US x Iran Effective Ceasefire by August 14?
Yes 81% · No 19%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Rubio: "Denuclearization of Iran" is the "Ultimate Deal"

Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke at the White House Tuesday, just after headlines out of Qatar touting that a new draft deal initiative is gaining momentum.

Rubio insisted again that Strait of Hormuz remains open and that vessels are continuing to pass through it, but said the US is working to open it up to bigger vessel transit flows.

"I think there is a conversation and a negotiation that we are involved in between Iran and Oman on how more ships can be able to go through there safely in the short term, as we move towards… longer-term talks about denuclearization," said Rubio. He then emphasized that that the "denuclearization of Iran" is the "ultimate deal".

But from Tehran's point of view, this will constitute Washington shifting the goalposts back to square one once again. Iran has insisted it will not negotiate the end of its nuclear program, especially while the conflict is still in an active phrase. It has consistently said that nuclear talks can happen later, only once an agreement to end the war has been accomplished. The two sides continue to be far apart, despite the Tuesday morning onslaught of 'Hormuz deal imminent' headlines. 

Images from Al Arabiya show smoke rising from a ship hit by a projectile near the Strait of Hormuz

صور حصرية للعربية تظهر تصاعد الدخان من سفينة أصيبت بمقذوف قرب مضيق هرمز pic.twitter.com/pSOfYpS8k8

— العربية عاجل (@AlArabiya_Brk) August 4, 2026

PressTV, however, has said that Iran-Oman talks on opening Hormuz are in a "new phase" - and despite what it calls "US obstruction" - but so far it appears this management scheme will be favorable to Iran's demands. And yet there's still some signs of compromise on the horizon:

IRAN WEIGHS ALLOWING EUROPE TO CLEAR MINES IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ

Here's where things stand on the Iran-Oman talks for Hormuz management, which would leave Iran in a favored position, and maintaining an immense amount of leverage over the waterway:

• Iran controls vessel entry, Oman exit: RTRS
• Iran has ability to intervene in waterway
• Potential service fee, revenue split: NYT
• The U.S. and regional governments rejected Iran's demand to collect fees and instead demanded guarantees that Iran's proxies will not attack or threaten their territory, according to a senior official - WSJ

“Over the next two and a half years” pic.twitter.com/x6e8GychXb

— Justin Logan (@JustinTLogan) May 30, 2026 Oil Slides amid return to Another Round of 'Deal Imminent' Headlines

Another fake ceasefire in progress? Or are we to believe it's for real this time? There's nothing on the ground-level at all that currently suggests the warring sides are imminently about to agree to a new ceasefire, or are so much as back at the negotiating table.

And yet Tuesday morning headlines are now being driven by a Qatari Foreign Ministry statement saying that "language" for a possible US-Iran resolution "has been drafted" and "is being circulated between the parties."

via Doha News

Ministry spokesman Majed Al-Ansari didn't offer any time line for a potential deal in relaying the statement before a press briefing but said that current diplomatic efforts are focused on preventing further escalation, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and creating conditions to resume talks.

He described that the focus is on short term resolution that would restart US-Iran talks and return the sides to mediation, but also admitted that there's "nothing the the books when it comes to direct talks." This comes as President Trump has told Iran that he wants to see a deal done on the Hormuz Strait immediately, per Bloomberg.

This was enough for regional media, including Israel's i24 to report 'progress' in the Omani mediated Hormuz talks, with the American side - as yet only participating indirectly - said to be "much more" flexible in their demands than even the Omani side, amid Iranian recalcitrance.

"Iran has conveyed a message: any solution that we agree to and sign must also be approved by Washington," i24 has written. This somewhat forced and perhaps manufactured return yet again to peace optimism has sent oil sliding...

BRENT CRUDE OIL FALLS BELOW $80 FOR FIRST TIME SINCE MID JULY

The day prior, President Trump continued to address Tehran in threatening language, however. He said before reporters in the Oval Office: "I want to give them every last chance before decapitation. Very tough to do what what we have planned, still planned. We'll see what happens, but it's very very tough thing to do. I think I'm very proud of the fact that I will give people a chance."

Bessent Floats Maybe 'Iran Deal Tomorrow' To Open Hormuz

Just on the heels of the above 'draft deal' headlines, and in a carefully timed CNBC appearance, Washington brought out its heavy hitter to re-anchor the administration's narrative, seeking to assure markets that a diplomatic deal with Tehran is not only real, but imminent - potentially coming together even as soon as Tuesday through Wednesday.

"We may have an Iran deal tomorrow to open Hormuz," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared, signaling that a major diplomatic resolution is within reach. He pointed out that physical maritime traffic is already quietly resuming, regardless of headline volatility.

Bessent gets dragged in to justify "imminent Iran deal" as algos no longer reacting to $100,000 Truth Social API

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 4, 2026

Bessent claimed the administration is seeing "quite a few ships coming out of Hormuz, even now," suggesting the chokehold is loosening ahead of an actual deal and formal signature. With physical crude flows expected to resume, Bessent predicted that elevated energy prices will soon settle down, paving the way for a massive "relief trade" across broader markets:

"We are in talks with the Iranians, and I think there is a chance we may have a deal today or tomorrow to open the Strait and move towards a more normalized position in this conflict,” Bessent said in an interview with CNBC.

Asked if Tehran would be allowed to charge a toll, Bessent said the deal would allow freedom of movement in the strait.

"It would be freedom of movement," he said. "Even though things are still a little dicey there over the past few days, we saw quite a few ships coming out even now.”

Of course, we've heard all of this before, and notably Bessent's commentary came just after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted that while Tehran would defend its borders, it does not seek to expand the war, according to state media. An advisor to the Supreme Leader also reiterated that if the blockade continues, US vessels and forces will face serious risks and casualties. And there's this not so small hiccup in the strait emerging Tuesday:

• A vessel has been struck in the Strait of Hormuz near Oman, the UK maritime security firm Vanguard says. One crew member is missing.

🔺 Senior Iranian figure warns US forces will “face serious risks and casualties” if the Hormuz blockade continues

Mohsen Rezaei, senior military advisor to the Supreme Leader and former longtime commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), warned that US vessels… https://t.co/Oozl8C5sLw

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) August 4, 2026 Oman Hormuz Blueprint Would Leave Iran Largely With Control

Looming large over all of this is the fact that the Iranians have still denied that they are in formal talks with Washington, which Trump the day prior described as a ruse, venting his frustration while insisting that the Iranians have been engaging. The Hormuz blueprint as it basically stands:

Reuters: Iran would gain full control over vessels entering the Strait of Hormuz under a temporary plan being discussed with Oman, an Iranian official says.

Outbound vessels would use the route between Iran and Oman, with Oman approving their exit only after notifying Tehran. The plan would give Iran full visibility over outbound traffic and the ability to intervene if needed and Iran is unlikely to accept any other proposal to open the strait

The Bessent clip:

Bessent on Iran:

We've seen Trump, last week, threaten what would have been the largest military campaign since World War II against the Iranians, and now, because of that, we are in talks with the Iranians.

I think there's a chance we may have a deal today or tomorrow to open… pic.twitter.com/mnel0A16O0

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 4, 2026

*  *  *

Amid the sudden and dubious return to 'optimism', let's recount how we got here...

Trump's Iran Strike Threats: A Timeline

March 21: Trump threatened to "hit and obliterate" Iranian power plants unless Hormuz reopened within 48 hours.

March 23: Delayed strikes for five days, citing "productive conversations" with Iran.

April 7: Warned "a whole civilization will die tonight."
Hours later: A two-week ceasefire was announced.

April 21: Said he expected "to be bombing" if talks failed.
Later that day: Extended the ceasefire.

May 17: Warned, "the Clock is Ticking."

May 18: Paused planned strikes after requests from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

June 11: Said the U.S. would hit Iran "VERY HARD TONIGHT."
Hours later: Canceled the operation, saying a deal was near.

August 1: Said the U.S. was "locked and loaded."
Later: Called off the attack to pursue a deal with Tehran.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 20:15

The New McCarthys: 40% Of Professors Against Hiring A Trump-Voter

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

According to a new survey, roughly 40 percent of college faculty would “oppose hiring a Trump supporter.” The results of the study are not surprising to many in the field of teaching. Indeed, it may be low given faculty reluctance to admit political bias or the delusion of others that they are without it. Yet, the virtual purging of Republicans from most departments reveals a long-standing ideological exclusion in higher education.

While far-left hires are common, even a moderate Republican is a rarity on faculties in a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters.

Even assuming that many faculty members will not expressly acknowledge their bias, this forty percent is willing to state that they will vote against candidates based on their political views without any consideration of the intellectual content of their scholarship.

In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education.

I had dinner with a Harvard Law Professor, who expressed disbelief that I expected him to vote for any faculty applicants who held views he considered wrong. When I noted that I regularly vote for faculty candidates who hold opposing views, he just shrugged and said that, if he rejects their views, he cannot vote for those views to be taught to students.

There are few remaining conservatives or libertarians on law school faculties, which have been purged of dissenting voices through a biased hiring and promotion system. Despite years of complaints and declining public trust in higher education, faculty members continue to reinforce bias and orthodoxy in our schools.

I wrote about the rise of this new McCarthyism on the left seven years ago.

Recently, I discussed the example of Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff, who called for “repercussions” for professors who do not “recant” their view that the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship.

Tolerance is intolerable for professors like Pfaff. After the decision in Trump v. Barbara, Professor Pfaff went on BlueSky to vent against anyone who dared to voice a dissenting view in academia, calling such faculty “parasites” that have to be effectively stomped out of higher education. In his post, Pfaff declared:

“There MUST be repercussions for the lawprofs who advanced such untenable arguments. Their behavior is — and I mean this literally, not dehumanizingly — parasitic.

They exploit norms of collegiality and presumptions of integrity to advance trash. Which undermines the work of ALL of us.”

His rationale for punishing opposing viewpoints is an insight into the arguments used against intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality in higher education.

I recently participated in a debate with the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), who opposed the principles of institutional neutrality.

Some sites, such as Above the Law, have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty.  Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.

Not long ago, I debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School about the lack of ideological diversity at the school. I respect Kennedy, and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”

Of course, the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.

At Yale, the faculty achieved a type of academic nirvana in reaching a point where not a single faculty member gave to a Republican candidate.

When pressed, faculty members often claim that they cannot find credible or competent conservatives. During my debate with Professor Kennedy, I noted that, if a university made such a claim to explain the virtual absence of minority professors, a judge would laugh them out of court. The virtual absence of conservative or Republican faculty in most departments shows a deep and unrelenting bias.

There is little self-reflection on the left in considering the historical or cultural implications of such bias. While often alluding to the McCarthy period in criticizing the right, professors rarely acknowledge their own effective black list against conservatives and certain Trump supporters. Few conservative applicants today would risk admitting to being Trump supporters in interviews.

The intolerance in higher education will not change because it is a cultural touchstone for faculty. Professors prove their bona fides with intolerant statements in meetings and even in classes. I heard from closet conservative students at Harvard how faculty routinely used their classes to rail against Trump and Republicans. They sit like a silent captive audience.

Surveys show that this intolerance has produced widespread self-censuring by students, particularly conservative students.

Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censoring.

Sixty percent of college students strongly or somewhat agree that “[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive.”

That is the environment of intolerance created and maintained by this generation of administrators and faculty. It will not change until donors stop giving money to schools without greater balance and intellectual diversity.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 20:05

"It Could Be Tomorrow": California's Top Earthquake Expert Sounds Alarm On "The Big One"

A new peer-reviewed study found that the fault system running beneath Los Angeles and the Inland Empire is carrying more stress today than at any point in the last millennium, and that a single rupture could tear across both the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults at once.

The research, led by Dr. Liliane Burkhard of the University of Bern and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, simulated 1,000 years of earthquake cycles on the southern San Andreas and San Jacinto systems.

The flashpoint is Cajon Pass, the junction northeast of Los Angeles where the two systems meet, and where Interstate 15, freight rail lines, power corridors and the aqueducts that supply Southern California's water all cross.

The model puts Coulomb stress at 3.6 megapascals on the San Jacinto-Bernardino segment, the highest value anywhere in the entire 1,000-year reconstruction, and 2.8 megapascals on the San Andreas Mojave South segment. Both are elevated, and both are closely aligned, the same configuration that preceded joint ruptures in the past.

Researchers caution these are modeled values that depend on the simulation's assumptions, not direct measurements from underground. Burkhard's team describes Cajon Pass as an "earthquake gate," a junction that can either stop a rupture cold or let it through.

The 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, magnitude roughly 7.9, stopped there, while the 1812 Wrightwood event is believed to have crossed both faults. A through-going rupture today, the study claimed, could reach magnitude 7.4 to 7.8. More than 160 years of slip has piled up since 1857. Caltech seismologist Lucy Jones, who helped build the widely cited magnitude-7.8 "ShakeOut" scenario, said the San Andreas is California's longest fault and therefore capable of its largest earthquakes.

The chilling scenario projects nearly two minutes of shaking, more than 1,800 deaths, 50,000 injuries and over $200 billion in damage. "It could go another 100 years. It could be tomorrow," Jones said in an interview with ABC7.

A 2008 USGS forecast put the 30-year odds of a magnitude-6.7 or larger quake on the southern San Andreas at 59 percent, the highest of any fault in the state. Burkhard stopped short of forecasting a date, telling Newsweek that while this does not mean an earthquake will happen tomorrow, "the system is as loaded as it has ever been in our record, and the question is not really if but when."

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 19:40

New York Cannot Ban Federal Agents From Wearing Masks, Judge Rules

Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times,

A judge ruled on Aug. 3 that New York cannot ban federal agents from wearing masks or balaclavas, or require them to wear visible identification.

Masked federal agents wait outside an immigration courtroom in New York on July 8, 2025. Olga Fedorova/AP

U.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino, for the Northern District of New York, wrote that New York state's perspective "is grounded in unavoidable observations of recent troubling events which loom darkly over the public perception of the manner in which federal immigration law is enforced."

"New York appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing," she said in her ruling.

"However, the issue now before the Court is about constitutionality - not transparency or preferable policy decisions. There is a constitutional proscription on direct state regulation of federal agency operations."

She said that whether federal law enforcement agencies have chosen to carry out their operations in a "sufficiently transparent manner" was an important question, but it was not for the court to decide at this time.

Federal Agents Fear Doxxing

Federal agents have been wearing masks to protect their identities because they and their families fear being doxxed by activists.

The federal government argued that New York's law goes against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.

The Trump administration argued the New York state law violated "principles of intergovernmental immunity and are invalid under the Supremacy Clause because they unlawfully regulate or discriminate against the Federal Government ... or are preempted by federal law."

New York's law to ban face coverings and implement identification measures was included among several law enforcement policies in the state budget bill that was signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul, a D in May and came into effect in June, according to D'Agostino's ruling.

The definition of face coverings includes any "opaque mask, garment, helmet, headgear, balaclava, ski mask, neck gaiter, or tactical mask," but excludes transparent face shields, medical masks, or respirators.

On Feb. 9, 2026, a federal district court judge partially blocked a similar law in California, finding that it discriminated against federal officers.

Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of the Trump administration, prohibiting the state from enforcing its No Secret Police Act - which was scheduled to go into effect earlier this year - against federal law enforcement officers.

The federal government sued California, challenging both laws: the aforementioned law and the No Vigilantes Act, which requires federal officers to wear identification. Snyder ruled that the second law was not discriminatory.

Several other blue states had followed California and New York's example.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Connecticut in federal court over a new state law that prohibited federal agents from wearing masks and also established protected areas - including schools, hospitals, and houses of worship - where people cannot be detained for immigration violations.

New York Reviewing Legal Options

Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a joint statement after D'Agostino's ruling.

"While the court enjoined enforcement of New York's mask ban, we stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer, and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time," Hochul and James said.

D'Agostino also denied the federal government's motion for a preliminary injunction blocking New York's ban on 287(g) agreements between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement, which would have allowed ICE to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to local officers.

Hochul and James welcomed that ruling.

"As we have said from the start, New York's ban on 287(g) agreements is legal and will keep our communities safe," they said in their joint statement.

"Local law enforcement should be focused on local matters, and New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE."

Hochul's Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, which was proposed in January, prohibits federal agents from using local detention centers for civil immigration enforcement, including what the governor described as "mass raids" and detainee transport.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 19:15

This Is The Income Needed To Be Happy In 50 US Cities

How much money does it take before earning more no longer makes people happier? Researchers call this threshold the satiation point, and it varies considerably across the United States.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, ranks 50 of the most populous U.S. cities by the annual income at which self-reported life evaluation stops improving, using data from Remitly.

Remitly adapted Purdue University‘s income satiation research by adjusting it for purchasing power and inflation, then scaling the U.S. figure to each metro using Numbeo’s cost-of-living index.

Coastal U.S. Cities Have the Highest Price of Happiness

Nationally, happiness levels off at an estimated annual income of $134,827. In New York City, the threshold rises to $195,969, or 45.3% above the national figure.

New York is followed by Honolulu ($192,441) and San Francisco ($191,266). In all three cities, the estimated income threshold exceeds $190,000 a year.

The table below shows the price of happiness in each of the 50 cities and how each compares with the $134,827 U.S. average:

Rank City State Price of Happiness vs. U.S. Average 1 New York NY $195,969 +45.3% 2 Honolulu HI $192,441 +42.7% 3 San Francisco CA $191,266 +41.9% 4 Seattle WA $176,960 +31.2% 5 Washington DC $171,081 +26.9% 6 San Jose CA $169,317 +25.6% 7 Boston MA $168,925 +25.3% 8 Oakland CA $166,965 +23.8% 9 Berkeley CA $163,634 +21.4% 10 San Diego CA $160,694 +19.2% 11 Anchorage AK $159,715 +18.5% 11 Los Angeles CA $159,715 +18.5% 13 Miami FL $155,795 +15.6% 14 Sacramento CA $155,207 +15.1% 15 Philadelphia PA $154,423 +14.5% 16 New Orleans LA $150,092 +11.3% 17 Jersey City NJ $149,328 +10.8% 18 Chicago IL $148,936 +10.5% 19 Atlanta GA $147,565 +9.4% 20 Portland OR $147,369 +9.3% 21 Denver CO $147,173 +9.2% 22 Dallas TX $142,861 +6.0% 23 Baltimore MD $140,706 +4.4% 24 Phoenix AZ $140,314 +4.1% 25 Buffalo NY $140,118 +3.9% 25 Minneapolis MN $140,118 +3.9% 27 Nashville TN $137,766 +2.2% 28 Pittsburgh PA $137,570 +2.0% 29 Tampa FL $137,178 +1.7% 30 Charlotte NC $136,786 +1.5% 31 Columbus OH $136,002 +0.9% 32 Richmond VA $135,218 +0.3% 32 Orlando FL $135,218 +0.3% 32 Indianapolis IN $135,218 +0.3% 32 Madison WI $135,218 +0.3% 36 Raleigh NC $132,867 -1.5% 37 Oklahoma City OK $132,279 -1.9% 38 Fort Worth TX $131,103 -2.8% 39 Salt Lake City UT $130,711 -3.1% 39 Boise ID $130,711 -3.1% 41 Austin TX $130,123 -3.5% 42 Milwaukee WI $128,751 -4.5% 43 Cleveland OH $127,772 -5.2% 44 Knoxville TN $127,184 -5.7% 45 Jacksonville FL $126,400 -6.3% 46 Tucson AZ $125,420 -7.0% 47 Houston TX $125,224 -7.1% 48 Albuquerque NM $123,852 -8.1% 49 San Antonio TX $123,656 -8.3% 50 Cincinnati OH $122,480 -9.2%

The upper end of the ranking is dominated by coastal cities. California alone claims five of the top 10 spots: San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Diego. Seattle ($176,960), Washington, D.C. ($171,081), and Boston ($168,925) also rank among the most expensive cities.

Overall, 35 of the 50 cities have income thresholds above the national figure, partly reflecting the higher living costs found in many of America’s largest metropolitan areas.

Where Happiness Costs the Least in America

Cincinnati has the lowest estimated price of happiness in the ranking at $122,480, or 37.5% less than New York. Put another way, reaching income satiation in New York requires about 1.6 times as much income as it does in Cincinnati.

Texas is the most heavily represented state near the affordable end of the ranking. Austin ($130,123), Houston ($125,224), and San Antonio ($123,656) all place in the bottom 10, alongside Albuquerque, Tucson, and Jacksonville. Dallas is the only Texas city in the upper half, ranking 22nd.

The pattern closely tracks broader cost-of-living differences between U.S. metros, which also shape the income needed to live comfortably in U.S. cities. Where housing and everyday expenses are lower, the estimated income required to reach the plateau falls as well.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Money Can Buy Happiness After All on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 18:50

From Forward Guidance To Market Guidance: Warsh's Reflexive Wrecking Ball?

Authored by Nohshad Shah, Citadel Securities EMEA Head of Fixed Income,

The Fed sounds hawkish... but markets are testing the reaction function

Chair Warsh was unequivocal that there is “no soft inflation target”, that five-plus years of above-target inflation cannot be cured by nine weeks of better data, and that this Fed “will not waver”. Yet despite that language…and three members preferring an immediate hike…the FOMC again declined to move.

Warsh instead repeatedly highlighted the large rise in nominal and real Treasury yields since June, arguing that reduced forward guidance had allowed markets to respond more directly to the data and, in effect, deliver some tightening on the Fed’s behalf. 

But all forms of FCI tightening are not equal…higher front-end yields because the Fed has acted to restrain demand are different from a higher long-end driven by investors demanding greater compensation for inflation, term risk, and uncertainty over the reaction function. 

Warsh also left markets with some uncertainty over how inflation will ultimately be judged. He confirmed that PCE remains the measure attached to the 2% target under the current framework, but left open whether that will remain the case after the strategy review concludes in January, while invoking Goodhart’s Law, the Lucas critique, and a broader (but unspecified) set of inflation measures. Those are legitimate cautions against relying mechanically on a single statistic. 

But investors will still want greater clarity over what the Fed will regard as evidence that inflation has returned to 2%. A fixed numerical target attached to a potentially changing measure risks making the reaction function harder to interpret, particularly while inflation remains materially above target. There may be a strong case for improving the framework, but markets will want reassurance that reform does not amount to changing the measuring stick before success has been achieved.

The initial market response suggests that reassurance has not yet been secured: 30y Treasuries have sold off, breakevens have widened, while equities and the dollar have weakened. Investors may interpret that combination less as a clean tightening in response to stronger growth and more as a challenge to the credibility or clarity of the policy framework. 

It is also an uncomfortable outcome in a market already unsettled by rising oil prices amidst the conflict with Iran and the accelerating unwind in AI momentum. The risk from here is a negative feedback loop: higher long-end yields pressure duration equities; equities fall while bonds fail to hedge; correlated losses force further deleveraging and the resulting tightening in financial conditions gives the Fed another reason to wait…which, in turn, encourages investors to demand still more inflation and term premium. 

This is the reflexivity at the heart of “market guidance”…the Fed holds because markets have tightened, while markets tighten because the Fed has held.

Markets may be able to deliver part of the required tightening, but they will still look to the Fed to anchor the inflation outlook.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 18:30

Darline Graham Stumbles Out Of Gate In Bid For Lindsey's Senate Seat

In recent years, few forces in electoral politics have been as potent as an endorsement from Donald Trump. However, the first polls in the special South Carolina primary race for the Senate seat that was held by the late Lindsey Graham shows his sister Darline is in second place, with half of GOP voters saying her Trump endorsement is irrelevant to them. Graham's campaign faces other headwinds, as many South Carolina Republicans aren't enthusiastic about turning one of their Senate seats into an inheritance for someone with a thin political resume.

After Lindsey Graham suddenly died on July 11, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster appointed Darline Graham to be a placeholder for the remainder of her brother's term that ends in January. It was seen as a sentimental and politically-safe gesture, with no expectation that she would enter the race for the six-year term that starts on July 11. Then Trump issued a Truth social post, encouraging her to run and saying she'd have his full endorsement. Three days later, Graham told Fox's Sean Hannity "I'm in."  

Despite her Trump endorsement, Darline Graham, who's never held an elected office, trails House Rep. Ralph Norman

According to an Emerson College poll of the crowded race, Graham is starting in second place. She has the support of only 19% of likely GOP primary voters, while US Rep. Ralph Norman leads the way at 22%. A 73-year-old with a background as a real estate developer, Norman has represented South Carolina's 5th District since 2017, and served in the state legislature for 11 years before that. Graham has never held an elected office. Until this summer, she was commissioner of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, and earlier held a communications role in the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department. 

Two other candidates are in the double-digits: US Rep Russell Fry at 12% and former governor and former House representative Mark Sanford at 11%.  Fry, who was reportedly hand-picked by Trump to unseat Republican Tom Rice in 2022, as payback for Rice's vote to impeach Trump over the Jan 6, 2021 Capitol Hill riot. A quarter of likely voters are still making up their minds. The primary is just a week away, on Tuesday, Aug 11, and the top five candidates debated on Monday evening. Unsurprisingly given her lack of experience discussing national issues, some observers said Graham seemed to lean heavily on her notes. Then, in a moment of spontaneity, Graham oddly suggested that constant noise from data centers is somehow a uniquely leftist and maybe imaginary concern: 

Darline Graham Nordone’s message to South Carolinians is clear: build more data centers, and if you’re concerned about the constant noise they bring, just get over it. pic.twitter.com/qmJOqBacas

— Kelly McCarty (@KellyLMcCarty) August 4, 2026

With no candidate likely to top 50%, expect a run-off of the top two vote-getters on Aug. 25. Assuming Graham makes it to the run-off, our intuition tells us most of those who'd voted for someone other than Graham in the Aug. 11 primary will migrate to the remaining non-Graham option.  

The race is a test of Trump's endorsement power, and only 29% of those polled by Emerson say Trump's endorsement makes them more likely to support a given candidate. 53% say a Trump endorsement doesn't affect them one way or the other -- but 18% say Trump's endorsement makes them less likely to support the endorsee. Not surprisingly, Graham's greatest strength comes from the oldest voters: 30% of voters over age 70 back her. 

Trump's endorsement has ruffled feathers of Republicans in the Palmetto State, including Dorchester County GOP chair CJ Westfall. Speaking in the context of Trump's endorsee for governor having been clobbered in the June primary, Westfall told CNN: 

"The president continues to get bad advice about South Carolina. We certainly empathize with Darline — and even the president, as Lindsey was a really good friend of his — but he’s certainly getting bad advice. We’ve got a lot more exciting options for this seat. It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

Other members of the GOP machine in South Carolina are likewise irked by Trump's move, with one state legislator calling it a "backroom deal" and another saying "Trump threw us all a curveball with Darline. That wasn’t expected. It wasn’t exactly welcomed here, either."  

Importantly, only 4% of Republican special election voters think their senator should focus on foreign policy. That's not good news for Darline Graham, as her brother was only known for his foreign policy exploits that centered on collaborating with the State of Israel to support US interventions in the Middle East, and partnering with Ukraine in America's proxy war with Russia. Reading the winds, Darline Graham has already made a point to say she wants to focus more on domestic issues like the cost of living.  

Darline Graham says she’ll be more invested in affordability issues than national security:

“Lindsey was more focused on national security. I know that’s important but I’ll probably be more focused on affordability, what matters to families, the struggling families.” pic.twitter.com/txDfpt6zoy

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) August 3, 2026 Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 18:10

Nick Shirley's New Video Dismantles The Left's Narrative On Ceuta's Migrant Crisis

Authored by Aaron Hanscom via PJ Media,

Intrepid investigative journalist Nick Shirley isn't one to shrink from danger. He had to escape from Cuba when spies followed him during his trip to the communist island and was forced to hire 24/7 security after exposing Somali fraud in Minneapolis. In his latest video, Shirley once again finds himself in serious peril when a Muslim man chases him through the streets while wielding a knife and threatening to stab him.

AP Photo/Antonio Sempere

The scene of the pursuit was the Spanish North African enclave of Ceuta, which has made headlines in recent days after 60,000 illegal migrants poured in from Morocco. Shirley traveled to the autonomous city to report on the current state of the crisis, which has become more manageable after most of the migrants returned to Morocco.

While the knife chase - in which the enraged man yells, "I'm going to stab both of you," at Shirley and Javier Mansilla, the Spanish vigilante who accompanies Shirley in the video, as they run down the street - will likely attract the most attention, there are several other revealing moments I want to highlight that go against the left's preferred narrative of what is occurring in Spain right now.

Spaniards feel unsafe

A woman from Ceuta tells Shirley that she "felt threatened" in the immediate days after the border breach. "I couldn't go outside with my baby. We couldn't go outside. I live up high, but my neighbor lives on the ground floor. And they were scared they were going to break into the house," she says.

Mansilla then expresses the anger that so many Spaniards, like the more than 1,000 who protested in Madrid on Sunday, feel about the country's migrant crisis, which has resulted in horrific crimes against women:

I feel very, very angry. I cannot understand how we let our own women live with fear going, running to their homes with the baby. Like "I don't want to stay in the street. I go home. Thank you. Thank you." I'm not going to allow this. Any Spanish guy shouldn't allow this. If we are men, if we are real men, we should do something right now.

Mansilla continues with a warning to all of Europe: "If we don't wake up now, we will fall. For sure. For sure. This is our moment. Wake up, Europe. Wake up."

There is a political party that is talking about the link between insecure borders and crime: the conservative Vox party, led by Santiago Abascal, who traveled to Ceuta on Sunday. He called what happened an "invasion" and said, "The frontiers of Ceuta and Melilla are the walls of our home and homeland, and they are not being protected by a corrupt and traitorous government."

The media portrays Vox and other European parties opposed to illegal immigration as radical or far-right in order to render their ideas unfit for serious debate. In a similar fashion, the media - like Anne Applebaum in her Atlantic piece, "The Far Right Is Distorting Ceuta" - has tried to dismiss the right's concerns over the crisis in Ceuta while criticizing it for labeling the situation an "invasion." That's why the work of independent journalists like Shirley is so important: it helps uncover the true story.

The illegal migrants sure do love Pedro Sanchez

While lefties like Spanish actor Javier Bardem are busy spreading conspiracy theories about Israel being responsible for Spain's border crisis, the migrants whom Shirley interviews are pretty clear about who motivated them to risk death - at least 72 people died while crossing - to come to Spain: Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. Indeed, the most frequently repeated words in the video are "Viva Pedro Sanchez!" or "Long live Pedro Sanchez!" "I love Pedro Sanchez" is also a popular refrain. As I wrote in Elon Musk Was Right: Pedro Sanchez Is a Traitor, "Their gratitude to the Socialist prime minister is due to his mass amnesty plan, which received 1.2 million applications by its June 30, 2026, deadline."

But don't take my word for it. A 17-year-old Moroccan migrant, when asked by Shirley how he expects to leave Ceuta and get to mainland Spain, says matter-of-factly, "Through asylum."

The idea that muslims view Spain as occupied isn't a myth

After another migrant in Shirley's video declares, "This is Morocco," Mansilla explains that Ceuta in fact became part of Spain hundreds of years before Morocco gained its independence in 1956.

Not everyone cares about that fact. As I wrote in a 2007 article for the Strategic Studies Group on the "intifada of Spain's Ceuta":

The autonomous regions of Ceuta and Melilla are seen by Islamists as the opening fronts in their anticipated reconquest of Spain. Last year a North African group calling itself Nadim al-Magrebi warned of a holy war against the infidel Spanish state which has occupied the two cities. Al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman Zawahiri, has called for Islamic land to be reconquered from Al-Andalus to Iraq and compared the Spanish occupation of Ceuta and Melilla to the Russian occupation of Chechnya and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

The irony that Spain, perhaps the most antisemitic country in Europe - or at least the one with the most antisemitic leader - should be so hostile to Israel, which, like Spain, faces claims that its territory is occupied, is obvious. That's why I agree with my colleague Scott Pinsker that mockery of Spain's (and the left's) hypocrisy on this issue is warranted.

The left craves chaos

Shirley asks Mansilla why he thinks Spain's politicians are allowing the border crisis to happen.

If they allow this to become the Third World, they know - people in power - they know they will be able to do whatever they want. They will increase their power because a ruler in the Third World is a real ruler. The thing here is that people in power know that if they become this, the Third World, they will increase their power and their money even more. That's the thing because they can control the society in an easier way. I mean, if, if you keep this full of third-worlders, you can do whatever you want if you are in power.

Vox leader Abascal calls Sanchez, who is mired in corruption scandals, a mafia leader and a traitor. Americans should remember how recently their own country had wide-open borders and a president mired in corruption scandals. Victor Davis Hanson explained on Fox News' Hannity why the Biden administration also craved open-borders chaos:

First of all, they are nihilist; they like the chaos. Second, they feel all these people will come, and they cannot assimilate or culturally integrate. They have no skills or background checks. No health care. And that means they will have enormous demands on the state, with bigger government, more taxes, more redistribution. And of course they are a constituency. They will be dependent on the state, and they are going to vote for a socialist ticket. And that is the subtext of both what is going on in Spain and what is going on over the border. And what the socialists have done here.

President Donald Trump has connected the situation in Ceuta to warnings about what the United States could return to if Democrats regain control of the White House and Congress. We should heed that warning as we watch Nick Shirley's video.

Aaron Hanscom is an editor at PJ Media, where he has worked since 2007. He was also an editor at RealClearPolitics.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 17:50

NY School District Pauses Classroom Humanoid Robot Amid Privacy Concerns

Authored by AG News Staff via American Greatness,

A western New York school district has hit pause on a plan to place a lifelike humanoid robot inside a high school classroom after regulators and community members raised concerns over student data privacy.

Salamanca City Central School District announced July 24 it was suspending a pilot program with robotics company Realbotix that would have brought an artificial intelligence assistant called Optio, paired with a seated, silicone-skinned humanoid robot, into AI and robotics courses this fall. District officials said they must finalize enhanced student data privacy agreements with the New York State Education Department before moving forward, and they are continuing to hear from the community.

The district agreed to pay $57,590 for the Optio platform and one M-Series robot, according to the school board contract, a discount off the robot's $95,000 list price. Had it proceeded, the program would have given roughly 500 high school students access to AI tutoring avatars, while the single physical robot served as a classroom demonstration tool, reportedly programmed with a Western New York accent and instructed to say "I don't know" rather than fabricate answers.

Some media reports have tied Realbotix's corporate parent to Intima LLC, a business in the adult companionship market, a connection the company strongly denies applies to the school project.

"For clarity, some media reports have falsely connected the Salamanca project to an adult product or adult-products business," Realbotix told CyberGuy. "The Salamanca robot is a newly manufactured, purpose-built educational unit; no existing product or hardware is being modified or repurposed for the school." The company added that its education-focused subsidiary "focuses exclusively on non-adult commercial applications" and said the two businesses do not share staff, facilities or technology.

Realbotix has cast the project as a teacher-supervised supplement, not a replacement for instructors. "The program is intended to complement, not replace, teachers by giving students supervised access to emerging AI and robotics tools as part of the district's existing STEM curriculum," the company said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 17:10

AMD Crashes Despite Big Beat, CapEx Almost Triple Expectations

AMD beat on its top- and bottom-line:

• Revenue: $11.54B vs $11.28B expected

• Adjusted EPS: $1.66 vs $1.62 expected

Good news.

With Data center revenue up 107% year over year to  $6.72B, better than the $6.6B expected.

More good news.

As Bloomberg reports, last month, Chief Executive Officer Lisa Su rolled out new products that the company said will outperform offerings from Nvidia, adopting a more aggressive stance in a market it predicts will reach $1.4 trillion by 2030. That further raised already lofty investor expectations.

The chipmaker forecast that third-quarter revenue will be $13 billion, plus or minus $300 million ($12.5 billion consensus).

The outlook boost is good news, but some Wall Street estimates were well north of $13 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Additionally, operating income for the last quarter was only a little better than forecast and clearly traders were hoping for more.

But, AMD shares are down dramatically after-hours, erasing all the day's exuberant gains and then some...

Here's why...

Free cash flow was 20% below forecasts because Q2 Capital Expenditures came in at stunning $808 million, almost triple the $298 million expectation...

It appears the market is unwilling to reward hyperbolic AI spending... without some signs of ROIC (which the revenue forecast did not provide relative to the spend).

This is not great news for AMD’s competitors, like Intel, ARM, and Marvell.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 16:55

SpaceX Slides Despite Big Revenue Beat, Tame CapEx

Ahead of the SpaceX earnings today - its first as a public company - we said that investor focus is increasingly shifting beyond the quarter itself, and while revenue and EBITDA performance will matter, the August 6 lockup expiration appears likely to be the bigger near-term driver, opening the door to the first meaningful wave of insider selling just days after results.

On the call, management is expected to spend considerable time on AI-related initiatives. Investors will be looking for updates on data center buildouts, potential increases to compute targets and any incremental commentary around Grok deployment timelines. Stronger-than-expected AI revenue could represent one of the more credible upside catalysts.

Beyond AI, attention will also center on Starlink and Starship. An updated Starlink subscriber figure could be disclosed, although the market may be hesitant to place significant weight on the metric while the network remains largely supported by V2 Mini satellites. For Starship, investors are likely to focus on execution milestones, launch cadence and any signals around the path toward operational payload launches.

Lastly, positioning remains an important factor. As we warned earlier, and as Musk amplified, there is a huge retail short overhang.

I try to warn them, but they just double down … 🤷‍♂️

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 4, 2026

Hedge funds also screen as notably short, which could amplify upside if AI revenue exceeds expectations or if Starlink economics surprise positively, particularly around ARPU. Even so, the UBS desk believes the lockup expiration is likely to dominate the T+1 reaction and remain the primary stock-specific overhang in the near term.

And with all that in mind, here is what SpaceX reported for its first quarter as a public company, technically the second quarter of 2026:

• Total Revenue $7.8 billion, beating estimate $6.81 billion 
  • AI $2.561BN
  • Space $962MM
  • Connectivity (Starlink) $4.291BN
• Total Operating Loss $143MM, better than the $970MM loss a year ago
  • AI segment operating loss $1.26 billion, beating an estimated loss of $2.39 billion
  • Connectivity operating income $1.656MM, up from $923MM a year ago
  • Space operating loss $205MM, worse than the $93MM a year ago

Out of its three segments, SpaceX’s Connectivity business -- which encompasses its Starlink satellite business -- continues to be the only profitable one of the trio. Space, which covers launch and Starship development, as well as AI are operating at a loss.

Going down the income statement: 

• Total EBITDA $3.538BN, up from 1.214BN a year ago
  • AI EBITDA $1.146 billion,up from a $276MM loss a year ago 
  • Connectivity EBITDA $2.597BN, up from $1.583BN a year ago
  • Space EBITDA ($205MM), worse than the ($93MM) a year ago
• Total CapEx $18.369BN, up huge from the $2.825BN a year ago, but just below the median estimate of $18.58BN
  • AI CapEx $15.828 BN YoY, above est of $13.09BN
  • Space CapEx $1,174MM up from $946MM YoY
  • Connectivity CapEx $1.367BN, up from $1.130BN YoY

Taking a closer look at the last one, capital expenditures jumped to $18.4 billion in the second quarter, from $10.1 billion in the first three months of the year and just $2.8 billion a year earlier. Capex for AI was 86% of the 2Q total and exceeded estimates. SpaceX 2Q AI Segment Capex $15.83B, Est. $13.09B

And visually:

Focusing on the company's Space Segment, it writes that...

Starship V3 development continued to advance towards full and rapid reusability:

• Completed Starship V3’s first suborbital mission in May, Flight 12, which achieved a successful lift off from our new Starbase pad, a precision landing of Starship’s upper stage, and deployment of modified V2 Starlink satellites
• Subsequent to the second quarter, completed Starship Flight 13 in July, which achieved all flight objectives including deploying 20 production V3 satellites, demonstrating in-space relight of a Raptor engine, and executing the softest ever splashdown of Starship, providing critical views of an intact heatshield

Worth noting that Starship continues to add to SpaceX’s expenses. The total costs and expenses for its Space segment, which includes Starship development, were up by $389 million year-over-year, as the company "continued to accelerate R&D investments in our Starship program, which... will reduce the cost to orbit by 99% or more relative to the historical average, and unlock significant revenue potential across all business segments." In other words, Starship development continues to be expensive.

Numbers linked to SpaceX’s AI segment also showed improvement this quarter, mainly thanks to all the deals the company has signed to provide computing power. AI revenue for the second quarter was almost $2.6 billion, up from $737 million this time last year, with most of it coming from AI infrastructure. 

But the wins in the AI business, which include the release of Grok 4.5 in July as well as the computing agreements, also come with huge capital expenditures. AI cap ex is around $15.8 billion, with capex for the whole firm this quarter being about $18.4 billion.

Here are the other highlights from the investor deck:

• Demonstrated the power of extreme vertical integration, delivering revenue growth of 92% year-over-year across Space, Connectivity and AI
• Completed two successful Starship V3 flight tests in the past 90 days, advancing towards full and rapid reusability
• Closed multiple industry-leading Cloud Services Agreements resulting in $14.1 billion of contracted sales
• Announced agreement to acquire Cursor for $60 billion to accelerate the AI enterprise opportunity
• Released our most powerful AI model yet with Grok 4.5 in July
• Delivered 66% revenue and 79% income from operations growth year-over-year for the Connectivity segment, driven by a doubling of Starlink Subscribers and continued momentum in Enterprise & Government
• Awarded over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield

Of the above, the last is perhaps the most notable beause as Bloomberg notes, "In case there was ever doubt, SpaceX’s first shareholder deck as a publicly traded company underscores the value of government contracts: “Awarded over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. Government contracts for Starshield” 

And the visual highlights:

One thing to note here: SpaceX still remains its own biggest customer of its Falcon rockets. Of the 78 launches it performed in the last six months, the majority were spent deploying Starlink satellites.

Some more details:

• SpaceX Ended 2Q With $100B Cash, Cash Equivalents, Securities
• SpaceX Ended 2Q With $47.5B Backlog

The bottom line: revenue (especially at AI where it surged from $737MM to $2.6BN) solid, and CapEx came in just below expectations, so overall a solid quarter. 

The (relatively brief) earnings report also has some CFO commentary. Bret Johnsen writes that the business is scaling across all three segments. He says revenue growth “accelerated across all our business segments” and points to “strong operating leverage,” with margin expansion driven by the new AI computing agreements (the business of renting data center capacity to other tech companies -- Google and Anthropic).

Additionally, the company "ended the second quarter with $100 billion of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, and $47.5 billion in backlog." This financial strength gives SpaceX the "capacity to invest in Starship, Starlink Broadband and Mobile satellites, and our AI platform, while maintaining a disciplined long-term capital allocation framework."

Notably, there was no mention of Tesla or the Terafab in this release, although it is certain that analysts will ask about this on the call.

Also Bloomberg notes that there’s no direction on cap ex and it isn't clear what it would be. However, after the IPO and SpaceX tapping the corporate bond market, the CFO paints a picture of SpaceX being in a strong position to spend.

“This financial strength gives us substantial capacity to invest in Starship, Starlink Broadband and Mobile satellites, and our AI platform, while maintaining a disciplined long-term capital allocation framework.”

Looking ahead, there isn't much (any) information on what comes next, as there does not appear to be a forward outlook section. So no details on projected revenues and costs. We’re also lacking information on what comes next for its business segments.

When will SpaceX launch Starship again on its next test flight? What will the launch schedule look like moving forward? And what  about the timelines for its V3 Starlink satellites and Starmind AI data center satellite system? Perhaps we’ll get some snippets about that during the earnings call.

So what to make of all this? While the quarter was solid, with revenue coming in $1BN above estimates, with capex below the bogey, the fact that the stock ran up aggressively during today's session may have set up the results for failure, and sure enough, after initially spiking higher, shares are off their highs (and lo0ws) and trading is choppy as shares drop more than 1%, erasing all of their previous post-market gains. However, as noted earlier, the stock gained nearly 10% in today’s regular session, its best performance since June. So on net, it is still up modestly on the day.

Investors are also likely gaming out what will be said on the conference call ahead of a Thursday share unlock which could flood the market with as many as 911.5 million additional shares. The options market was also pricing in a roughly 15% move after the results so more volatility may be ahead.

And while it’s not unusual for stocks to fall after a company reports solid earnings (especially its first earnings), Bloomberg notes that it usually follows a period of outperformance for shares. SpaceX is still down solidly from its $135 IPO price and has more downside pressure ahead as share lockups start to expire.

Full investor presentation below (pdf link):

SpaceX Reports Second Quarter 2026 Results by Zerohedge

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 16:39

Reality Denied

Authored by James Thorne via RealClearPolitics.com,

Elon Musk’s recent interview with The Economist underscored a simple but increasingly uncomfortable truth: In today’s political climate, stating the obvious can sound like provocation. The Overton Window, the range of ideas considered acceptable in public debate, has not merely drifted, it has been pulled away from the constraints of reality.

Musk’s real value in this conversation is not that he is always right. It is that he forces a confrontation between reality and rhetoric. And once that confrontation occurs, the limits of the prevailing framework come into view: It can organize language and signal virtue, but it struggles to explain outcomes. The exchange itself illustrated the point.

Rather than fully engaging his arguments, the interviewer at times defaulted to dismissive framing, implying that Musk himself was the issue. It was a familiar substitution: Discredit the speaker, avoid the substance.

Start with basics.

The United States should control its borders. Public safety should be enforced. Governments should operate within fiscal limits. Safe and secure elections are non-negotiable. Public institutions should act responsibly in the interests of their citizens. Industrial and trade policy should strengthen domestic production and deliver clear benefits to American workers.

These are common-sense views held by ordinary citizens, not some extreme ideological position as they are often portrayed.

That is precisely why they are now contested.

Basic logic and common sense are increasingly labeled as “extreme,” often coded as right-wing regardless of their content.

For too long, parts of the progressive left have effectively weaponized the Overton Window to enforce those labels. Questions grounded in observable facts, whether about immigration, crime, fiscal limits, trade, pandemic-era trade-offs, or basic policy outcomes, are too often branded “MAGA,” “far-right,” or a “conspiracy theory,” then brushed aside with confidence instead of answered on the merits.

This mechanism is effective because it shifts the cost of debate. Instead of defending weak outcomes, it raises the social and reputational cost of pointing them out. Dissent is not refuted, it is stigmatized. What was once ordinary becomes controversial. What remains inside the window is treated as settled, regardless of results.

The consequences are increasingly visible. Concerns about migration pressures on housing and public services are waved away as the hollowing out of middle America. Crime is discussed without equal emphasis on enforcement. Fiscal constraints are acknowledged rhetorically but deferred in practice, even as interest costs rise. Industrial policy is justified in expansive terms, but less often judged by whether it delivers measurable, broad-based gains for American workers.

The pattern extends to how arguments are received. When Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton spoke about border security, it was widely viewed as pragmatic. When Donald Trump raised similar concerns, they were often treated as outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. More broadly, the deeper problem is less about any single statement than the tendency of much of the media and the progressive left to protect favored figures from scrutiny while abdicating the traditional role of the fourth estate. That is what Musk attacks head on.

Over time, this weakens the connection between policy and results. When outcomes disappoint, the response is often reinterpretation rather than recalibration. Housing shortages persist, public safety concerns linger, deficits expand – yet the underlying assumptions remain largely intact.

A functioning political system requires more than intention. It requires feedback, accountability, and a willingness to confront inconvenient facts. When common sense is pushed outside the Overton Window, the system loses its capacity for self-correction.

The middle has not become extreme. The definition of “acceptable” has. And when common sense is treated as rebellion, the shift reflects changes in elite discourse, particularly within major media and institutional voices, more than any transformation among the public itself.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 16:20

World's Largest PC Makers Start Using Memory Chips From China's CXMT

It's not just Apple that is scrambling to find cheap memory alternatives to the DRAM offerings from the memory "cartel" of Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron: according to the Nikkei Asia, a trio of the world's leading PC makers - HP, Asus and Acer - have started to use small amounts of chips from China's ChangXin Memory Technologies (better known as the recently IPOed CXMT) amid an unprecedented memory shortage fueled by demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Many major PC makers completed the qualification process for CXMT's DRAM chips around the middle of this year and have started to use a limited amount in their notebook computers, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The amount of CXMT chips used and the number of notebook models utilizing them are very limited as of now, as CXMT is prioritizing a large part of its production capacity for Chinese clients, such as Huawei. The notebook models that use CXMT chips are for sale in non-U.S. markets.

The PC companies are also taking a restrained approach over their use of CXMT chips due to concerns that doing otherwise would anger leading global memory chipmakers Micron, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, two sources said.

"The top three memory chipmakers accounted for more than 90% of global market share," an executive with a PC company with direct knowledge of the matter told Nikkei Asia. "PC companies have to be very careful and stay low-key about [the use of CXMT chips] ... After all, it is a seller's market now. We dare not source too much from CXMT at this moment."

CXMT, moreover, is included on a Pentagon list of companies alleged to have ties to the Chinese military, making sourcing from it potentially sensitive for U.S. companies. The Chinese company has denied the allegations and is not subject to an outright trade blacklist.

Still, the adoption marks a significant win for CXMT, which recently listed on Shanghai's STAR Market and after soaring nearly 8-fold since its IPO last week, boasts a market valuation exceeding that of Intel, America's top microprocessor maker.

"Although PC makers only use very small volumes [of CXMT's DRAM] for budget models, they don't want to neglect a potential important source, particularly when the market is so constrained," one supply chain manager supplying to HP and Asus told Nikkei Asia.

Not everyone is terrified of retaliation by the memory cartel: another industry executive said some PC makers have secured additional supplies of central processing units (CPUs) and are now racing to lock in more memory to match, making them much more open to sourcing from any available supplier, including CXMT. "After all, PC makers still hope to work with all the available sources as the market is very constrained now," the person said.

In response to request for comment, Acer said: "We do not disclose our suppliers, but that we keep in close contact with multiple global manufacturers and suppliers to dynamically adjust operations to manage component prices changes. We work with multiple manufacturers and suppliers to enhance our supply chain resilience."

The PC and smartphone industries have been suffering from shortages of memory chips and CPUs since late last year. Earlier thi year, Nikkei Asia was the first to report that HP, Dell, Asus and Acer were considering using CXMT's DRAM.

PC companies have prioritized chips for premium models and raised overall prices by several hundred dollars to reflect the rising component costs. Smartphone companies like Xiaomi, Oppo, and Vivo, on the other hand, cut their 2026 shipment forecasts several times due to the memory shortages.

The global PC industry is expected to decline more than 11% this year due to the unprecedented memory crunch, with supply conditions worsening toward the end of this year, market research company IDC estimates.

The shortfall in memory chips has turned out to be a golden opportunity for CXMT to tap the global PC supply chain. The Hefei, China-based memory chipmaker listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange's tech-focused STAR Market on July 27 and its share price soared almost 5x on the first day of trading. Its market capitalization reached more than 3.5 trillion yuan ($545 billion) as of Tuesday, topping Intel and starting to approach Micron and SK Hynix.

CXMT estimated in a filing to the Shanghai Stock Exchange that its net profit for the first half of 2026 would reach between 52 billion yuan and 58 billion yuan, up as much as 2,530% from a year earlier. The chipmaker attributed the surge to favorable market conditions and a better pricing environment. CXMT already supplies to almost all the top Chinese tech companies including Tencent, Alibaba Cloud and ByteDance.

"You would think CXMT's price is cheaper than the top three players, which is a wrong assumption. ... Their DRAM is definitely no cheaper than the likes of Samsung," one of the people said. "We also couldn't book supplies from CXMT beyond the current quarter, as so many companies are racing to secure DRAM from it," the person added.

CXMT and domestic peer Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) are undertaking their most aggressive capacity expansion plans at home. CXMT is expanding plants in Shanghai with the aim of having a capacity two to three times larger than its homebase in Hefei, including capacity for building high-bandwidth memory (HBM), a crucial AI component, Nikkei Asia reported earlier.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 15:40