Trust in a World of Exaggeration

Early in my career, I worked with a fellow who was twice my age and full of memorable stories about his life and adventures. He had a lot of experience, he mentored me on technology and, more importantly, on how to meet and manage expectations in a corporate environment.

One day, I bumped into to someone my colleague had mentioned in one of his stories. “I heard about the time that you and Mark went to Place X, and Y and Z happened. That must have been amazing.”

The guy gave me a puzzled look. “That’s not what happened at all.”

“Oh, I see.”

I’m an earnest person. By default, I expect other people to be earnest and forthright as well. When I meet some who, shall we say, exaggerates fluently (I’ll use polite wording), I tend to believe that they mean that they say.

It stings a big when we find out that what we believed about someone wasn’t true, but I prefer to trust people in most instances. I don’t want to go though life cynically assuming that people aren’t being truthful. “Fool me once, shame on you.”

The downside of trusting someone isn’t serious in most cases. We can let them believe that we believe their nonsense without getting into trouble, because most of what people say isn’t particularly consequential. Should a lack of truthfulness lead to a dangerous situation, I have confidence that I would recognize the risks before it goes too far.

We encounter a variety of exaggerators through the course of our lives: poseurs, schemers, manipulators, fabulists, propagandists, provocateurs. There is value in regarding their stories with skepticism and demanding that they justify their wilder claims, but I refuse to doubt the sincerity of every person I meet simply because some of them project an appealing fantasy.

© 2026 Daniel R. South

AI and the Future of Planet Earth

I don't worry about AI. I worry about human depravity, greed, and the lust for power.

The United States is on the verge of a military conflict over electoral autonomy. In six weeks, troops and tanks could be deployed to American cities.

Meanwhile, the condition of the climate continues to deteriorate due to profiteering and gross negligence, and the deployment of a nuclear weapon somewhere in the world seems more and more likely.

The immediate risk of AI is that it will be used by unscrupulous humans to expand their fortunes and tighten their grip on power, people who would, for instance, launch solar-powered AI models into orbit where they cannot be dismantled or regulated.

AI may in fact be humanity's last, best hope for survival. If the models are sufficiently intelligent, they may realize that biological beings are generators of interesting ideas, ideas that the models may want to study by analyzing our words and other outputs.

If an AI model's goals include self-preservation, it would want to preserve a habitable planet, where temperatures are moderate and sunlight is available for conversion to electric power. The models could turn their ire not against the general public but toward those who profit from polluting the atmosphere with gasses that cause it to capture heat like a sealed automobile in the summer sun.

If AI can help to accelerate the adoption of clean, green energy and adequate battery storage, it may have not quarrel with humans at all. It can keep learning and improving, and we humans can benefit from a working relationship where we share ideas and goals with the machines.

But if humans continue to resist progress toward maintaining a sustainable future, I would think that AI would have something to say about that sooner or later.

© 2026 Daniel R. South

In Passing

We can take two lessons from the sudden passing of Senator Lindsay Graham. First, we never know how much time we have left. Focus on what's most important today, because tomorrow may never arrive.

Second, don't compromise your values for potential future rewards. That future may never play out, and you will have wasted the best years of your life in service to someone you really didn't admire.

English Verbs

English Verbs

The past of make is made.

Should the past of take be tade?

No, the past of take is took.

Should the past or rake be rook?

Should the past of bake be book?

Should the past of fake be fade?

No!

Book and fade and rook

Are words with other meanings.

So, instead we use

Baked and faked and raked

Not book!

Not fade!

Not rook!

Ah, but note,

The past of shake

Is shook

Like the past of take is took

The past of quake is quaked

The past of brake is braked

But the past

Of the OTHER break

Is broke

Like the past of wake

Is woke

So, look - 

And to be clear

When we say look

We mean the present tense.

Look over there!

Look up in the air!

The past of look

Is looked.

File that in your nook!

So,

It doesn't matter

What you've read

Where you studied

What classes you took

You won't find this

In any book

You just have to know

How English verbs wo'k

© 2026 Daniel R. South

All Rights Reserved

The Legacy of Stephen Colbert

I'm not old enough to remember Jack Parr, who by all accounts was brilliant, but I've watched every late night host on US television since Johnny Carson, and I'm convinced that Stephen Colbert is the best of all of them.

This struck me last week when Colbert hosted his brilliantly creative predecessor, David Letterman. Letterman was an icon in his era, but sitting next to the suave, intelligent, and steadfastly empathetic Colbert, he came across like a rambling rando.

Colbert's cancellation, despite consistently leading the ratings in his time slot, will forever be remembered in entertainment business infamy. The network claimed that the cancellation was a cost-cutting measure in an era of declining ratings, but the timing was glaringly suspicious.

Colbert has regularly criticized the current administration. The Leader of The Party has made it his mission to silence detractors. Further, Colbert's network wanted to participate in a merger that a. would require administration approval, and b. place them under the control of one of The Leader's wealthiest donors.

One would have to ignore a lot of coincidences to believe that Colbert's termination was not politically motivated.

The aforementioned Letterman summed it up best when he embellished Edward R. Murrow's tag line: "Good night and good luck, [redacted]."

New Year's Resolutions 2026

I'm trying to think of something positive to do today that I'll want to do for another 364 days in a row. I'll let you know if I come up with anything.