The Doomsday Clock just moved — and we're closer than ever

The Doomsday Clock just moved — and we're closer than ever At the end of January 2026, the Doomsday Clock was set to 85 seconds to midnight — the closest it has ever been since its creation. The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic timepiece maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1947. It represents how close humanity is to self-annihilation, with midnight symbolizing global catastrophe. The key risks driving us to 1 minute and 25 seconds from the end of the world, according to the Bulletin, are: 1-Nuclear weapons threats 2-Disruptive technologies, including AI 3-Biological security concerns 4-Climate change On a lighter note — and this is genuinely worth a smile — for something published by a board of scientists and Nobel laureates, the methodology behind the clock is remarkably loose. There is no defined formula, no scoring rubric, no aggregation model. It is, at its core, a group of very smart people agreeing on a number that feels right. The scientific method apparently took the day off when this one was designed. Jokes aside, you can think of it as a sentiment index on existential risk — a rough but informed read on how the world's brightest minds perceive the state of things. And right now, they are not feeling optimistic. Worth noting: all of this was set before the war that just started. So here's a question worth sitting with for a moment: how much time would you give us as a species before Doomsday? https://thebulletin.org/2026/01/press-release-it-is-85-seconds-to-midnight/

- Pedro

Read on Substack

Strategy vs Tactics a couple of key concepts often misunderstood

Strategy vs Tactics a couple of key concepts often misunderstood based on → On War: With Illustrations and Commentary by Andrew Kelly by Carl Von Clausewitz 1- “The conduct of War is, therefore, the formation and conduct of the fighting. If this fighting was a single act, there would be no necessity for any further subdivision, but the fight is composed of a greater or less number of single acts, complete in themselves, which we call combats, as we have shown in the first chapter of the first book, and which form new units. From this arises the totally different activities, that of the FORMATION and CONDUCT of these single combats in themselves, and the COMBINATION of them with one another, with a view to the ultimate object of the War. The first is called TACTICS, the other STRATEGY.” (“On War: With Illustrations and Commentary by Andrew Kelly (English Edition)” de “Carl Von Clausewitz, Andrew Kelly”). 2- “According to our classification, therefore, tactics IS THE THEORY OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCES IN COMBAT. Strategy IS THE THEORY OF THE USE OF COMBATS FOR THE OBJECT OF THE WAR.” (“On War: With Illustrations and Commentary by Andrew Kelly (English Edition)” de “Carl Von Clausewitz, Andrew Kelly”). 3- “By the strategic plan is settled WHEN, WHERE, and WITH WHAT FORCES a battle is to be delivered—and to carry that into execution the march is the only means.” (“On War: With Illustrations and Commentary by Andrew Kelly (English Edition)” de “Carl Von Clausewitz, Andrew Kelly”).

- Pedro

Read on Substack

Five KPIs to Understand the World

Five KPIs to Understand the World A great, simple article included in The World Ahead 2026 by The Economist, where for each country in the world it provides a snapshot with the following information: 1-GDP growth 2-GDP per person (also with PPP, US=100) 3-Inflation 4-Budget balance (as a % of GDP) 5-Population 6-For some countries, additional context is provided It is amazing how such simple KPIs can help you make an initial assessment of the world today. Although it was something I was already aware of, it was startling to see the population numbers and the relative levels of wealth in Asia-Pacific and MEA. With Europe, it was also a good reminder that GDP per person can be significantly diluted when taking into consideration the Purchasing Power Parity normalisation factors. An article and tool I will keep handy, as it provides significant value and allows us to put so much into perspective. A article/tool i will keep handy as it provides significant value and allow us to put so much into perspective. The world in numbers: Countries https://www.economist.com/interactive/twa-country-reports From The Economist

- Pedro

Read on Substack

Books to Understand the Men and Context That Created America's Institutions and Its Checks and Balances

Books to Understand the Men and Context That Created America's Institutions and Its Checks and Balances Recommended by The Economist, plus one of my own additions: 1-Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation — Joseph J. Ellis (Knopf) 2-The Radicalism of the American Revolution — Gordon S. Wood 3-The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams — Stacy Schiff (Little, Brown) 4-John Adams — David McCullough (Simon & Schuster) 5-A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign — Edward J. Larson 6-The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family — Annette Gordon-Reed (W. W. Norton) All six are on my wish list. And I would add one classic of my own: 7-Democracy in America — Alexis de Tocqueville Seven books to understand the Founding Fathers. https://www.economist.com/culture/2026/01/06/six-books-to-understand-the-founding-fathers From The Economist

- Pedro

Read on Substack

The Cost of Short-Term Thinking

The Cost of Short-Term Thinking Just read this quote on a Russ Roberts Substack article citing Bastiat (french economist from the XIX),that, as most of his work, I really liked — it made me think, and I could not agree more. "...In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them. There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil. …" Frederic Bastiat — French economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat

- Pedro

Read on Substack