Hey guys, Non here, coffee in hand. Want to hear some interesting stories?
A company in the United States is spending 200 million dollars to build a massive underground data center in the mountains of West Virginia. This is where the story matters, because as climate change makes surface heat more unpredictable, the physical infrastructure of our digital lives is moving into the earth to stay cool. We'll look at why this migration is happening, then move to a humanoid robot that just clocked a 100-meter sprint faster than Usain Bolt. We'll also cover Canada's new trade tariffs, the expansion of Israeli settlements, and the life of Mary de Rachewiltz.
Let's start with that data center.
At the World Humanoid Robot Games in Beijing this past Saturday, a robot developed by the Beijing Innovation Centre of Humanoid Robotics ran the 100-meter dash in 9.39 seconds. To put that in perspective, the human world record for that distance was set by Usain Bolt in 2009, with a time of 9.58 seconds. The robot didn't just edge him out; it beat the fastest human speed ever recorded by nearly a quarter of a second. Other robots were also on the track, including one from the smartphone maker Honor, which clocked 9.32 seconds in a separate test run.
The event is a five-day showcase where more than 300 companies are displaying their latest work in robotics. They aren't just showing off sprinting; they are demonstrating machines that can box, play football, and do domestic chores like folding laundry. The move by the Beijing Innovation Centre is a clear signal of where the engineering focus is landing. They are trying to solve the problem of "general-purpose" movement—the ability for a machine to navigate a human world with the same fluidity we take for granted.
The headline narrative you are seeing on your feeds right now is one of a looming, inevitable takeover. The story being sold is that the era of human physical dominance is over, and we are watching the beginning of the end for human labor and athletic prestige. It paints a picture of a world where robots will soon replace us in every physical sphere, from the stadium to the warehouse. But there is a missing piece in that drama.
A robot running 100 meters in a controlled environment is a feat of high-speed engineering, not a demonstration of versatile utility. In physics, moving a mass forward very quickly is a different problem than moving that mass through a cluttered living room or a dynamic, unpredictable construction site. The incentives for the companies in Beijing are tied to the "humanoid" form factor because it allows them to use existing infrastructure—our stairs, our door handles, and our tool designs. The more important question is the gap between a 9.39-second sprint and a machine that can reliably fold a shirt without tearing it.
We have seen machines do one or the other, but doing both with the same level of competence is the actual hurdle. The robot beat Usain Bolt because it was built for one specific, high-intensity output. Making it work for the other 99 percent of human life is where the real cost and the real engineering struggle remain. We are currently witnessing the mastery of the sprint, but we are still very far from the mastery of the stroll.
We have just seen a robot mimic the explosive, outward-moving energy of a human sprint, but the way we protect our modern world is actually becoming much more about the inward-moving energy of the earth. We are moving from the mastery of the sprint to the mastery of the hide. If you look at the map of how we run a modern economy, almost everything vital is currently sitting on the surface. Our power grids, our internet cables, our data centers—they are all exposed to the weather, to accidents, and increasingly, to deliberate destruction.
The war in Ukraine has made this a visible problem. It has shown that drones and missiles can reach the "soft" targets of a country's infrastructure with relatively little effort. The response from engineers is a return to the most basic form of security: putting things underground. The problem has always been that digging is expensive and difficult.
To do it well, you need machines that can handle what engineers call "brutal materiality." This is where a company called EarthGrid is trying to change the math. In a California quarry this past January, they tested a boring machine that uses three plasma torches to create a stream of super-heated plasma reaching 27,000 degrees Celsius. That is significantly hotter than the surface of the sun. It creates a violent vortex inside the tunnel to suck away debris that sometimes turns into literal lava as it is melted.
They managed to chew through three meters of white granite. The goal here isn't just to make a hole; it is to make a hole faster and cheaper than the current standard. If they can deploy this commercially next year, it changes the cost-benefit analysis for moving things like natural gas pipelines, ammonia transport, or even underground freight systems for airports to get trucks off the roads. You might be right to wonder why we haven't just done this already.
If the tech exists, why is our power grid still so vulnerable? The answer is usually found in the invoice. Historically, it is often cheaper to repair a pylon that gets hit than it is to bury a cable that might never be damaged. It is a "reactive" economy.
We pay for the failure because the upfront cost of the prevention is too high for the average municipality or utility company to swallow. But as the cost of those failures—in terms of lost electricity, destroyed data, or physical safety—goes up, the "preventative" cost starts to look like a bargain. There is another side to this that isn't about new machines, but about using what is already there. In the Italian region of Trentino, a company called Trentino DataMine is using naturally cool space in caverns 100 meters underground.
They are using 90 million cubic meters of dolomite rock. This isn't just about hiding from drones; it is about the physics of cooling. Keeping servers cool is one of the biggest electricity drains for the internet. By using the earth as a heat sink, they get natural protection against electromagnetic interference and seismic events while cutting their cooling bill.
We see this same logic on the ocean floor. TeleGeography, a telecoms market research firm, reports that submarine cables—the literal backbone of the global internet—are being buried up to three meters deep in fault-prone areas. The result is measurable. When cables are buried rather than just laid on the seabed, the number of faults per kilometer of deployed cable drops significantly.
The more important question is whether we are moving toward a "subterranean" era of civilization. It is a move from the visible to the invisible. We are trading the ease of surface access for the security of geological permanence. For a lot of us, this won't change our daily lives, but it will change the resilience of the lights that stay on and the data that keeps moving when the surface world gets messy.
Whether it is a plasma torch in a California quarry or a cave in Italy, the goal is the same: using the most stubborn materials on earth to protect the most fragile things we have built.
We are moving from the physical engineering of protecting our technology to the economic engineering of a trade war that threatens to dismantle the very systems our electronics depend on. While a bunker in Italy protects a server from a physical threat, a tariff is a different kind of wall, designed to make the cost of doing business across a border too high to bear. Canada is about to face a very real version of those walls. On Saturday, a wave of new US tariffs took effect after trade negotiations between Ottawa and Washington collapsed at the last minute.
The two countries had been trying to reach a deal since July to avoid a 50% levy that President Donald Trump threatened to place on nearly 20 billion dollars worth of Canadian imports. They were reportedly close to a compromise: the US would drop its tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium from 50% to 25%, and cut auto tariffs from 25% to 15%. In return, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wanted Canadian provinces to allow American alcohol back onto store shelves. But the deal fell apart on Friday night.
Carney pulled his negotiators out of the room, calling the final US demands unfair and uneconomic. To respond, he announced that Canada will now impose its own reciprocal tariffs on American goods, dollar for dollar. To put it simply, this is a game of "tit for tat" on a massive scale. When one country puts a tax on a product, it makes that product more expensive for the people buying it in the first country.
When the other country does the same back, it tries to hurt the first country's economy in retaliation. It is a cycle designed to create enough pain that one side eventually gives in. The problem is that for a small Canadian exporter, this isn't a high-level strategy; it is a payroll crisis. The new 50% US tariffs hit about 5% of Canadian exports, including wine, dairy, cement, and even hockey equipment.
For a business operating on thin margins, that 50% jump is the difference between keeping a warehouse open or letting it go dark. Someone will say that Canada is being stubborn and that they should have just accepted the US terms to keep the peace. There is a real case that being the bigger person is better for the economy. But the trade relationship is so deeply integrated that Canada sends 70% of its exports south.
If the terms are truly uneconomic, accepting them might just mean a slow, managed decline for Canadian industries rather than a sharp, painful break. Right now, the gap is between the political theater of a "dollar for dollar" retaliation and the actual price of a carton of milk or a piece of lumber. The question is whether a country can survive a trade war when its neighbors are its biggest customers.
When we talk about trade wars and tariffs, we are looking at the way countries use economic friction to draw borders and define who gets to participate in a market. Now, we shift from the movement of goods to the movement of land, specifically how a government uses construction to define who gets to live in a territory. According to Al Jazeera, the Israeli government has opened construction bids for 1,200 new housing units in the occupied West Bank. These units are considered illegal under international law, which generally prohibits a power from transferring its civilian population into territory it occupies during a conflict.
The current government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is fast-tracking these projects as the country approaches elections in just a few months. To understand why this happens, you have to look at the physical layout of the land. The goal of this specific policy is to create a permanent presence that makes it physically impossible to form a contiguous Palestinian state. By placing housing in strategic gaps, the government ensures that any future Palestinian territory would be fragmented into small, disconnected pockets.
It is a move of architecture as much as it is of policy. The government isn't just building homes; it is installing permanent obstacles to prevent a neighbor from ever having a unified map. You might argue that a sovereign nation has the right to develop its own land and that the "illegal" label is just a political tool used by those who don't want to see Israel expand. There is a real case that if the international community actually enforced the laws they cite, they would have to do so against a major military power that has occupied the land for decades.
But the reality is that the move is designed to be irreversible. Once a house is built and a family moves in, it becomes much harder for any international body to order it dismantled. While several Western countries have threatened sanctions to stop the expansion, particularly at a site known as E1, the history of these projects suggests that a few threats of economic penalty rarely stop the physical reality of pouring concrete.
Before the last story: if you are getting something out of this, subscribe. The World in Twenty Minutes is on Spotify, on Apple Podcasts, on iHeartRadio, and anywhere else you already listen. It is free, it lands every morning, and subscribing is the whole reason it keeps finding people.
We have just looked at how the physical reality of pouring concrete in the West Bank can override the threat of economic sanctions. That is a story about the persistence of physical action over the abstraction of policy. Now, we move from the geography of borders to the geography of a life. According to The Economist, Mary de Rachewiltz, who devoted her life to defending Ezra Pound, has died.
The poet and translator of The Cantos died on July 24th, aged 101. That is the entirety of the information I have. I do not have a biography, a list of her achievements, or a description of her character. I only have these two sentences.
In a world that demands a constant stream of data, there is something striking about a life defined by a single, sustained devotion. To devote a life to defending someone is a specific kind of labor. It is a refusal to let a person be erased, even when the world provides every reason to do so. It suggests a belief that the value of an individual—or the work they did—is not something that can be settled by a court, a headline, or a consensus.
Someone might say that such a devotion is just a refusal to see the truth of a person's actions. But the more important question is what it takes to stay in the ring for eighty years for the sake of another person's name. It is a reminder that while institutions build walls and pour concrete, individuals build something else: a quiet, stubborn infrastructure of loyalty. It is a long way to go for one person.
Thanks for listening.