Rather, everyone, including Kalshi, knows it when they see it.

Part of the problem is that in the past, Kalshi has sort of advertised this as a way to bet or gamble across all 50 states legally.

You know, Kelsey's argument, though, however, is that the regulation should follow the instrument, not necessarily the underlying risk.

And so the underlying risk may be the same, but when you have an event contract, you know, you have an exchange that essentially offers it, and then you have two sides that are trading, that are counterparties to each other.

The exchange makes money, you know, regardless of the trade, just like in a normal financial situation.

contract.

Whereas when you have a traditional sports book, you have a bookie and they're selling directly to the consumer.

Why? It's

Talk about him and what drew him to, to, to doing this route.

He's a fantastic guy.

His name is Karl-Heinz Martens.

He's now in his 80s.

And you never would have guessed that Karl would sign up for this route so many years ago.

Um, when he, he moved to Eutin because of a- A woman.

They were married and it didn't work out.

... forests?

What does this say about how the Supreme Court views the Federal Reserve versus other government agencies?

Yeah, this is a very good point, because the other opinion, one of the other opinions that they issued but simultaneously with the Cook decision, was the Rebecca Slaughter opinion.

She was an FTC commissioner.

As you recall, President Trump fired multiple commissioners from independent agencies who were appointed by Democrats, uh, for the most part.

Um, she, uh, challenged that, as did many other commissioners, and, um, the Supreme Court early on sort of hinted that, um, the, the president would be able to fire these other commissioners of independent agencies, but the Federal Reserve is different.

And we saw that very clearly today, because the pre- uh, the Supreme Court said that the president could indeed fire Rebecca Slaughter and other independent commissioners.

I haven't read that opinion either, but presumably they, uh, overruled, uh, the Humphrey's Executor decision from 90 years ago, which established that the for-cause removal restriction was constitutional for independent agencies.

Is, how much of this is a surprise? What, what surprises you about this string of decisions?

What does this say about how the Supreme Court views the Federal Reserve versus other government agencies?

Yeah, this is a very good point, because the other opinion, one of the other opinions that they issued but simultaneously with the Cook decision, was the Rebecca Slaughter opinion.

She was an FTC commissioner.

As you recall, President Trump fired multiple commissioners from independent agencies who were appointed by Democrats, uh, for the most part.

Um, she, uh, challenged that, as did many other commissioners, and, um, the Supreme Court early on sort of hinted that, um, the, the president would be able to fire these other commissioners of independent agencies, but the Federal Reserve is different.

And we saw that very clearly today, because the pre- or the Supreme Court said that the president could indeed fire Rebecca Slaughter and other independent commissioners.

I haven't read that opinion either, but presumably they, uh, overruled, uh, the Humphrey's Executor decision from 90 years ago, which established that the for cause removal restriction was constitutional for independent agencies.

Is, how much of this is a surprise? What, what surprises you about this string of decisions?

OK, what does this say about how the Supreme Court views the Federal Reserve versus other government agencies?

Yeah, this is a very good point because the other opinion, one of the other opinions that they issued, but simultaneously with the Cook decision, was the Rebecca Slaughter opinion.

She was an FTC commissioner.

As you recall, President Trump fired multiple commissioners from independent agencies who were appointed by Democrats for the most part.

She challenged that, as did many other commissioners.

And the Supreme Court early on sort of hinted that the president would be able to fire these other commissioners of independent agencies.

But the Federal Reserve is different.

How much of this is a surprise? What surprises you about this string of decisions?

OK, what does this say about how the Supreme Court views the Federal Reserve versus other government agencies?

Yeah, this is a very good point because the other opinion, one of the other opinions that they issued, but simultaneously with the Cook decision, was the Rebecca Slaughter opinion.

She was an FTC commissioner.

As you recall, President Trump fired multiple commissioners from independent agencies who were appointed by Democrats for the most part.

She challenged that, as did many other commissioners, and the Supreme Court early on sort of hinted that the president would be able to fire these other commissioners of independent agencies, but the Federal Reserve is different, and we saw that very clearly today because the Supreme Court said, that the president could indeed fire Rebecca Slaughter and other independent commissioners.

I haven't read that opinion either, but presumably they overruled the Humphreys executive decision from 90 years ago, which established that the four-cause removal restriction was constitutional for independent agencies.

I suspect now they're going to say it's unconstitutional.

How much of this is a surprise? What surprises you about this string of decisions?

What does this say about how the Supreme Court views the Federal Reserve versus other government agencies?

Yeah, this is a very good point, because the other opinion, one of the other opinions that they issued but simultaneously with the Cook decision, was the Rebecca Slaughter opinion.

She was an FTC commissioner.

As you would call, President Trump fired multiple commissioners from independent agencies who were appointed by Democrats, uh, for the most part.

Um, she, uh, challenged that, as did many other commissioners, and, um, the Supreme Court early on sort of hinted that, um, the, the president would be able to fire these other commissioners of independent agencies, but the Federal Reserve is different, and we saw that very clearly today, because the pre-, uh, the Supreme Court said that the president could indeed fire Rebecca Slaughter and other independent commissioners.

I haven't read that opinion either, but presumably they, uh, overruled, uh, the Humphrey's Executor decision from 90 years ago, which established that the for cause removal restriction was constitutional for independent agencies.

I suspect now they're gonna say it's unconstitutional.

Is, how much of this is a surprise? What, what surprises you about this string of decisions?

Elliot, what do you make of Pirro's abrupt reversal? Is it due to the lack of evidence or pressure to clear the way for Warsh's confirmation?

Probably a, a combination.

I mean, you know, the whole point of Judge Boasberg's opinion quashing the subpoenas was that, you know, there's very little evidence of a crime versus a lot of evidence that this is all a pretext to go after Powell for not lowering interest rates.

But then you also have this whole Senator Tillis dynamic, and he has been very forceful in saying that he's not going to allow Warsh to be confirmed until the investigation is wrapped up.

And, you know, they're coming up on a May fifteenth deadline, which is when Chair Powell's term ends as Federal Reserve chair.

And so I, I think they wanna move things along.

They wanna get Warsh in there, and this is sort of the quickest path to doing that.

What also strikes me about this is that Pirro dropped the investigation by social media post, but she held a press conference to announce that Judge Boasberg had quashed the subpoenas, a loss many people would not wanna broadcast.

Which side is winning more of the lower court battles?

Like you said, we have multiple decisions now at the trial court level.

It's funny, the first decisions came almost exactly a year ago in April of twenty twenty-five with respect to these sports event contracts, and Kalshi won those.

They won a preliminary injunction in Nevada.

They won a preliminary injunction in New Jersey.

And so, you know, they sort of came out of the gate winning.

Then shortly thereafter, in August, I believe, a federal court in Maryland ruled against Kalshi and ruled in the state's favor.

So has the CFTC been regulating any of these prediction markets? Have they done anything?

And the story of how these mirrors came to beSeems to be a little bit murky, right? How did this tradition come into this one community? What's the story there?

Aranmula is the name of the town, and it is this sort of 2,000-person sleepy pilgrimage town in the southwestern state of Kerala.

[instrumental music] And the legend has it that long, long ago, the village is, is built around this temple, this kind of thousand-year-old temple.

And a long, long time ago, royalty invited this group of Tamil artisans to set up shop nearby and help build the temple.

And this is where it gets murky and funny, but one rumor says that one of the, I think it's one of the wives of the artisans, the formula for this mirror came to her in a dream, and that's how it was created.

In another kind of legend, it's said that one of these artists was, was working on something for the temple and kind of inadvertently stumbled on this formula.

But one way or another, it's believed that Tamil artisans created this formula that has created a perfect mirror image of ourselves ever since they've lived here.

What does the Aranmula Kannadi represent in the community where it is made?

And you find and deliver to the reader a night watchman still at it.

His name is Roland Borg, and he is, by all intents and purposes, the world's last night watchman.

When most listeners today hear the term night watchman, you're really thinking about this kind of medieval term.

In medieval ages, when people effectively moved away from tiny shires and fiefdoms to towns and settled there to sell crops, night watchmen became incredibly important because you had, in addition to disease and crimes, the most dangerous thing during this time were fires.

And people forget...

in an age with thermostats and brick homes, once upon a time, you needed a fire for everything, for light, for heat.

And with wood-built structures, these things could quickly engulf not just your home, but an entire village and town.

How did this start?