Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Andy Jassy explains why Amazon is willing to look inefficient for years: Cramer: "You spend $200 billion and you actually believe it is going to pay off." Jassy's answer is the part most operators miss. AI is not being treated like a normal product cycle. He compares it to...

aerockrose's profile picture

andrew engler

2,528 subscribers

47,581 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

This is why Amazon is spending $200 billion. Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon, says AI is the biggest technology transformation of our lifetimes. It will reinvent every customer experience we know and create entirely new ones we never imagined. His proof? After 3 years, AI is already running at $15B, which is 260x what AWS was doing at the same point. AWS built one of the most valuable businesses in history. AI is moving faster. Watch his CNBC interview with Cramer.
0:38

This is why Amazon is spending $200 billion. Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon, says AI is the biggest technology transformation of our lifetimes. It will reinvent every customer experience we know and create entirely new ones we never imagined. His proof? After 3 years, AI is already running at $15B, which is 260x what AWS was doing at the same point. AWS built one of the most valuable businesses in history. AI is moving faster. Watch his CNBC interview with Cramer.

Lark Davis

27,192 views • 3 months ago

Bill Ackman said one of the biggest edges in investing is being willing to underwrite a business 3-5 years out which is why he owns $AMZN, $META & $GOOGL. Volatility is the price you pay for long-term compounding when the market gives you the chance to buy value at a discount.
0:47

Bill Ackman said one of the biggest edges in investing is being willing to underwrite a business 3-5 years out which is why he owns $AMZN, $META & $GOOGL. Volatility is the price you pay for long-term compounding when the market gives you the chance to buy value at a discount.

Shay Boloor

599,479 views • 4 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg just quietly executed the marketing profession. He didn’t announce it. He described it. Zuckerberg: “The AI is actually probably going to be able to find who is going to be interested in your product better than you can.” He is not pitching a better ad tool. He is telling you that your intuition about your own customer is now inferior to his algorithm. For twenty years, the internet was built on demographics. Age. Location. Income. Founders built careers defending customer personas in boardrooms. Zuckerberg is telling you to burn them. Zuckerberg: “Don’t constrain who we’re going to reach.” When you tell the system who to target, you are not helping it. You are crippling it. Every audience filter a marketer applies is a ceiling disguised as a strategy. Human targeting is no longer a competitive advantage. It is a tax. And the takeover does not stop at the audience. It swallows the creative itself. Zuckerberg: “We’re going to be able to come up with like 4,000 different versions of your creative and just test them and figure out which one works best.” No agency on Earth can test four thousand variations in real time. The machine does not have taste. It has math. And math does not lose to intuition at scale. For a generation, distribution was the skill. When every company on Earth plugs into the same omniscient ad engine, distribution stops being a weapon. It becomes infrastructure. Like bandwidth. Like cloud compute. Nobody wins because they have better access to AWS. Soon, nobody will win because they have a better media buyer. Which leaves exactly one variable on the board. Zuckerberg: “You just focus on building the best product.” For a decade, mediocre products survived on superior distribution. Bad products with great funnels printed money. That arbitrage is dead. When distribution becomes a utility, the product has nowhere left to hide. Marketing was the mask. Zuckerberg just pulled it off. Most companies are about to find out they never had a product. They had a campaign.
1:25

Mark Zuckerberg just quietly executed the marketing profession. He didn’t announce it. He described it. Zuckerberg: “The AI is actually probably going to be able to find who is going to be interested in your product better than you can.” He is not pitching a better ad tool. He is telling you that your intuition about your own customer is now inferior to his algorithm. For twenty years, the internet was built on demographics. Age. Location. Income. Founders built careers defending customer personas in boardrooms. Zuckerberg is telling you to burn them. Zuckerberg: “Don’t constrain who we’re going to reach.” When you tell the system who to target, you are not helping it. You are crippling it. Every audience filter a marketer applies is a ceiling disguised as a strategy. Human targeting is no longer a competitive advantage. It is a tax. And the takeover does not stop at the audience. It swallows the creative itself. Zuckerberg: “We’re going to be able to come up with like 4,000 different versions of your creative and just test them and figure out which one works best.” No agency on Earth can test four thousand variations in real time. The machine does not have taste. It has math. And math does not lose to intuition at scale. For a generation, distribution was the skill. When every company on Earth plugs into the same omniscient ad engine, distribution stops being a weapon. It becomes infrastructure. Like bandwidth. Like cloud compute. Nobody wins because they have better access to AWS. Soon, nobody will win because they have a better media buyer. Which leaves exactly one variable on the board. Zuckerberg: “You just focus on building the best product.” For a decade, mediocre products survived on superior distribution. Bad products with great funnels printed money. That arbitrage is dead. When distribution becomes a utility, the product has nowhere left to hide. Marketing was the mask. Zuckerberg just pulled it off. Most companies are about to find out they never had a product. They had a campaign.

Dustin

139,573 views • 4 months ago

$AMZN is up more than 15% after AWS delivered its fastest revenue growth in 18 quarters while operating margins expanded to 39% despite record AI infrastructure spending. AWS added more than $4.6B in quarterly revenue which was around 80% above its previous record and pushed the business toward a $170B annual run rate with a Rule-of-40 score of 76. This is the clearest evidence yet that AI infrastructure can generate attractive profits while scaling and shifts the hyperscaler debate from who spends the most to who spends it best. This is exactly why Amazon is a top 3 position in my Family Portfolio.
0:49

$AMZN is up more than 15% after AWS delivered its fastest revenue growth in 18 quarters while operating margins expanded to 39% despite record AI infrastructure spending. AWS added more than $4.6B in quarterly revenue which was around 80% above its previous record and pushed the business toward a $170B annual run rate with a Rule-of-40 score of 76. This is the clearest evidence yet that AI infrastructure can generate attractive profits while scaling and shifts the hyperscaler debate from who spends the most to who spends it best. This is exactly why Amazon is a top 3 position in my Family Portfolio.

Shay Boloor

229,970 views • 1 month ago

Good Alexander explains why he thinks OpenAI is today's Amazon “Everyone was in Amazon because of AWS and they all marked the retail business at zero” “That business they thought was worth zero a decade ago is actually this money printing machine because it has an advertising engine. As of Q1 2026 it's a $69B a year run rate advertising business” “OpenAI has three times the number of users as Amazon” “Currently the market narrative and the market consensus is that Sam Altman's an idiot because he has 900 million DAUs and he's losing money on the DAUs” “It's literally the exact same thing that caused everyone to be sidelined in Amazon for like a solid 10 year run. They didn't understand that it's really hard to get 900M users and appealing to normies is not easy”
1:17

Good Alexander explains why he thinks OpenAI is today's Amazon “Everyone was in Amazon because of AWS and they all marked the retail business at zero” “That business they thought was worth zero a decade ago is actually this money printing machine because it has an advertising engine. As of Q1 2026 it's a $69B a year run rate advertising business” “OpenAI has three times the number of users as Amazon” “Currently the market narrative and the market consensus is that Sam Altman's an idiot because he has 900 million DAUs and he's losing money on the DAUs” “It's literally the exact same thing that caused everyone to be sidelined in Amazon for like a solid 10 year run. They didn't understand that it's really hard to get 900M users and appealing to normies is not easy”

Jack

24,053 views • 2 months ago

“The Macrohard project probably be our most important project because what we're talking about is emulation of entire human companies. So when you look at the most valuable companies in the world, they are... their output is digital. So they don't actually make hardware. So it should be possible to completely emulate any company where the output is digital. And this will usher in an age of prosperity the likes of which we can barely imagine at this point. You need to imagine to imagine it. So this is a big deal, and this is why the words Macrohard are painted on the roof of the training cluster because that's what it's going to build.”
0:53

“The Macrohard project probably be our most important project because what we're talking about is emulation of entire human companies. So when you look at the most valuable companies in the world, they are... their output is digital. So they don't actually make hardware. So it should be possible to completely emulate any company where the output is digital. And this will usher in an age of prosperity the likes of which we can barely imagine at this point. You need to imagine to imagine it. So this is a big deal, and this is why the words Macrohard are painted on the roof of the training cluster because that's what it's going to build.”

Dima Zeniuk

41,511 views • 5 months ago

Almost 20 years later, AWS is still the most popular cloud in the world. The reason is simple: it just works! They have four services focused on Generative AI: 1. Amazon Q 2. Amazon Bedrock 3. SageMaker JumpStart 4. PartyRock I've been using AWS for around 15 years (honestly, I don't remember well), and their Developer Center is a gold mine. If you open their Developer Center, you'll find a new learning path, "Generative AI for Developers." I'm linking to it below. This is not just a course. This is a collection of courses, examples, videos, tutorials, and code walkthroughs. They will teach you how to use Generative AI on AWS using the four services above. ↑ That right there is a huge selling point: These classes aren't just theoretical. You'll have a chance to learn using the same professional tools everyone else uses. By the way, there are many more resources in the Developer Center: • Machine Learning • Data Operations • DevOps All of these are free. Click, click, and start learning right away. One more thing before I forget: If you are building anything with AWS, check out Amazon Q, their coding assistant. This is the *best* coding assistant for AWS-related work, and it's not even close. It's a Visual Studio Code extension. Install it, and it works like any other code assistant, except this one knows a lot about AWS. Thanks to AWS for sponsoring a post about their free courses and learning resources. There's a special place in Developer Heaven for you.
2:10

Almost 20 years later, AWS is still the most popular cloud in the world. The reason is simple: it just works! They have four services focused on Generative AI: 1. Amazon Q 2. Amazon Bedrock 3. SageMaker JumpStart 4. PartyRock I've been using AWS for around 15 years (honestly, I don't remember well), and their Developer Center is a gold mine. If you open their Developer Center, you'll find a new learning path, "Generative AI for Developers." I'm linking to it below. This is not just a course. This is a collection of courses, examples, videos, tutorials, and code walkthroughs. They will teach you how to use Generative AI on AWS using the four services above. ↑ That right there is a huge selling point: These classes aren't just theoretical. You'll have a chance to learn using the same professional tools everyone else uses. By the way, there are many more resources in the Developer Center: • Machine Learning • Data Operations • DevOps All of these are free. Click, click, and start learning right away. One more thing before I forget: If you are building anything with AWS, check out Amazon Q, their coding assistant. This is the *best* coding assistant for AWS-related work, and it's not even close. It's a Visual Studio Code extension. Install it, and it works like any other code assistant, except this one knows a lot about AWS. Thanks to AWS for sponsoring a post about their free courses and learning resources. There's a special place in Developer Heaven for you.

Santiago

22,104 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk just told you why the most dangerous person in AI is the one who actually cares about humanity. Musk: “I’ll do my best to ensure that anything that’s within my control maximizes the good outcome for humanity.” That is not a soft statement. That is the most aggressive position anyone has taken in the entire AI race. Because “pro-human” does not mean cautious. It means you cannot afford to lose. The people who fear AI and step back are making a bet. They are betting that if they pause, the problem pauses with them. It does not. Someone else builds it. Someone else controls it. Someone else decides what it optimizes for. Musk understood this before anyone in the room had finished asking the question. You do not protect humanity by retreating from the most powerful technology ever created. You protect it by making sure the person at the controls has no exit strategy. Musk: “I think anything else would be short-sighted.” He is not talking about quarterly earnings. He is not talking about market share. He is talking about what happens to eight billion people if the wrong person builds God. That is why he built Colossus. Not to compete with OpenAI. Not to win a product cycle. To make sure the most powerful compute cluster on the planet answers to someone whose stated objective is the survival of the species it computes for. That is not a business strategy. That is a survival instinct with a balance sheet. Every other company building frontier AI talks about alignment in abstractions. Safety frameworks. Governance boards. Responsible scaling policies. Musk skipped the committee language and said the quiet part out loud. Musk: “I’m part of humanity, so I like humans. Pro-human.” Six words every other AI founder is afraid to say without a legal review. I am building the most powerful technology in history because I am one of you. That is either the most reassuring sentence in AI. Or the most terrifying. It depends entirely on whether you believe him. But here is what no one in the room wants to admit. It does not matter if you believe him. Colossus is online either way. xAI is scaling either way. The compute is stacking either way. The only question left is whether the people building the future are building it for humanity or in spite of it. Every other founder in AI treats alignment as a technical problem to solve after the model ships. Musk is treating it as the reason the model exists. That is not a small distinction. That is the entire game. The cautious will publish safety papers about a future someone else is already building without them. The builders will decide what that future actually looks like. Musk is not asking permission to protect humanity. He is building the infrastructure to make sure no one can stop him from doing it.
0:22

Elon Musk just told you why the most dangerous person in AI is the one who actually cares about humanity. Musk: “I’ll do my best to ensure that anything that’s within my control maximizes the good outcome for humanity.” That is not a soft statement. That is the most aggressive position anyone has taken in the entire AI race. Because “pro-human” does not mean cautious. It means you cannot afford to lose. The people who fear AI and step back are making a bet. They are betting that if they pause, the problem pauses with them. It does not. Someone else builds it. Someone else controls it. Someone else decides what it optimizes for. Musk understood this before anyone in the room had finished asking the question. You do not protect humanity by retreating from the most powerful technology ever created. You protect it by making sure the person at the controls has no exit strategy. Musk: “I think anything else would be short-sighted.” He is not talking about quarterly earnings. He is not talking about market share. He is talking about what happens to eight billion people if the wrong person builds God. That is why he built Colossus. Not to compete with OpenAI. Not to win a product cycle. To make sure the most powerful compute cluster on the planet answers to someone whose stated objective is the survival of the species it computes for. That is not a business strategy. That is a survival instinct with a balance sheet. Every other company building frontier AI talks about alignment in abstractions. Safety frameworks. Governance boards. Responsible scaling policies. Musk skipped the committee language and said the quiet part out loud. Musk: “I’m part of humanity, so I like humans. Pro-human.” Six words every other AI founder is afraid to say without a legal review. I am building the most powerful technology in history because I am one of you. That is either the most reassuring sentence in AI. Or the most terrifying. It depends entirely on whether you believe him. But here is what no one in the room wants to admit. It does not matter if you believe him. Colossus is online either way. xAI is scaling either way. The compute is stacking either way. The only question left is whether the people building the future are building it for humanity or in spite of it. Every other founder in AI treats alignment as a technical problem to solve after the model ships. Musk is treating it as the reason the model exists. That is not a small distinction. That is the entire game. The cautious will publish safety papers about a future someone else is already building without them. The builders will decide what that future actually looks like. Musk is not asking permission to protect humanity. He is building the infrastructure to make sure no one can stop him from doing it.

Dustin

23,864 views • 4 months ago

CHRIS CAMILLO ON WHY AMAZON $AMZN IS HIS BIGGEST AI BET Chris Camillo's thesis: the AI efficiency wave. Every company in the world gets massively more efficient over the next few years as they adopt AI. The biggest beneficiary of that wave is undoubtedly Amazon. Why: they spent 20 years building a global logistics infrastructure that is now poised to get dramatically cheaper to run through AI and robotics. On top of that: - One of 3-4 companies spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure - Top 3 global digital ad company - "People think they're spending too much. I think they're spending too little." "Everything I could think of at Amazon right now is a positive long term."
2:13

CHRIS CAMILLO ON WHY AMAZON $AMZN IS HIS BIGGEST AI BET Chris Camillo's thesis: the AI efficiency wave. Every company in the world gets massively more efficient over the next few years as they adopt AI. The biggest beneficiary of that wave is undoubtedly Amazon. Why: they spent 20 years building a global logistics infrastructure that is now poised to get dramatically cheaper to run through AI and robotics. On top of that: - One of 3-4 companies spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure - Top 3 global digital ad company - "People think they're spending too much. I think they're spending too little." "Everything I could think of at Amazon right now is a positive long term."

WOLF

45,256 views • 4 months ago

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.
1:51

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.

Shruti

16,844 views • 2 months ago

.Joe Rogan: "No one is going to run against Trump on the Republican side and win because you are not going to get the Trump supporters... The fact that he was the President for four years, and the country was in a great economic situation, and it looked like his policies were actually effective. Unemployment was down. Business was booming. Regulations were being relaxed. More things were getting done. When you look at it from a policy perspective, what he did on paper was effective... Everybody thinks there needs to be a wall. Even the Mayor of New York City is now calling to stop immigration into his city... When you look at the Russia collusion. When you look at the Steele dossier. When you look at all the bullshit, they tried to throw at him that we now know is bullshit. Not just bullshit, but coordinated bullshit. When you look at the fact that they suppressed this Hunter Biden laptop story. And 51 intelligence agency representatives signed off on that to say that this is Russian disinformation, which we know they know is not true. That's scary. Because now you have the intelligence agencies colluding to keep a guy from being president, who was president during a time when the country was thriving economically."
4:19

.Joe Rogan: "No one is going to run against Trump on the Republican side and win because you are not going to get the Trump supporters... The fact that he was the President for four years, and the country was in a great economic situation, and it looked like his policies were actually effective. Unemployment was down. Business was booming. Regulations were being relaxed. More things were getting done. When you look at it from a policy perspective, what he did on paper was effective... Everybody thinks there needs to be a wall. Even the Mayor of New York City is now calling to stop immigration into his city... When you look at the Russia collusion. When you look at the Steele dossier. When you look at all the bullshit, they tried to throw at him that we now know is bullshit. Not just bullshit, but coordinated bullshit. When you look at the fact that they suppressed this Hunter Biden laptop story. And 51 intelligence agency representatives signed off on that to say that this is Russian disinformation, which we know they know is not true. That's scary. Because now you have the intelligence agencies colluding to keep a guy from being president, who was president during a time when the country was thriving economically."

KanekoaTheGreat

7,395,727 views • 3 years ago

Gavin on why people misunderstand what makes TSMC so valuable: "One of the most undervalued pieces of the supply chain story is that almost none of these things are buy it once and never talk to the vendor again. You have to go collaborate. That is the most important part of being successful in chips. People look at the tech, and the tech is the best in the world. But the real value is all in the service. TSMC's customer service is way better than I've seen at any company in any industry. If you say, we think you can improve your yield by making this change, they will go run an experiment on their own dime to see if they can get the higher yield. When we found we were right and it worked, they moved it over to the rest of the line. If I go to a steelworks plant and say I want you to change the composition of the steel, they'll say screw you. Not TSMC. It's why they're number one, and why they're going to win."
1:18

Gavin on why people misunderstand what makes TSMC so valuable: "One of the most undervalued pieces of the supply chain story is that almost none of these things are buy it once and never talk to the vendor again. You have to go collaborate. That is the most important part of being successful in chips. People look at the tech, and the tech is the best in the world. But the real value is all in the service. TSMC's customer service is way better than I've seen at any company in any industry. If you say, we think you can improve your yield by making this change, they will go run an experiment on their own dime to see if they can get the higher yield. When we found we were right and it worked, they moved it over to the rest of the line. If I go to a steelworks plant and say I want you to change the composition of the steel, they'll say screw you. Not TSMC. It's why they're number one, and why they're going to win."

Invest Like the Best

71,350 views • 2 months ago

Alexandr Wang, head of Meta Superintelligence Labs: "A decade ago, the best AI models could recognize cats in YouTube videos. And now we're talking to a digital god." He said it in passing, as a warm-up to his real point. This is the man Meta paid 14.3 billion dollars to get. He started the company at 19. His real point is the part worth stopping on. He says the whole argument about when superintelligence arrives, two years or five, is close to a waste of time. Not because he thinks it is far off. Because he thinks the answer changes nothing. Then this. For the entire history of humanity, the bottleneck on progress was getting a group of smart people together and pointed at one goal. That is what is about to stop being scarce. "The scarce resource isn't going to be intelligence or agency. I really think it's going to be vision and ambition." Read that as the job description it is. When thinking becomes cheap, the only expensive thing left is knowing what to think about. Most people are bracing for a world where they have to be smarter. He is describing a world where being smarter is free, and having a reason is not.
1:34

Alexandr Wang, head of Meta Superintelligence Labs: "A decade ago, the best AI models could recognize cats in YouTube videos. And now we're talking to a digital god." He said it in passing, as a warm-up to his real point. This is the man Meta paid 14.3 billion dollars to get. He started the company at 19. His real point is the part worth stopping on. He says the whole argument about when superintelligence arrives, two years or five, is close to a waste of time. Not because he thinks it is far off. Because he thinks the answer changes nothing. Then this. For the entire history of humanity, the bottleneck on progress was getting a group of smart people together and pointed at one goal. That is what is about to stop being scarce. "The scarce resource isn't going to be intelligence or agency. I really think it's going to be vision and ambition." Read that as the job description it is. When thinking becomes cheap, the only expensive thing left is knowing what to think about. Most people are bracing for a world where they have to be smarter. He is describing a world where being smarter is free, and having a reason is not.

Casper

51,528 views • 1 month ago

Peter Lynch, the man who turned $20 million into $14 billion running Fidelity's Magellan Fund, averaging 29.2% annual returns for 13 straight years (Save this). And his most famous lesson is the simplest one: "Know what you own, and know why you own it." He's talking about something that happens every day, people spend hours researching which refrigerator to buy. They'll spend days hunting for the best airfare deal to save $50 then they'll hear a stock tip on the bus and drop $10,000 on it without a second thought. "The reason I own this is the sucker is going up" Lynch said that's the actual answer he gets when he presses most investors on why they own a stock and that, he says, is not a reason. His test is brutal and simple, if you can't explain to a 10 year old in two minutes or less why you own a stock, you shouldn't own it because if you don't understand the business, you have no idea when to hold, when to add, or when to sell. You're just riding price movement blind. This is why most retail investors lose money not because they pick bad stocks but because they panic out of good ones during normal volatility. When you don't understand why you own something, every 10% dip feels like a reason to sell. Lynch built his entire career on the opposite approach, find simple businesses, understand exactly what they do, know why they'll be worth more in five years, and hold with conviction while everyone else panics. The most important thing isn't your stock screener or your price target but rather being able to look at what you own and say, I understand this, I know why it goes up, and I can handle it going down 30% without losing my mind.
0:24

Peter Lynch, the man who turned $20 million into $14 billion running Fidelity's Magellan Fund, averaging 29.2% annual returns for 13 straight years (Save this). And his most famous lesson is the simplest one: "Know what you own, and know why you own it." He's talking about something that happens every day, people spend hours researching which refrigerator to buy. They'll spend days hunting for the best airfare deal to save $50 then they'll hear a stock tip on the bus and drop $10,000 on it without a second thought. "The reason I own this is the sucker is going up" Lynch said that's the actual answer he gets when he presses most investors on why they own a stock and that, he says, is not a reason. His test is brutal and simple, if you can't explain to a 10 year old in two minutes or less why you own a stock, you shouldn't own it because if you don't understand the business, you have no idea when to hold, when to add, or when to sell. You're just riding price movement blind. This is why most retail investors lose money not because they pick bad stocks but because they panic out of good ones during normal volatility. When you don't understand why you own something, every 10% dip feels like a reason to sell. Lynch built his entire career on the opposite approach, find simple businesses, understand exactly what they do, know why they'll be worth more in five years, and hold with conviction while everyone else panics. The most important thing isn't your stock screener or your price target but rather being able to look at what you own and say, I understand this, I know why it goes up, and I can handle it going down 30% without losing my mind.

StockMarket.News

170,341 views • 4 months ago

Everyone called $PLTR a consulting company at $7. I said it was an AI platform being born. AIP came. The rest is history. $HIMS just had its Palantir moment. The numbers look ugly. They are supposed to. This is what a transformation looks like before everyone understands what is being built.
12:17

Everyone called $PLTR a consulting company at $7. I said it was an AI platform being born. AIP came. The rest is history. $HIMS just had its Palantir moment. The numbers look ugly. They are supposed to. This is what a transformation looks like before everyone understands what is being built.

Antonio Linares

172,462 views • 3 months ago

BREAKING: Berkshire Hathaway just filed its first 13F after Warren Buffett stepped down as CEO. Wall Street spent a decade asking what happens to Berkshire when Buffett is gone. We just got the answer: On May 15, the first 13F of the Greg Abel era hit the SEC. Abel took over from Buffett on January 1, 2026. This filing covers his first full quarter in the chair. It is the most aggressive structural rebalance Berkshire has run in years. And almost nobody is reading it correctly. Here is what the filing actually shows: Berkshire trimmed its portfolio from 40 positions down to 26 in 90 days. 16 stocks fully exited. Amazon, gone. UnitedHealth, gone. Domino's Pizza, gone. Chevron cut by 35%, roughly $8 billion sold at peak energy prices. Visa, Mastercard, and Aon all sharply reduced. Then on the other side of the book: Alphabet position increased 224%. From about 18 million shares to nearly 58 million. The stake is now worth roughly $23 billion. One of Berkshire's seven largest equity holdings. A new $2.65 billion position in Delta Air Lines. Berkshire's first airline holding since they sold the entire sector in April 2020. Total stock sales for the quarter: $24 billion. Total stock purchases: $16 billion. Net selling: $8 billion. And the cash pile? $397.4 billion as of March 31. A new all-time record. Read those numbers again. This is not a passive handoff. This is a CEO clearing the decks and concentrating capital in a small number of high-conviction names while sitting on the biggest cash position in corporate history. Now here is the part the financial media is missing. Everyone is treating this like a referendum on Greg Abel's personality. "Is he as good as Buffett." "Will he be too cautious." "Does he have the killer instinct." Wrong question. The right question is why the system kept executing in exactly the way Buffett would have run it. Because that is what actually happened here. Concentrate in dominant businesses you understand. Check. Buy when valuations get attractive. Check. Alphabet was trading at a forward P/E in the teens when Abel was loading up. Sell when valuations get rich. Check. Chevron got cut at a peak. Visa and Mastercard got trimmed at all-time highs. Hold cash when nothing else qualifies. Check. $397 billion. This is not Greg Abel inventing a new philosophy. This is the Berkshire operating system continuing to run, the way it was designed to run, after the founder stepped away. That distinction matters more than anything else in this filing. Here is why. For 60 years, retail investors have tried to "follow Buffett." They scan the 13Fs the day they drop. They buy what he bought. They hold what he held. They sell when the headlines say he sold. And they almost always underperform. Because following Buffett the person was never the strategy. The strategy was Buffett the system. The patience to hold cash for years when nothing was cheap. The discipline to concentrate when something finally was. The structural willingness to look wrong for long stretches because the math eventually wins. Most retail investors have none of that. They have a phone, a brokerage app, a Twitter feed, and an attention span measured in headlines. They buy when Buffett buys. Then they sell three weeks later when the position is down 8% because they panicked. That is not following Buffett. That is using Buffett's name as a permission slip to make emotional decisions. The Q1 filing makes this point in a way no Berkshire annual letter ever could. The man is gone. The trades still look like Buffett trades. Because the system was the asset all along. The system was the moat. Now look at the Alphabet decision specifically. This is the part that should stop you. Alphabet generated $64.4 billion in free cash flow over the last 12 months. Google Cloud revenue grew 63% year over year in Q1 2026. Operating income from cloud tripled to $6.6 billion. The company is sitting on a near-monopoly in search, a top-two cloud platform, the best AI research lab in the world, and a balance sheet that prints money. And it was trading at a discount to the S&P 500 multiple when Abel was buying. That is not a hard call. It is the easiest call a value-oriented institutional buyer can make. But it requires you to ignore the entire narrative that Wall Street had been running for six months. The narrative was that AI was eating Google search. That ChatGPT was a Google killer. That the search monopoly was structurally broken. Retail investors bought that narrative and sold Alphabet at the lows. Abel ran the math and bought 40 million shares. Same company. Same fundamentals. Two completely different decisions, because one was driven by data and one was driven by narrative. The Alphabet position is already up 38% since the end of Q1. Six weeks of gains. Roughly $8 billion of paper profit in 42 trading days. That is what systems do. They do not predict the future. They wait for asymmetric setups, take large positions when the math says to, and let time do the work. Now the $397 billion cash position. This is the number that confuses retail the most. Why would the largest holding company in America be sitting on $400 billion in cash while the S&P sits at record highs? Because cash is not a position. Cash is optionality. Cash is the ability to act when everyone else is forced to sell. In 2008, Buffett had cash when Goldman Sachs and General Electric needed capital. He cut deals at terms no retail investor could ever access. In 2020, Buffett had cash when the COVID crash hit. He took advantage. Greg Abel is doing the same thing. He is loading the rifle. He does not know when he will get to fire it. He knows that having it ready is what separates Berkshire from every fund that has to be fully invested all the time. Most retail investors cannot do this. They look at $397 billion in cash and see "missed opportunity cost." They think holding cash is the same as losing money to inflation. It is not. Cash held by a disciplined system is a weapon waiting for the right target. Cash held by an emotional investor is a temptation that gets spent on the next hot trade. Same dollar. Two completely different outcomes. Here is the lesson the entire financial press is missing this week. Berkshire is not interesting because Greg Abel is a genius. Berkshire is interesting because it is the rare proof point that an investment process can survive its founder. The most important investor of the last 60 years is gone. The portfolio still looks like a Buffett portfolio. Because the rules were the asset. The personality was the wrapper. Most retail investors got the wrapper and missed the asset. They watched the documentaries. They read the books. They went to the Omaha meeting. They bought the personality. They never built the system. That is why they keep losing to the market over 20 year holding periods, while a holding company with the same playbook for six decades keeps quietly compounding. The question is whether you spend the next 20 years doing the same thing. Or whether you finally build a system that runs without you. Most retail investors will never have $397 billion in cash to deploy. But every retail investor can build the same kind of structural discipline Berkshire just demonstrated. Rules that execute regardless of headlines. Rules that buy when the math says to buy. Rules that hold when nothing qualifies. Rules that do not need a famous founder to run. That is exactly why Surmount exists. Automated, rules-based strategies that execute the same way every single trading day. No panic selling. No FOMO buying. No "what would Buffett do" guessing. Just systematic execution built on the same principle that just kept Berkshire running without its founder: The system is the asset:
1:44

BREAKING: Berkshire Hathaway just filed its first 13F after Warren Buffett stepped down as CEO. Wall Street spent a decade asking what happens to Berkshire when Buffett is gone. We just got the answer: On May 15, the first 13F of the Greg Abel era hit the SEC. Abel took over from Buffett on January 1, 2026. This filing covers his first full quarter in the chair. It is the most aggressive structural rebalance Berkshire has run in years. And almost nobody is reading it correctly. Here is what the filing actually shows: Berkshire trimmed its portfolio from 40 positions down to 26 in 90 days. 16 stocks fully exited. Amazon, gone. UnitedHealth, gone. Domino's Pizza, gone. Chevron cut by 35%, roughly $8 billion sold at peak energy prices. Visa, Mastercard, and Aon all sharply reduced. Then on the other side of the book: Alphabet position increased 224%. From about 18 million shares to nearly 58 million. The stake is now worth roughly $23 billion. One of Berkshire's seven largest equity holdings. A new $2.65 billion position in Delta Air Lines. Berkshire's first airline holding since they sold the entire sector in April 2020. Total stock sales for the quarter: $24 billion. Total stock purchases: $16 billion. Net selling: $8 billion. And the cash pile? $397.4 billion as of March 31. A new all-time record. Read those numbers again. This is not a passive handoff. This is a CEO clearing the decks and concentrating capital in a small number of high-conviction names while sitting on the biggest cash position in corporate history. Now here is the part the financial media is missing. Everyone is treating this like a referendum on Greg Abel's personality. "Is he as good as Buffett." "Will he be too cautious." "Does he have the killer instinct." Wrong question. The right question is why the system kept executing in exactly the way Buffett would have run it. Because that is what actually happened here. Concentrate in dominant businesses you understand. Check. Buy when valuations get attractive. Check. Alphabet was trading at a forward P/E in the teens when Abel was loading up. Sell when valuations get rich. Check. Chevron got cut at a peak. Visa and Mastercard got trimmed at all-time highs. Hold cash when nothing else qualifies. Check. $397 billion. This is not Greg Abel inventing a new philosophy. This is the Berkshire operating system continuing to run, the way it was designed to run, after the founder stepped away. That distinction matters more than anything else in this filing. Here is why. For 60 years, retail investors have tried to "follow Buffett." They scan the 13Fs the day they drop. They buy what he bought. They hold what he held. They sell when the headlines say he sold. And they almost always underperform. Because following Buffett the person was never the strategy. The strategy was Buffett the system. The patience to hold cash for years when nothing was cheap. The discipline to concentrate when something finally was. The structural willingness to look wrong for long stretches because the math eventually wins. Most retail investors have none of that. They have a phone, a brokerage app, a Twitter feed, and an attention span measured in headlines. They buy when Buffett buys. Then they sell three weeks later when the position is down 8% because they panicked. That is not following Buffett. That is using Buffett's name as a permission slip to make emotional decisions. The Q1 filing makes this point in a way no Berkshire annual letter ever could. The man is gone. The trades still look like Buffett trades. Because the system was the asset all along. The system was the moat. Now look at the Alphabet decision specifically. This is the part that should stop you. Alphabet generated $64.4 billion in free cash flow over the last 12 months. Google Cloud revenue grew 63% year over year in Q1 2026. Operating income from cloud tripled to $6.6 billion. The company is sitting on a near-monopoly in search, a top-two cloud platform, the best AI research lab in the world, and a balance sheet that prints money. And it was trading at a discount to the S&P 500 multiple when Abel was buying. That is not a hard call. It is the easiest call a value-oriented institutional buyer can make. But it requires you to ignore the entire narrative that Wall Street had been running for six months. The narrative was that AI was eating Google search. That ChatGPT was a Google killer. That the search monopoly was structurally broken. Retail investors bought that narrative and sold Alphabet at the lows. Abel ran the math and bought 40 million shares. Same company. Same fundamentals. Two completely different decisions, because one was driven by data and one was driven by narrative. The Alphabet position is already up 38% since the end of Q1. Six weeks of gains. Roughly $8 billion of paper profit in 42 trading days. That is what systems do. They do not predict the future. They wait for asymmetric setups, take large positions when the math says to, and let time do the work. Now the $397 billion cash position. This is the number that confuses retail the most. Why would the largest holding company in America be sitting on $400 billion in cash while the S&P sits at record highs? Because cash is not a position. Cash is optionality. Cash is the ability to act when everyone else is forced to sell. In 2008, Buffett had cash when Goldman Sachs and General Electric needed capital. He cut deals at terms no retail investor could ever access. In 2020, Buffett had cash when the COVID crash hit. He took advantage. Greg Abel is doing the same thing. He is loading the rifle. He does not know when he will get to fire it. He knows that having it ready is what separates Berkshire from every fund that has to be fully invested all the time. Most retail investors cannot do this. They look at $397 billion in cash and see "missed opportunity cost." They think holding cash is the same as losing money to inflation. It is not. Cash held by a disciplined system is a weapon waiting for the right target. Cash held by an emotional investor is a temptation that gets spent on the next hot trade. Same dollar. Two completely different outcomes. Here is the lesson the entire financial press is missing this week. Berkshire is not interesting because Greg Abel is a genius. Berkshire is interesting because it is the rare proof point that an investment process can survive its founder. The most important investor of the last 60 years is gone. The portfolio still looks like a Buffett portfolio. Because the rules were the asset. The personality was the wrapper. Most retail investors got the wrapper and missed the asset. They watched the documentaries. They read the books. They went to the Omaha meeting. They bought the personality. They never built the system. That is why they keep losing to the market over 20 year holding periods, while a holding company with the same playbook for six decades keeps quietly compounding. The question is whether you spend the next 20 years doing the same thing. Or whether you finally build a system that runs without you. Most retail investors will never have $397 billion in cash to deploy. But every retail investor can build the same kind of structural discipline Berkshire just demonstrated. Rules that execute regardless of headlines. Rules that buy when the math says to buy. Rules that hold when nothing qualifies. Rules that do not need a famous founder to run. That is exactly why Surmount exists. Automated, rules-based strategies that execute the same way every single trading day. No panic selling. No FOMO buying. No "what would Buffett do" guessing. Just systematic execution built on the same principle that just kept Berkshire running without its founder: The system is the asset:

Logan Weaver

20,503 views • 3 months ago

Anthropic is asking the public for $2 trillion using a revenue number from…2028. That valuation would make it the largest stock market debut in history, ahead of SpaceX, which went public in June at $1.77 trillion. The company last raised privately in May at $965 billion. Investors now expect roughly DOUBLE that in October. And the unusual part is not the size here: Public companies are normally priced off the last 12 months of results, or at a stretch off next year's estimate. Reuters reported on Friday that bankers and investors are applying revenue multiples to Anthropic's forecast for 2028, which is more than two years past the deal. That forecast is $190 billion to $200 billion of annual revenue. It is more than four times the run rate the company disclosed in May. Before dismissing it, look at what the company has actually done, because the growth is not imaginary: Anthropic's annualized revenue run rate was around $9 billion at the end of 2025. By May it was $47 billion and it passed $65 billion at the end of July, a 7x increase inside a year. Second quarter revenue came in above $11.5 billion against roughly $787 million in the same quarter of 2025. The company projected its first quarterly operating profit of $559 million. Investors expect the run rate to reach $100 billion to $120 billion before the year closes. By comparison, OpenAI's run rate sat near $40 billion at the end of July, around 60% of Anthropic's. So the growth is real. But the question is whether anyone can price three more years of it. Because the things that could bend that curve are already visible today: Anthropic's top model costs more than two and a half times OpenAI's flagship. Chinese open-weight models deliver usable performance at a fraction of either price. And revenue growth slowed in June when the Commerce Department temporarily restricted exports of the company's best models, which is a reminder that a single government decision can reach directly into the forecast. Now look at what the multiple HAS to be… Palantir trades at 53 times expected 2026 revenue, which already makes it one of the most expensive stocks on the market. Cloudflare and SpaceX both sit near 41.6 times. Those are the reference points bankers are using. One investor told the Financial Times that a company growing at 800% a year should command at least 30 times revenue, which on their own math points to $3 trillion rather than two. And there is one more thing worth holding onto: Anthropic filed confidentially with the SEC in June and has been in a quiet period since. Every figure in this post reached the public through people speaking anonymously, and the company has declined to comment on all of it. So the largest listing ever attempted is being marketed to public investors through numbers none of them can independently check, against a forecast for a year that has not started yet. This is becoming the house style of the 2026 IPO market rather than a one-off. Cerebras priced its listing on ramping infrastructure demand. SpaceX built its debut around an addressable market model that reached years past its actual financials. Both asked buyers to fund a shape rather than a result. Anthropic is the biggest version of that trade anyone has attempted. The bull case is straightforward and it MIGHT be correct: A business compounding this fast, already turning an operating profit, selling into enterprises that are rebuilding their workflows around it, may look cheap at $2 trillion in three years. The bear case is equally simple: Every dollar of that valuation above the current run rate is a forecast, and whoever buys the stock in October is the one holding that forecast if the curve bends. Do you believe in Anthropic?
0:50

Anthropic is asking the public for $2 trillion using a revenue number from…2028. That valuation would make it the largest stock market debut in history, ahead of SpaceX, which went public in June at $1.77 trillion. The company last raised privately in May at $965 billion. Investors now expect roughly DOUBLE that in October. And the unusual part is not the size here: Public companies are normally priced off the last 12 months of results, or at a stretch off next year's estimate. Reuters reported on Friday that bankers and investors are applying revenue multiples to Anthropic's forecast for 2028, which is more than two years past the deal. That forecast is $190 billion to $200 billion of annual revenue. It is more than four times the run rate the company disclosed in May. Before dismissing it, look at what the company has actually done, because the growth is not imaginary: Anthropic's annualized revenue run rate was around $9 billion at the end of 2025. By May it was $47 billion and it passed $65 billion at the end of July, a 7x increase inside a year. Second quarter revenue came in above $11.5 billion against roughly $787 million in the same quarter of 2025. The company projected its first quarterly operating profit of $559 million. Investors expect the run rate to reach $100 billion to $120 billion before the year closes. By comparison, OpenAI's run rate sat near $40 billion at the end of July, around 60% of Anthropic's. So the growth is real. But the question is whether anyone can price three more years of it. Because the things that could bend that curve are already visible today: Anthropic's top model costs more than two and a half times OpenAI's flagship. Chinese open-weight models deliver usable performance at a fraction of either price. And revenue growth slowed in June when the Commerce Department temporarily restricted exports of the company's best models, which is a reminder that a single government decision can reach directly into the forecast. Now look at what the multiple HAS to be… Palantir trades at 53 times expected 2026 revenue, which already makes it one of the most expensive stocks on the market. Cloudflare and SpaceX both sit near 41.6 times. Those are the reference points bankers are using. One investor told the Financial Times that a company growing at 800% a year should command at least 30 times revenue, which on their own math points to $3 trillion rather than two. And there is one more thing worth holding onto: Anthropic filed confidentially with the SEC in June and has been in a quiet period since. Every figure in this post reached the public through people speaking anonymously, and the company has declined to comment on all of it. So the largest listing ever attempted is being marketed to public investors through numbers none of them can independently check, against a forecast for a year that has not started yet. This is becoming the house style of the 2026 IPO market rather than a one-off. Cerebras priced its listing on ramping infrastructure demand. SpaceX built its debut around an addressable market model that reached years past its actual financials. Both asked buyers to fund a shape rather than a result. Anthropic is the biggest version of that trade anyone has attempted. The bull case is straightforward and it MIGHT be correct: A business compounding this fast, already turning an operating profit, selling into enterprises that are rebuilding their workflows around it, may look cheap at $2 trillion in three years. The bear case is equally simple: Every dollar of that valuation above the current run rate is a forecast, and whoever buys the stock in October is the one holding that forecast if the curve bends. Do you believe in Anthropic?

Ricardo

17,865 views • 13 days ago

Marc Andreessen just explained why being right about AI for 80 straight years is about to be the most dangerous position in technology. Andreessen: “The four most dangerous words in investing are ‘this time is different.’” He’s talking about AI. And he’s about to turn that phrase on the people hiding behind it. Four times in 80 years, AI promised to change everything. Four times it collapsed. 1943.First neural network. Dead within a decade. 1944.Dartmouth. Scientists thought they’d crack AGI in one summer. They didn’t crack it in forty years. 1980s. Over a billion into expert systems. Entire market gone by ’87. 2016.Machine learning. Faded before anyone could ship a product. The skeptics weren’t lucky. They were 4-for-4. Every generation that believed “this time is different” got buried. And that is exactly why this moment is so dangerous. Because being right four consecutive times doesn’t just build a position. It builds an identity. And identity doesn’t update when the evidence does. Andreessen: “I’ll tell you what’s different. Like, now it’s working.” Not one breakthrough. Four. In the same window. Language. Reasoning. Coding. Self-improvement. All deployed. All producing revenue. Not in a lab. In the economy. Today. Then the line that should have ended every remaining debate. Andreessen: “If Linus Torvalds is saying that the AI coding is now better than he is… that’s never happened before.” The man who built the operating system the internet runs on just conceded the machine writes better code than he does. Coding is the highest bar in technology. If AI clears it, everything below was already decided. But the fourth breakthrough isn’t like the other three. Language, reasoning, and coding are capabilities. Self-improvement is a rate of change. The machine is researching, coding, and optimizing itself. No human engineers in the loop. Every technology in human history advanced at the speed of the people building it. This one just left that constraint behind. And the hardware confirms it. Nvidia’s old chips are gaining value after shipping. GPUs sold out years ahead. That has never happened in computing. Hardware doesn’t appreciate. Unless the market has decided this isn’t a cycle. It’s infrastructure. Andreessen: “This is the culmination of 80 years worth of work and this is the time it’s becoming real.” Eighty years. Researchers poured entire careers into this problem. Some of them died before it worked. And now all four pieces arrived at once. The skeptics built a perfect model from eight decades of collapse. Flawless pattern recognition. But a perfect model trained on a world that no longer exists doesn’t protect you. It traps you inside the last version of reality. For 80 years, doubting AI was the most rational position a human being could hold. It just became the most expensive.
2:04

Marc Andreessen just explained why being right about AI for 80 straight years is about to be the most dangerous position in technology. Andreessen: “The four most dangerous words in investing are ‘this time is different.’” He’s talking about AI. And he’s about to turn that phrase on the people hiding behind it. Four times in 80 years, AI promised to change everything. Four times it collapsed. 1943.First neural network. Dead within a decade. 1944.Dartmouth. Scientists thought they’d crack AGI in one summer. They didn’t crack it in forty years. 1980s. Over a billion into expert systems. Entire market gone by ’87. 2016.Machine learning. Faded before anyone could ship a product. The skeptics weren’t lucky. They were 4-for-4. Every generation that believed “this time is different” got buried. And that is exactly why this moment is so dangerous. Because being right four consecutive times doesn’t just build a position. It builds an identity. And identity doesn’t update when the evidence does. Andreessen: “I’ll tell you what’s different. Like, now it’s working.” Not one breakthrough. Four. In the same window. Language. Reasoning. Coding. Self-improvement. All deployed. All producing revenue. Not in a lab. In the economy. Today. Then the line that should have ended every remaining debate. Andreessen: “If Linus Torvalds is saying that the AI coding is now better than he is… that’s never happened before.” The man who built the operating system the internet runs on just conceded the machine writes better code than he does. Coding is the highest bar in technology. If AI clears it, everything below was already decided. But the fourth breakthrough isn’t like the other three. Language, reasoning, and coding are capabilities. Self-improvement is a rate of change. The machine is researching, coding, and optimizing itself. No human engineers in the loop. Every technology in human history advanced at the speed of the people building it. This one just left that constraint behind. And the hardware confirms it. Nvidia’s old chips are gaining value after shipping. GPUs sold out years ahead. That has never happened in computing. Hardware doesn’t appreciate. Unless the market has decided this isn’t a cycle. It’s infrastructure. Andreessen: “This is the culmination of 80 years worth of work and this is the time it’s becoming real.” Eighty years. Researchers poured entire careers into this problem. Some of them died before it worked. And now all four pieces arrived at once. The skeptics built a perfect model from eight decades of collapse. Flawless pattern recognition. But a perfect model trained on a world that no longer exists doesn’t protect you. It traps you inside the last version of reality. For 80 years, doubting AI was the most rational position a human being could hold. It just became the most expensive.

Dustin

13,748 views • 1 month ago

ELON MUSK: "The Macrohard project over time actually will probably be our most important project, because what we're talking about is emulation of entire human companies. So when you look at the most valuable companies in the world, their output is digital, so they don't actually make hardware so it should be possible to completely emulate any company where output is digital and this will usher an age of prosperity. This is a big deal and this is why the words Macrohard is painted on the roof of the training cluster, because that's what it's going to build."
0:51

ELON MUSK: "The Macrohard project over time actually will probably be our most important project, because what we're talking about is emulation of entire human companies. So when you look at the most valuable companies in the world, their output is digital, so they don't actually make hardware so it should be possible to completely emulate any company where output is digital and this will usher an age of prosperity. This is a big deal and this is why the words Macrohard is painted on the roof of the training cluster, because that's what it's going to build."

DogeDesigner

49,012 views • 5 months ago