Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Mitchell on why the best risk-adjusted returns right now are in public software names: "We believe that it is the incumbent's game to lose. The competitive advantage of software company has never been about R&D. Exxon or KKR or Proctor and Gamble probably spent 3-5 years implementing the software.... If you think they're going to start building their own HR software, you're out of your mind. I like to remind people if you look at e-commerce, in 1999-2000, everybody thought every big box retailer was going out of business. But if you look at the top 50 largest e-commerce companies in the United States, yes, Amazon is number one. You know who like 2 through 10 are? Walmart, Home Depot, Lowe's, Macy's, Target. A lot of the incumbents will win. Now again, Montgomery Ward, Kmart, Sears went bust, but that's what we're constantly thinking about."show more

Patrick OShaughnessy

342,641 subscribers

164,626 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On the Jevons paradox and software demand expansion, Neelkanth Mishra, Executive Director Designate of the World Bank, says, “…If you think about what the major cost of a software firm is, it is people. So, if the writing of software is getting automated, those firms will be the first to make adjustments. But on the whole, it seems that the Jevons paradox—which dictates that as the cost of writing software falls, the amount of software written goes up—is actually playing out. If an XYZ company, which is a product company, was spending, say, $100 million on writing software and can now do it for $70 million, they might need to lay off some people; that is their business priority. But if the amount of software written goes up three to four times, the number of software engineers in the ecosystem will not change… This panic and paranoia about massive job losses is something that I think is, at this stage, unfounded.”

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On the Jevons paradox and software demand expansion, Neelkanth Mishra, Executive Director Designate of the World Bank, says, “…If you think about what the major cost of a software firm is, it is people. So, if the writing of software is getting automated, those firms will be the first to make adjustments. But on the whole, it seems that the Jevons paradox—which dictates that as the cost of writing software falls, the amount of software written goes up—is actually playing out. If an XYZ company, which is a product company, was spending, say, $100 million on writing software and can now do it for $70 million, they might need to lay off some people; that is their business priority. But if the amount of software written goes up three to four times, the number of software engineers in the ecosystem will not change… This panic and paranoia about massive job losses is something that I think is, at this stage, unfounded.”

ANI

114,594 views • 21 days ago

Jensen talked about this at GTC Taipei: "A lot of people said ‘You know Jensen, AI is coming therefore all of the software companies are going out of business.’ It is exactly the opposite because there are so many agents. The world is longer limited by the number of people and those agents will use more [software] tools than ever before. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company.”

Jensen talked about this at GTC Taipei: "A lot of people said ‘You know Jensen, AI is coming therefore all of the software companies are going out of business.’ It is exactly the opposite because there are so many agents. The world is longer limited by the number of people and those agents will use more [software] tools than ever before. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company.”

Trung Phan

31,139 views • 1 month ago

Jensen Huang just said this is the greatest era in history to build software. AI agents will not kill software. They will do the exact opposite: create a massive new wave of software demand. at NVIDIA GTC Taipei 2026 "Click and type. We now replace that with explaining to the AI what we want, our intent, and the AI generates the code or uses tools to produce the necessary output. This is how computers are going to work in the future. This is Agentic AI. For two years, we've been building toward this, and now it has arrived. One of the big breakthroughs, of course, is tool use. A lot of people have said, “Jensen, AI is coming. Agentic AI is coming. Therefore, all the software companies are going to go out of business.” This is exactly the opposite. Because there are going to be so many agents, the world is no longer limited by the number of people. Therefore, those agents are going to use more tools than ever. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company. But the software has to be presented to the agent in a way that the agent can use it. This is a big breakthrough. And in fact, what we have done, as you know, what Nvidia’s treasure..." ---- From 'NVIDIA' YT channel (link in comment)

Jensen Huang just said this is the greatest era in history to build software. AI agents will not kill software. They will do the exact opposite: create a massive new wave of software demand. at NVIDIA GTC Taipei 2026 "Click and type. We now replace that with explaining to the AI what we want, our intent, and the AI generates the code or uses tools to produce the necessary output. This is how computers are going to work in the future. This is Agentic AI. For two years, we've been building toward this, and now it has arrived. One of the big breakthroughs, of course, is tool use. A lot of people have said, “Jensen, AI is coming. Agentic AI is coming. Therefore, all the software companies are going to go out of business.” This is exactly the opposite. Because there are going to be so many agents, the world is no longer limited by the number of people. Therefore, those agents are going to use more tools than ever. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company. But the software has to be presented to the agent in a way that the agent can use it. This is a big breakthrough. And in fact, what we have done, as you know, what Nvidia’s treasure..." ---- From 'NVIDIA' YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

16,584 views • 1 month ago

$PLTR PALANTIR WENT PUBLIC 5 YEARS AGO TODAY. They did a direct public offering at $10 a share. The company's market capitalization has 18x'ed since going public. CEO Alex Karp, 5 years ago: "We are going to deliver the world's best software with the world's most efficient way of delivering it. Investors will decide what's that worth and I think you'll find in a number of years that there will be a consensus Palantir is a truly special software company that is arguably the most important software company in the world."

$PLTR PALANTIR WENT PUBLIC 5 YEARS AGO TODAY. They did a direct public offering at $10 a share. The company's market capitalization has 18x'ed since going public. CEO Alex Karp, 5 years ago: "We are going to deliver the world's best software with the world's most efficient way of delivering it. Investors will decide what's that worth and I think you'll find in a number of years that there will be a consensus Palantir is a truly special software company that is arguably the most important software company in the world."

amit

400,829 views • 9 months ago

Anish Acharya: We're going to see a "YouTube moment for software": "If you think about YouTube 20 years ago—we had lots of video and lots of television, and it was high production quality, and it wasn't clear that we needed more and 20 years later, YouTube's a $550 billion enterprise that would be one of the biggest companies in the world if it was independent." "I think the same thing is going to happen for software. People want to make software, and for the first time they can—and they can distribute it and they can consume it." "Sometimes it's going to be important software. Sometimes it's going to be totally trivial. It's going to be software for a bachelor party weekend, software for a joke, software for a prompt. We have this sort of seriousness about software that we had about video and television 20 years ago." "Now it's like—I just took a video on my phone. It's going to be like—I just made an app on my phone. Same energy." Anish Acharya on BILLIONS with Guillaume Moubeche

Anish Acharya: We're going to see a "YouTube moment for software": "If you think about YouTube 20 years ago—we had lots of video and lots of television, and it was high production quality, and it wasn't clear that we needed more and 20 years later, YouTube's a $550 billion enterprise that would be one of the biggest companies in the world if it was independent." "I think the same thing is going to happen for software. People want to make software, and for the first time they can—and they can distribute it and they can consume it." "Sometimes it's going to be important software. Sometimes it's going to be totally trivial. It's going to be software for a bachelor party weekend, software for a joke, software for a prompt. We have this sort of seriousness about software that we had about video and television 20 years ago." "Now it's like—I just took a video on my phone. It's going to be like—I just made an app on my phone. Same energy." Anish Acharya on BILLIONS with Guillaume Moubeche

a16z

102,781 views • 4 months ago

Some personal hot takes from AI: engineer Miami follows... 1. Software development is a dead-end profession because anyone can be a software developer now. 2. Anyone can use Cursor or any other tool and generate code. Being a coder and being a software engineer are different. 3. Computers used to be gated; now everyone has the power to make computers malleable. Everyone is a software developer now, but that does not mean they are software engineers 4. If you cannot demonstrate how a coding agent works, you are just a consumer and have imposed an artificial glass ceiling on your career as a software engineer. 5. If you are curious, you will have a job. If you have not been curious in the last two years, you are replaceable. 6. SaaS per-seat economics may become unstable as customers need fewer people to achieve results, prompting founders to think about new unit economics 7. Most companies will take two or three years (or more!) to figure out AI transformation. 8. Some companies are already building AI native teams of five to ten people who can build with the grain of AI 9. There will be an explosion in the number of software developers. Software development is now essentially free, and tokens are cheaper than humans 10. Not enough engineers know what it means to be a product engineer 11. JIRA ticket monkeys are cooked 12. If your company has banned AI, you should quit that company 13. AI is more like a musical instrument than just a tool play with it, make discoveries, build intuition learn where AI is good and where it fails

Some personal hot takes from AI: engineer Miami follows... 1. Software development is a dead-end profession because anyone can be a software developer now. 2. Anyone can use Cursor or any other tool and generate code. Being a coder and being a software engineer are different. 3. Computers used to be gated; now everyone has the power to make computers malleable. Everyone is a software developer now, but that does not mean they are software engineers 4. If you cannot demonstrate how a coding agent works, you are just a consumer and have imposed an artificial glass ceiling on your career as a software engineer. 5. If you are curious, you will have a job. If you have not been curious in the last two years, you are replaceable. 6. SaaS per-seat economics may become unstable as customers need fewer people to achieve results, prompting founders to think about new unit economics 7. Most companies will take two or three years (or more!) to figure out AI transformation. 8. Some companies are already building AI native teams of five to ten people who can build with the grain of AI 9. There will be an explosion in the number of software developers. Software development is now essentially free, and tokens are cheaper than humans 10. Not enough engineers know what it means to be a product engineer 11. JIRA ticket monkeys are cooked 12. If your company has banned AI, you should quit that company 13. AI is more like a musical instrument than just a tool play with it, make discoveries, build intuition learn where AI is good and where it fails

geoff

55,887 views • 27 days ago

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on value creation and avoiding “parasitic software”: “We drive our whole business based on a set of beliefs that are: American superiority.” “If you believe your client is noble—like, I believe our US government clients are not only noble, but they're no more noble than I am.” “They're doing missions that will change world history for the better.” “If you know that the thing that's going to happen—downstream from that is you're going to resist building parasitic products.” “What you're supposed to be doing in software is—build something the client gets addicted to. Not the one they need.” “What very successful software companies do is say: they think they want X. We'll fake give them X, but we'll give them this thing that they can't get rid of.” “And then nothing else will work, but they'll just have to pay.”

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on value creation and avoiding “parasitic software”: “We drive our whole business based on a set of beliefs that are: American superiority.” “If you believe your client is noble—like, I believe our US government clients are not only noble, but they're no more noble than I am.” “They're doing missions that will change world history for the better.” “If you know that the thing that's going to happen—downstream from that is you're going to resist building parasitic products.” “What you're supposed to be doing in software is—build something the client gets addicted to. Not the one they need.” “What very successful software companies do is say: they think they want X. We'll fake give them X, but we'll give them this thing that they can't get rid of.” “And then nothing else will work, but they'll just have to pay.”

sourcery

51,464 views • 3 months ago

.John Collison is bullish on two types of people: high-agency individuals and double majors. "There are two categories of people I would be super bullish on right now and I think will do incredibly well over the next 10-20 years. First, high-agency people. The people at Stripe who have been talking to customers and know exactly what we should do. It's the people who have that pep in their step and want to go make Stripe better. They are so much more empowered thanks to AI." "The second is double majors. I think if you understand software and understand finance, or if you understand software and understand marketing, you now can go massively improve the entire marketing funnel for your company. Now, one person can do what would have taken 20 people dredging through all these systems." "Charlie Munger talked about the importance of being multidisciplinary and multidisciplinary thinking. He thinks getting a functional understanding of many disciplines is not that hard. You can just go read the books now or you can talk to your AI about it. I think multidisciplinary thinkers are going to do incredibly well."

.John Collison is bullish on two types of people: high-agency individuals and double majors. "There are two categories of people I would be super bullish on right now and I think will do incredibly well over the next 10-20 years. First, high-agency people. The people at Stripe who have been talking to customers and know exactly what we should do. It's the people who have that pep in their step and want to go make Stripe better. They are so much more empowered thanks to AI." "The second is double majors. I think if you understand software and understand finance, or if you understand software and understand marketing, you now can go massively improve the entire marketing funnel for your company. Now, one person can do what would have taken 20 people dredging through all these systems." "Charlie Munger talked about the importance of being multidisciplinary and multidisciplinary thinking. He thinks getting a functional understanding of many disciplines is not that hard. You can just go read the books now or you can talk to your AI about it. I think multidisciplinary thinkers are going to do incredibly well."

TBPN

219,093 views • 2 months ago

jensen spitting bars "So, China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. Fact. Right? China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Fact. Today it's built on the American tech stack Nvidia. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI is important. United States ought to go win all five of them. They're all important. The one that is the most important, of course, is the AI application layer. The layer that diffuses into society, the one that uses it most will benefit from this industrial revolution most. But my point is that every layer has to succeed. If we scare this country into thinking that AI is somehow a nuclear bomb so that everybody hates AI and everybody's afraid of AI, I don't know how you're helping the United States. You're doing a disservice. If we scare everybody out of doing software engineering jobs because it's going to kill every software engineering job and we don't have any software engineers as a result of that, we're doing a disservice to United States. If we scare everybody out of radiology so nobody wants to be a radiologist because computer vision is completely free and no AI is going to do a worse job than radiologists and we misunderstand the difference between a job and a task. The job of a radiologist, patient care, task to read a scan. If we misunderstand that so profoundly and we scare everybody out of going to radiology school, we're not going to have enough radiologists and good enough healthcare. So I'm making the case that when you make a premise that is so extreme, everything goes from zero or infinity. We end up scaring people in a way that's just not true. Life is not like that. Do we want United States to be first? Of course we do. Do we need to be a leader in every layer of that stack? Of course we do. Of course we do. Is today you're talking about Mythos because Mythos is important? Sure, that's fantastic, but in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want the American tech stack, when we want American technology to be diffused around the world, out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia, when our country would like to export because we would like to export our technology, we would like to export our standards. On that day, I want you and I to have that same conversation again, and I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all. We shouldn't concede it. If we lose it, we lose it, but why do we concede it? Now nobody is advocating, nobody is advocating an all or nothing. Nobody is advocating all or nothing, meaning we ship everything to China at all times. Nobody's advocating that. We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here and the first, but we should also try to compete and win around the world. Both of those things can simultaneously happen. It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolutes."

jensen spitting bars "So, China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. Fact. Right? China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Fact. Today it's built on the American tech stack Nvidia. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI is important. United States ought to go win all five of them. They're all important. The one that is the most important, of course, is the AI application layer. The layer that diffuses into society, the one that uses it most will benefit from this industrial revolution most. But my point is that every layer has to succeed. If we scare this country into thinking that AI is somehow a nuclear bomb so that everybody hates AI and everybody's afraid of AI, I don't know how you're helping the United States. You're doing a disservice. If we scare everybody out of doing software engineering jobs because it's going to kill every software engineering job and we don't have any software engineers as a result of that, we're doing a disservice to United States. If we scare everybody out of radiology so nobody wants to be a radiologist because computer vision is completely free and no AI is going to do a worse job than radiologists and we misunderstand the difference between a job and a task. The job of a radiologist, patient care, task to read a scan. If we misunderstand that so profoundly and we scare everybody out of going to radiology school, we're not going to have enough radiologists and good enough healthcare. So I'm making the case that when you make a premise that is so extreme, everything goes from zero or infinity. We end up scaring people in a way that's just not true. Life is not like that. Do we want United States to be first? Of course we do. Do we need to be a leader in every layer of that stack? Of course we do. Of course we do. Is today you're talking about Mythos because Mythos is important? Sure, that's fantastic, but in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want the American tech stack, when we want American technology to be diffused around the world, out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia, when our country would like to export because we would like to export our technology, we would like to export our standards. On that day, I want you and I to have that same conversation again, and I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all. We shouldn't concede it. If we lose it, we lose it, but why do we concede it? Now nobody is advocating, nobody is advocating an all or nothing. Nobody is advocating all or nothing, meaning we ship everything to China at all times. Nobody's advocating that. We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here and the first, but we should also try to compete and win around the world. Both of those things can simultaneously happen. It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolutes."

mark erdmann

13,279 views • 3 months ago

What is the biggest misconception about Palantir? Emil Michael (Under Secretary of War Emil Michael + Department of War CTO), Under Secretary of War for Research & Engineering, & Department of War CTO, explains: "I mean, Palantir is a software company that innovated.. they were sort of the first big data company, if you will.. and in some ways had AI capabilities that delivered useful software to the government. And it's been amazing to watch how people use their product in the department for all sorts of things. We didn't know where our stuff was. We were spending trillions of dollars over the years. Where are our munitions? Where are these things? How do we understand where they are in their lifecycle? How do we repair them? All the things that were really just basic stuff. The protesters want to talk about, you know, some of the other stuff they do that they think is more controversial. But I think they're really a nuts-and-bolts software company with forward deployed engineers that are smart, that sit with a warfighter and solve everyday problems you would in any organization, as much as they do the other stuff." "Why do you think people think they're evil?" "People are crazy. I don't know. If helping the American government do lawful things makes you evil, I mean, you know, who's not on that list? I mean, we all support our—we live here, right? We support our elected government regardless of the party. So I think it sort of hearkens back to, like, a long—it was probably before your time—but there was a sort of a solicitation on who would sell the first cloud software to the government. And Google bailed because their employees were like, “No, you can't.” So imagine.. they wouldn't sell cloud to the government, but they'd sell it to companies in foreign countries. It's crazy. I think those days are over, and the number or percentage of people that will say that about a Palantir or a Google or any one other company has shrunk so much that hopefully it doesn't matter."

What is the biggest misconception about Palantir? Emil Michael (Under Secretary of War Emil Michael + Department of War CTO), Under Secretary of War for Research & Engineering, & Department of War CTO, explains: "I mean, Palantir is a software company that innovated.. they were sort of the first big data company, if you will.. and in some ways had AI capabilities that delivered useful software to the government. And it's been amazing to watch how people use their product in the department for all sorts of things. We didn't know where our stuff was. We were spending trillions of dollars over the years. Where are our munitions? Where are these things? How do we understand where they are in their lifecycle? How do we repair them? All the things that were really just basic stuff. The protesters want to talk about, you know, some of the other stuff they do that they think is more controversial. But I think they're really a nuts-and-bolts software company with forward deployed engineers that are smart, that sit with a warfighter and solve everyday problems you would in any organization, as much as they do the other stuff." "Why do you think people think they're evil?" "People are crazy. I don't know. If helping the American government do lawful things makes you evil, I mean, you know, who's not on that list? I mean, we all support our—we live here, right? We support our elected government regardless of the party. So I think it sort of hearkens back to, like, a long—it was probably before your time—but there was a sort of a solicitation on who would sell the first cloud software to the government. And Google bailed because their employees were like, “No, you can't.” So imagine.. they wouldn't sell cloud to the government, but they'd sell it to companies in foreign countries. It's crazy. I think those days are over, and the number or percentage of people that will say that about a Palantir or a Google or any one other company has shrunk so much that hopefully it doesn't matter."

Molly O’Shea

74,174 views • 7 months ago

The next Mag 7 may still be private: "All of us in this room would probably think of.. SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, Revolut, Databricks.” “If you're going to outperform the index over a long period of time, you're going to need exposure to these companies.” Thomas Laffont, Coatue COATUE coatue.thomas Upfront Ventures "Regardless, if you think about the innovation of these late-stage private companies—or one thing we kind of look at is the Mag 7, which has been a significant driver of returns in the public market over the past few years—has essentially kind of been flat over the past year-ish. And that's because Microsoft, as an example, I think has lost almost a trillion dollars of value over that timeframe as people are questioning their positioning kind of in AI. So then that leads you to think, “Well, what would the next Mag 7 look like?” Or who would be other candidates to kind of fit into the index of the future? And I think the names that all of us in this room would probably think of are names like SpaceX, or names like OpenAI, Anthropic, Revolut, Databricks. So I do think it's a really important class of companies. I do think if you're going to want to outperform the index over a long period of time, you're going to need exposure to these companies. Some of them will probably go public in the next 12 to 24 months, so that'll be kind of one impact of it. But it is unbelievable the amount of innovation that is now coming from this group of companies."

The next Mag 7 may still be private: "All of us in this room would probably think of.. SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, Revolut, Databricks.” “If you're going to outperform the index over a long period of time, you're going to need exposure to these companies.” Thomas Laffont, Coatue COATUE coatue.thomas Upfront Ventures "Regardless, if you think about the innovation of these late-stage private companies—or one thing we kind of look at is the Mag 7, which has been a significant driver of returns in the public market over the past few years—has essentially kind of been flat over the past year-ish. And that's because Microsoft, as an example, I think has lost almost a trillion dollars of value over that timeframe as people are questioning their positioning kind of in AI. So then that leads you to think, “Well, what would the next Mag 7 look like?” Or who would be other candidates to kind of fit into the index of the future? And I think the names that all of us in this room would probably think of are names like SpaceX, or names like OpenAI, Anthropic, Revolut, Databricks. So I do think it's a really important class of companies. I do think if you're going to want to outperform the index over a long period of time, you're going to need exposure to these companies. Some of them will probably go public in the next 12 to 24 months, so that'll be kind of one impact of it. But it is unbelievable the amount of innovation that is now coming from this group of companies."

Molly O’Shea

15,258 views • 4 months ago

.carried_no_interest says the rumors that enterprise customers are no longer signing up for 3-year contracts — combined with "adjacency in the market map" — is way more of a threat to software private equity than vibe coding: "The entire basis of software PE being one of the best private market categories was that you had enterprise customers with 3-year contracts." "If every other enterprise customer says, 'AI is just so amazing now, and we don't know where we're going to be, and what it's going to look like, so we're only doing 1-year deals,' that has much bigger implications than someone vibecoding a Notion clone on a Sunday. That's a big deal." "And I think the reason they're doing that — and this is the bigger threat to a lot of these companies — is the adjacency in the market map." "If you look like Rippling, and you have a very talented group of people like their employees, they can attack so many parts of the HR platform space now that they simply couldn't 3 years ago." "That's a lot scarier than vibe coding, than somebody just whipping up [a clone] and going out with a bunch of cold emails. It's the adjacency threats in the market map. Because now, who's Rippling going to go after?"

.carried_no_interest says the rumors that enterprise customers are no longer signing up for 3-year contracts — combined with "adjacency in the market map" — is way more of a threat to software private equity than vibe coding: "The entire basis of software PE being one of the best private market categories was that you had enterprise customers with 3-year contracts." "If every other enterprise customer says, 'AI is just so amazing now, and we don't know where we're going to be, and what it's going to look like, so we're only doing 1-year deals,' that has much bigger implications than someone vibecoding a Notion clone on a Sunday. That's a big deal." "And I think the reason they're doing that — and this is the bigger threat to a lot of these companies — is the adjacency in the market map." "If you look like Rippling, and you have a very talented group of people like their employees, they can attack so many parts of the HR platform space now that they simply couldn't 3 years ago." "That's a lot scarier than vibe coding, than somebody just whipping up [a clone] and going out with a bunch of cold emails. It's the adjacency threats in the market map. Because now, who's Rippling going to go after?"

TBPN

18,851 views • 4 months ago

We asked Dylan Field about organizational design in the age of AI, the importance of design. "As the inputs to software change, as more people are creating software, design becomes the differentiator." "Two decades ago, design was lipstick on a pig." "Design now is how you win or lose. We're going to start seeing so many more designer CEOs and design-oriented folks who are leading and shaping the future of software and companies." "Incredible designers are more in demand than ever. Good luck recruiting them because they have 50 other offers and infinite optionality."

We asked Dylan Field about organizational design in the age of AI, the importance of design. "As the inputs to software change, as more people are creating software, design becomes the differentiator." "Two decades ago, design was lipstick on a pig." "Design now is how you win or lose. We're going to start seeing so many more designer CEOs and design-oriented folks who are leading and shaping the future of software and companies." "Incredible designers are more in demand than ever. Good luck recruiting them because they have 50 other offers and infinite optionality."

TBPN

27,749 views • 11 months ago

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

TBPN

34,529 views • 5 months ago

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

TBPN

383,885 views • 5 months ago

Qullamaggie on Why You Are Losing Money Most of the Time “This is actually one thing I got from Peter Brandt on his blog. He explained it really nicely. I never thought about it before. The most successful traders and investors are gonna be in a drawdown most of the time. Like even this year, even though I'm up at least 500%, I've spent half of the year in a drawdown, at least. So expecting to be like peak equity all the time, it's just not gonna happen. You're gonna spend most of your time in a drawdown, even on a really good year. That's just how it works. You just need to realize it and you need to accept it. Look at something like AMZN, one of the best stocks like ever, in the history of the world. It's up what? 200,000% since the IPO. Now look at the amount of time it's been in a drawdown. out of the 23 years it's been public, it was in a drawdown for 15 years. NFLX out of 8 years, it has been in a drawdown almost half of the time. Being in a drawdown is normal. It’s not an anomaly. The question is how big of a drawdown are you gonna be in. I try to limit my drawdowns to 10-15% but sometimes they become more severe than that. Drawdowns, it's the nature of the game. If you want to have big returns, you are going to have drawdowns. If you don't have drawdowns, it means you don't take any risk. And if you don't take any risk, you won't have any returns.”

Qullamaggie on Why You Are Losing Money Most of the Time “This is actually one thing I got from Peter Brandt on his blog. He explained it really nicely. I never thought about it before. The most successful traders and investors are gonna be in a drawdown most of the time. Like even this year, even though I'm up at least 500%, I've spent half of the year in a drawdown, at least. So expecting to be like peak equity all the time, it's just not gonna happen. You're gonna spend most of your time in a drawdown, even on a really good year. That's just how it works. You just need to realize it and you need to accept it. Look at something like AMZN, one of the best stocks like ever, in the history of the world. It's up what? 200,000% since the IPO. Now look at the amount of time it's been in a drawdown. out of the 23 years it's been public, it was in a drawdown for 15 years. NFLX out of 8 years, it has been in a drawdown almost half of the time. Being in a drawdown is normal. It’s not an anomaly. The question is how big of a drawdown are you gonna be in. I try to limit my drawdowns to 10-15% but sometimes they become more severe than that. Drawdowns, it's the nature of the game. If you want to have big returns, you are going to have drawdowns. If you don't have drawdowns, it means you don't take any risk. And if you don't take any risk, you won't have any returns.”

Lone

22,190 views • 11 months ago

Chamath’s 2026 IPO Advice: Get Public Fast or Get Left Behind Jason: “ What are your thoughts here on the flurry of potential IPOs?” Chamath: “I think that we have a bit of a risk problem. If you think about appetite as equivalent to a person at a Thanksgiving dinner, when you first come in and you see all of this stuff, it's so plentiful, your eyes are bigger than your stomach. And I think in a moment like that, you want to be the one that is consumed first. And I think the risk increases when you are at the tail end because the risk is that the diners will run out of space.” Jason: “Plate fills up. Yeah.” Chamath: “And if you use that analogy, I think the reason why people's plates will get full is probably twofold and maybe threefold. The first and most important thing is there's enough tactical event risk that people generally want to be risk off and have more margin of safety. We have a lot of these really important financial moments tied to this concept of AGI, ASI. We have a real pricing problem. If AGI is real, the durability of most companies is slim to none. If AGI is not real, then the fundraising capacity of these companies that are now raising hundreds of billions of dollars needs to get questioned and inspected thoroughly. History will sort out which one is right, but both cannot be right. So in that vein, I don't think we're going to have this “blockbuster” stream of IPOs. I think what happens is SpaceX is going to get out. They're going to do great, and then maybe the next one does good to great, then the next one will do good, and then the appetite runs out because you just can't absorb, incrementally, trillions of dollars of new demand. And if you think about it, where is it going to come from? Is it going to come from the sidelines? I don't know, I think it's more of a reallocation exercise. But if you look at the S&P, well, most people are now defensively moving away from these kinds of things, towards the things that are more protected, what the industry calls HALO, right? Those things trade for zero today. You could buy hundreds of millions of dollars a year of cashflow for 2-5x right now in the stock market. And so why are you going to go way out on the risk curve and buy something at 200x revenue, let alone earnings? I'm more in the camp of, I think it's good to be first, it’s pretty decent to be second, but if I were you, I would get the heck out, and get public, and get your money, and fortify your balance sheet ASAP, because I think the risk builds the further down the IPO chain you're in.”

Chamath’s 2026 IPO Advice: Get Public Fast or Get Left Behind Jason: “ What are your thoughts here on the flurry of potential IPOs?” Chamath: “I think that we have a bit of a risk problem. If you think about appetite as equivalent to a person at a Thanksgiving dinner, when you first come in and you see all of this stuff, it's so plentiful, your eyes are bigger than your stomach. And I think in a moment like that, you want to be the one that is consumed first. And I think the risk increases when you are at the tail end because the risk is that the diners will run out of space.” Jason: “Plate fills up. Yeah.” Chamath: “And if you use that analogy, I think the reason why people's plates will get full is probably twofold and maybe threefold. The first and most important thing is there's enough tactical event risk that people generally want to be risk off and have more margin of safety. We have a lot of these really important financial moments tied to this concept of AGI, ASI. We have a real pricing problem. If AGI is real, the durability of most companies is slim to none. If AGI is not real, then the fundraising capacity of these companies that are now raising hundreds of billions of dollars needs to get questioned and inspected thoroughly. History will sort out which one is right, but both cannot be right. So in that vein, I don't think we're going to have this “blockbuster” stream of IPOs. I think what happens is SpaceX is going to get out. They're going to do great, and then maybe the next one does good to great, then the next one will do good, and then the appetite runs out because you just can't absorb, incrementally, trillions of dollars of new demand. And if you think about it, where is it going to come from? Is it going to come from the sidelines? I don't know, I think it's more of a reallocation exercise. But if you look at the S&P, well, most people are now defensively moving away from these kinds of things, towards the things that are more protected, what the industry calls HALO, right? Those things trade for zero today. You could buy hundreds of millions of dollars a year of cashflow for 2-5x right now in the stock market. And so why are you going to go way out on the risk curve and buy something at 200x revenue, let alone earnings? I'm more in the camp of, I think it's good to be first, it’s pretty decent to be second, but if I were you, I would get the heck out, and get public, and get your money, and fortify your balance sheet ASAP, because I think the risk builds the further down the IPO chain you're in.”

The All-In Podcast

61,917 views • 3 months ago

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar— Silicon Valley can’t be replicated. American culture is unique 🇺🇸 “We did import the culture to Silicon Valley. We imported it from Iowa. It’s deeply rooted in midwestern values, a willingness to play a positive-sum game.” “Bob Noyce coined the term ‘open door policy.’” “I think that explains why it’s so hard for other countries to copy. People like their culture. They’re committed to their culture.” “One of the great American strengths in the present moment is software… America is so good at software, that we almost underestimate how good we are at it.” “There are zero Indian or Chinese enterprise software companies that are competitive on the global stage. That tells you that software is not just about IQ… it tells you there’s something very cultural about it.”

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar— Silicon Valley can’t be replicated. American culture is unique 🇺🇸 “We did import the culture to Silicon Valley. We imported it from Iowa. It’s deeply rooted in midwestern values, a willingness to play a positive-sum game.” “Bob Noyce coined the term ‘open door policy.’” “I think that explains why it’s so hard for other countries to copy. People like their culture. They’re committed to their culture.” “One of the great American strengths in the present moment is software… America is so good at software, that we almost underestimate how good we are at it.” “There are zero Indian or Chinese enterprise software companies that are competitive on the global stage. That tells you that software is not just about IQ… it tells you there’s something very cultural about it.”

Jawwwn

53,247 views • 5 months ago

Marc Andreessen (Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸): Airbnb could have been boutique booking software. Uber could have been taxi dispatch software. Tesla could have been self-driving software. They decided to take over the entire industry instead: "Silicon Valley between 1950 and 2010 was primarily just in the tools business. You'd build a tool like an operating system or a disk drive, sell it to people, and they'd figure out what to do with it. Then something changed. Alternate universe Airbnb is just boutique booking software. A tiny little business building spreadsheet software. But Brian Chesky decided: we're going to go into the hospitality business and compete with hotels directly. Uber and Lyft in the old world were just taxi dispatch software. In the new world, they're full transportation providers. Tesla in the old world would have just been software for self-driving cars. In the new world, it builds the entire car. Facebook, same thing. Prior to Facebook, if you built online ad software, you were selling it to media companies. Mark said: no. We're just going to beat the media company. We're going to build the entire thing. That was the pivot point when the Valley's ambitions went from just building tools to going directly into incumbent industries. And then AI makes that crystal clear. The winning AI companies are raising billions, tens of billions, in some cases hundreds of billions of dollars. The old world of $10,000,000 or $50,000,000 — where VCs tap out — is just not relevant anymore."

Marc Andreessen (Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸): Airbnb could have been boutique booking software. Uber could have been taxi dispatch software. Tesla could have been self-driving software. They decided to take over the entire industry instead: "Silicon Valley between 1950 and 2010 was primarily just in the tools business. You'd build a tool like an operating system or a disk drive, sell it to people, and they'd figure out what to do with it. Then something changed. Alternate universe Airbnb is just boutique booking software. A tiny little business building spreadsheet software. But Brian Chesky decided: we're going to go into the hospitality business and compete with hotels directly. Uber and Lyft in the old world were just taxi dispatch software. In the new world, they're full transportation providers. Tesla in the old world would have just been software for self-driving cars. In the new world, it builds the entire car. Facebook, same thing. Prior to Facebook, if you built online ad software, you were selling it to media companies. Mark said: no. We're just going to beat the media company. We're going to build the entire thing. That was the pivot point when the Valley's ambitions went from just building tools to going directly into incumbent industries. And then AI makes that crystal clear. The winning AI companies are raising billions, tens of billions, in some cases hundreds of billions of dollars. The old world of $10,000,000 or $50,000,000 — where VCs tap out — is just not relevant anymore."

David Senra

131,838 views • 14 days ago

Marc Andreessen (Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸): Airbnb could have been boutique booking software. Uber could have been taxi dispatch software. Tesla could have been self-driving software. They decided to take over the entire industry instead: "Silicon Valley between 1950 and 2010 was primarily just in the tools business. You'd build a tool like an operating system or a disk drive, sell it to people, and they'd figure out what to do with it. Then something changed. Alternate universe Airbnb is just boutique booking software. A tiny little business building spreadsheet software. But Brian Chesky decided: we're going to go into the hospitality business and compete with hotels directly. Uber and Lyft in the old world were just taxi dispatch software. In the new world, they're full transportation providers. Tesla in the old world would have just been software for self-driving cars. In the new world, it builds the entire car. Facebook, same thing. Prior to Facebook, if you built online ad software, you were selling it to media companies. Mark said: no. We're just going to beat the media company. We're going to build the entire thing. That was the pivot point when the Valley's ambitions went from just building tools to going directly into incumbent industries. And then AI makes that crystal clear. The winning AI companies are raising billions, tens of billions, in some cases hundreds of billions of dollars. The old world of $10,000,000 or $50,000,000 — where VCs tap out — is just not relevant anymore."

Marc Andreessen (Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸): Airbnb could have been boutique booking software. Uber could have been taxi dispatch software. Tesla could have been self-driving software. They decided to take over the entire industry instead: "Silicon Valley between 1950 and 2010 was primarily just in the tools business. You'd build a tool like an operating system or a disk drive, sell it to people, and they'd figure out what to do with it. Then something changed. Alternate universe Airbnb is just boutique booking software. A tiny little business building spreadsheet software. But Brian Chesky decided: we're going to go into the hospitality business and compete with hotels directly. Uber and Lyft in the old world were just taxi dispatch software. In the new world, they're full transportation providers. Tesla in the old world would have just been software for self-driving cars. In the new world, it builds the entire car. Facebook, same thing. Prior to Facebook, if you built online ad software, you were selling it to media companies. Mark said: no. We're just going to beat the media company. We're going to build the entire thing. That was the pivot point when the Valley's ambitions went from just building tools to going directly into incumbent industries. And then AI makes that crystal clear. The winning AI companies are raising billions, tens of billions, in some cases hundreds of billions of dollars. The old world of $10,000,000 or $50,000,000 — where VCs tap out — is just not relevant anymore."

David Senra

259,016 views • 4 months ago