Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

"This Gear Solved A Problem Most Engineers Couldn't Handle" At first, engineers thought gears only needed one thing. Teeth that mesh. But when factories started running bigger machines at higher torque and speed, something strange happened. The gears sounded like metal hammers smashing together. Vibration exploded. Bearings wore out... faster. Entire systems became unstable. Then came the herringbone gear. Instead of straight teeth slamming together all at once, its angled double-helical design transfers force gradually across the surface. Smoother contact. Less shock. Almost silent operation. But here's the genius part most people miss. Normal helical gears create massive sideways axial thrust that pushes shafts apart under load. Herringbone gears cancel that force completely by using mirrored tooth geometry. No extra thrust bearings. Less wear. Higher load capacity. That's why you'll find them inside marine propulsion systems, heavy industrial gearboxes, and oil-field machinery where failure is not an option. The crazy part? Engineers still avoid them because manufacturing these gears is brutally expensive. Which brings us back to the question... if regular gears already work, why build the impossible one?show more

Mechanical Knowledge

139,279 subscribers

268,922 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Ricardo

2,962,157 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Jensen Huang just reverse-engineered why Elon Musk operates at a speed no one on the planet can match. Three traits. The first is deletion. Huang: “He has the ability to question everything to the point where everything’s down to its minimal amount.” Most engineers solve problems by adding. Musk solves them by subtracting. Every part. Every process. Every assumption that survived because no one had the nerve to kill it. He picks it up. Asks if it’s load-bearing. If the answer is anything less than absolutely, it is gone. Not simplified. Not optimized. Removed. What survives is the skeleton. The bare physics of the problem. Nothing between intent and execution. Huang said it plainly. As minimalist as you could possibly imagine. And he does it at system scale. Not at a product level. Not at a department level. Across entire companies. Entire industries. Entire supply chains. He strips a rocket the same way he strips a meeting. Down to the load-bearing walls and nothing else. The second is presence. Huang: “He is present at the point of action. If there’s a problem, he’ll just go there and show me the problem.” Not a Slack message. Not a report filtered through four layers of people who weren’t there when it broke. He walks to the failure. Stands over it. Puts his hands on it. Most executives have never seen the actual problem their company is trying to solve. They have seen slides about it. Read summaries of it. Formed opinions about it in rooms that are nowhere near it. Musk stands over the broken hardware and does not leave until it works. That collapses the distance that buries most organizations. The gap between something breaking and the person with authority to fix it actually understanding what broke. In most companies, that gap is weeks. For Musk, it is hours. The third is the one that bends everyone around him. Huang: “When you act personally with so much urgency, it causes everybody else to act with urgency.” Every supplier has a hundred customers. Every vendor has a dozen priorities. Every manufacturer has a backlog stretching months into the future. Musk makes himself the top of every single one of those lists. Not by demanding it. By demonstrating it. When the CEO shows up at your facility at midnight. When he is moving faster than your own internal team. When his timeline makes yours look like a suggestion. You do not put him in the queue. You rearrange the queue around him. Huang watched this up close. Huang: “He does that by demonstrating.” Not by asking. Not by negotiating. Not by leveraging a contract clause. By moving so fast that everyone else’s normal pace feels like standing still. Three traits. Strip everything down. Show up at the failure. Move so fast the world rearranges around you. That is not a management philosophy. That is why one man runs six companies while entire boards cannot keep one moving.

Jensen Huang just reverse-engineered why Elon Musk operates at a speed no one on the planet can match. Three traits. The first is deletion. Huang: “He has the ability to question everything to the point where everything’s down to its minimal amount.” Most engineers solve problems by adding. Musk solves them by subtracting. Every part. Every process. Every assumption that survived because no one had the nerve to kill it. He picks it up. Asks if it’s load-bearing. If the answer is anything less than absolutely, it is gone. Not simplified. Not optimized. Removed. What survives is the skeleton. The bare physics of the problem. Nothing between intent and execution. Huang said it plainly. As minimalist as you could possibly imagine. And he does it at system scale. Not at a product level. Not at a department level. Across entire companies. Entire industries. Entire supply chains. He strips a rocket the same way he strips a meeting. Down to the load-bearing walls and nothing else. The second is presence. Huang: “He is present at the point of action. If there’s a problem, he’ll just go there and show me the problem.” Not a Slack message. Not a report filtered through four layers of people who weren’t there when it broke. He walks to the failure. Stands over it. Puts his hands on it. Most executives have never seen the actual problem their company is trying to solve. They have seen slides about it. Read summaries of it. Formed opinions about it in rooms that are nowhere near it. Musk stands over the broken hardware and does not leave until it works. That collapses the distance that buries most organizations. The gap between something breaking and the person with authority to fix it actually understanding what broke. In most companies, that gap is weeks. For Musk, it is hours. The third is the one that bends everyone around him. Huang: “When you act personally with so much urgency, it causes everybody else to act with urgency.” Every supplier has a hundred customers. Every vendor has a dozen priorities. Every manufacturer has a backlog stretching months into the future. Musk makes himself the top of every single one of those lists. Not by demanding it. By demonstrating it. When the CEO shows up at your facility at midnight. When he is moving faster than your own internal team. When his timeline makes yours look like a suggestion. You do not put him in the queue. You rearrange the queue around him. Huang watched this up close. Huang: “He does that by demonstrating.” Not by asking. Not by negotiating. Not by leveraging a contract clause. By moving so fast that everyone else’s normal pace feels like standing still. Three traits. Strip everything down. Show up at the failure. Move so fast the world rearranges around you. That is not a management philosophy. That is why one man runs six companies while entire boards cannot keep one moving.

Dustin

778,011 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

The controversy is global warming. Now, I'm a physicist, but I'm not the right kind of physicist. In regard to global warming, I'm just a layman. And the rational thing for a layman to do is to take seriously the prevailing scientific theory. And according to that theory, it's already too late to avoid a disaster, because if it's true that our best option at the moment is to prevent CO2 emissions with something like the Kyoto Protocol, with its constraints on economic activity and its enormous cost of hundreds of billions of dollars or whatever it is, then that is already a disaster by any reasonable measure. And the actions that are advocated are not even purported to solve the problem, merely to postpone it by a little. So it's already too late to avoid it, and it probably has been too late to avoid it ever since before anyone realized the danger. It was probably already too late in the 1970s when the best available scientific theory was telling us that industrial emissions were about to precipitate a new ice age in which billions would die. Now, the lesson of that seems clear to me, and I don't know why it isn't informing public debate. It is that we can't always know. When we know of an impending disaster and how to solve it at a cost less than the cost of the disaster itself, then there's not going to be much argument, really. But no precautions and no precautionary principle can avoid problems that we do not yet foresee. Hence, we need a stance of problem fixing, not just problem avoidance. It's true that an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure, but that's only if we know what to prevent. If you've been punched on the nose, then the science of medicine does not consist of teaching you how to avoid punches. If medical science stopped seeking cures and concentrated on prevention only, then it would achieve very little of either. The world is buzzing at the moment with plans to force reductions in gas emissions at all costs. It ought to be buzzing with plans to reduce the temperature and with plans to live at the higher temperature, and not at all costs, but efficiently and cheaply. Some such plans exist, things like swarms of mirrors in space to deflect the sunlight away and encouraging aquatic organisms to eat more carbon dioxide. At the moment, these things are fringe research. They're not central to the human effort to face this problem or problems in general. And with problems that we are not aware of yet, the ability to put right, not the sheer good luck of avoiding indefinitely, is our only hope, not just of solving problems, but of survival. So, take two stone tablets and carve on them, on one of them, carve, problems are soluble. And on the other one, carve, problems are inevitable. David Deutsch

The controversy is global warming. Now, I'm a physicist, but I'm not the right kind of physicist. In regard to global warming, I'm just a layman. And the rational thing for a layman to do is to take seriously the prevailing scientific theory. And according to that theory, it's already too late to avoid a disaster, because if it's true that our best option at the moment is to prevent CO2 emissions with something like the Kyoto Protocol, with its constraints on economic activity and its enormous cost of hundreds of billions of dollars or whatever it is, then that is already a disaster by any reasonable measure. And the actions that are advocated are not even purported to solve the problem, merely to postpone it by a little. So it's already too late to avoid it, and it probably has been too late to avoid it ever since before anyone realized the danger. It was probably already too late in the 1970s when the best available scientific theory was telling us that industrial emissions were about to precipitate a new ice age in which billions would die. Now, the lesson of that seems clear to me, and I don't know why it isn't informing public debate. It is that we can't always know. When we know of an impending disaster and how to solve it at a cost less than the cost of the disaster itself, then there's not going to be much argument, really. But no precautions and no precautionary principle can avoid problems that we do not yet foresee. Hence, we need a stance of problem fixing, not just problem avoidance. It's true that an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure, but that's only if we know what to prevent. If you've been punched on the nose, then the science of medicine does not consist of teaching you how to avoid punches. If medical science stopped seeking cures and concentrated on prevention only, then it would achieve very little of either. The world is buzzing at the moment with plans to force reductions in gas emissions at all costs. It ought to be buzzing with plans to reduce the temperature and with plans to live at the higher temperature, and not at all costs, but efficiently and cheaply. Some such plans exist, things like swarms of mirrors in space to deflect the sunlight away and encouraging aquatic organisms to eat more carbon dioxide. At the moment, these things are fringe research. They're not central to the human effort to face this problem or problems in general. And with problems that we are not aware of yet, the ability to put right, not the sheer good luck of avoiding indefinitely, is our only hope, not just of solving problems, but of survival. So, take two stone tablets and carve on them, on one of them, carve, problems are soluble. And on the other one, carve, problems are inevitable. David Deutsch

Deutsch Explains

43,872 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$Katherine Boyle just identified Elon Musk’s most important contribution to America, and it has nothing to do with the products he shipped. Boyle, General Partner at a16z: “I think Elon’s most important contribution to this country is training two generations of engineers to work with their hands again.” For ten years, America’s sharpest technical minds optimized ad clicks and built messaging apps. Software consumed ambition. The physical world became something you abstracted into APIs, not something you touched or understood. Elon didn’t reverse that through inspiration. He reversed it by building companies that required understanding manufacturing or failing completely. SpaceX and Tesla forced engineers to learn how metal fractures, how tolerances cascade through systems, how physical iteration costs months and millions per failure. No debugging. No patches. Just physics that doesn’t negotiate. Boyle: “Training two generations of engineers.” The product isn’t the cars. It’s the people. Look at who’s founding America’s critical hard-tech companies now. The common thread isn’t Stanford or MIT. It’s time on factory floors at SpaceX or Tesla. They learned welding. They learned that “impossible” just means unsolved engineering, not violated physics. They learned failure in the physical domain where mistakes compound instead of reverting. Elon didn’t build companies. He accidentally rebuilt industrial knowledge that had been decaying for thirty years while America’s best minds chased digital scale. Boyle: “Work with their hands again.” Three words that sound quaint but describe a civilizational inflection point. Software dominated because it scaled infinitely at zero marginal cost. Physical manufacturing was slow, expensive, unfashionable. Building real things became what you did if you couldn’t code. Elon made atoms matter again. Made manufacturing the hardest problem worth solving. Made physical engineering prestigious in ways it hadn’t been since humans walked on the moon. The evidence is everywhere now. Technical talent that doesn’t default to “which app” but asks “which physical thing should exist that currently doesn’t.” Ambition redirected from optimizing engagement metrics to building rockets. From scaling users to scaling factories. From virtual products to physical infrastructure. That shift matters more than any vehicle or spacecraft Musk delivered. Products obsolesce. Redirecting an entire generation’s engineering ambition from digital to physical compounds across decades and rebuilds industrial capability at civilizational scale. We stopped just coding the future. We started machining it, welding it, breaking it in reality until physics confirms it works. That transformation from virtual to tangible ambition is reconstructing American manufacturing one engineer at a time. And those engineers are now training the next wave. The compounding has started. The School of Elon doesn’t need Elon anymore. It’s self-sustaining, spreading through an entire generation that learned building real things matters more than building virtual ones. That’s not just a business achievement. That’s a civilization remembering how to make things that matter in the physical world again. And it might be the only thing that saves American technological leadership when the competition is just building faster because they never forgot.$

Katherine Boyle just identified Elon Musk’s most important contribution to America, and it has nothing to do with the products he shipped. Boyle, General Partner at a16z: “I think Elon’s most important contribution to this country is training two generations of engineers to work with their hands again.” For ten years, America’s sharpest technical minds optimized ad clicks and built messaging apps. Software consumed ambition. The physical world became something you abstracted into APIs, not something you touched or understood. Elon didn’t reverse that through inspiration. He reversed it by building companies that required understanding manufacturing or failing completely. SpaceX and Tesla forced engineers to learn how metal fractures, how tolerances cascade through systems, how physical iteration costs months and millions per failure. No debugging. No patches. Just physics that doesn’t negotiate. Boyle: “Training two generations of engineers.” The product isn’t the cars. It’s the people. Look at who’s founding America’s critical hard-tech companies now. The common thread isn’t Stanford or MIT. It’s time on factory floors at SpaceX or Tesla. They learned welding. They learned that “impossible” just means unsolved engineering, not violated physics. They learned failure in the physical domain where mistakes compound instead of reverting. Elon didn’t build companies. He accidentally rebuilt industrial knowledge that had been decaying for thirty years while America’s best minds chased digital scale. Boyle: “Work with their hands again.” Three words that sound quaint but describe a civilizational inflection point. Software dominated because it scaled infinitely at zero marginal cost. Physical manufacturing was slow, expensive, unfashionable. Building real things became what you did if you couldn’t code. Elon made atoms matter again. Made manufacturing the hardest problem worth solving. Made physical engineering prestigious in ways it hadn’t been since humans walked on the moon. The evidence is everywhere now. Technical talent that doesn’t default to “which app” but asks “which physical thing should exist that currently doesn’t.” Ambition redirected from optimizing engagement metrics to building rockets. From scaling users to scaling factories. From virtual products to physical infrastructure. That shift matters more than any vehicle or spacecraft Musk delivered. Products obsolesce. Redirecting an entire generation’s engineering ambition from digital to physical compounds across decades and rebuilds industrial capability at civilizational scale. We stopped just coding the future. We started machining it, welding it, breaking it in reality until physics confirms it works. That transformation from virtual to tangible ambition is reconstructing American manufacturing one engineer at a time. And those engineers are now training the next wave. The compounding has started. The School of Elon doesn’t need Elon anymore. It’s self-sustaining, spreading through an entire generation that learned building real things matters more than building virtual ones. That’s not just a business achievement. That’s a civilization remembering how to make things that matter in the physical world again. And it might be the only thing that saves American technological leadership when the competition is just building faster because they never forgot.

Dustin

940,843 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

This isn't alien technology, literally or metaphorically. The breakthrough here isn't in engineering at all — it's in corporate organization. See, most machines are broken because the organizations that make them are broken. As an engineer, I would estimate that at least 30% of the parts of any given device exist only to correct for the design flaws in the other 70%. Works like this. Suppose I, an engineer, design a set of pipes and injectors to feed fuel to a combustion chamber at a consistent and controllable rate. Except in testing, there's some corner cases it doesn't handle well. Now, if you're an engineer, you understand this is normal. Nobody ever gets a design right the first time, unless it's so trivial that it's probably been done before. Your first design doesn't survive the wind tunnel, your first code doesn't compile right away, and if does, it segfaults. Your rockets blow up. And there's a flow problem with your fuel feed lines. It happens. Doesn't mean you're stupid. Means you didn't have enough information. But you have an even bigger problem. Middle management. Middle management is a special variety of hazmat suit, which is worn by the finance, sales, or market guys who run companies, so they don't have to touch the icky engineers. C-suite guys hate hate hate engineers, because it's a terrifying sensation to be dependent on someone you cannot understand, who doesn't appear to respect you much. (It does not occur to them that it is also extremely frustrating to have your work paid for, and thus controlled, by someone who cannot understand what you do, who doesn't appear to respect you much.) The primary role of middle management is talk to engineers so C-suite guys won't have to, and the primary qualification is to be a member of the right social class, and to hate engineers. This qualification is dressed up in secret handshake buzzwords like "management experience", as used in the sentence "I know you have been an engineer for twenty years and the other engineers all come to you for advice and leadership, but you don't have management experience, so I am going to hire my golfing buddy's 23 year old kid, who just graduated business school." So the fact that the fuel lines lines are not working quite right isn't your problem. That's part of the normal engineering process. Your problem is that your manager hates you and everything you stand for, and doesn't trust you or take your word for anything. He think his job is to keep you in line rather than help or empower you. So when you say "the fuel feed lines need to be redesigned", he says "we already spent six months and seventeen million dollars design the fuel feed system, we can't let you do it again." He thinks you are telling him seventeen million dollars worth of work needs to be thrown away and redone, and he cannot be told otherwise, because he cannot be told anything. So he says "you have two weeks and fifty thousand dollars to fix it". So you add another turbopump. What else can you do in two weeks? Now there's a new part. And if something goes wrong with that, another new part will be added to fix it. Because the company's actual priority isn't what you are responsible for — the design. It's what middle management is responsible for — the schedule and the budget. You have to play the villain so they can play the hero. What middle management doesn't understand, is paid to not understand, is what engineering actually is. Engineering is the process of making mistakes until you run out of mistakes to make. So when you spend six months and seventeen million dollars, and ended up with a design that doesn't quite work right in all cases, you weren't throwing away money, you were burning through mistakes. You've gotten a lot of them out of the way and won't make them again. But you have to get rid of some more before the design is actually right and doesn't require extra parts. The work of engineering isn't making the thing. It's teaching yourself to make the thing. Once you've done that, you can make the thing with minimal effort and time, because you know how to make the thing. C-suite financiers would hate this idea if they understood it. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Financiers like safe investments that make money. Not knowing how long something will take or how much it will cost is terrifying to them. So they train engineers to lie to them, by hiring a middle managers who try to force them to lie, and just interpret every guess as a promise if engineers still refuse to do so. But lying to yourself doesn't make the truth go away. The truth is that engineering projects take as long as they take, and cost as much as they cost. And that no one knows how long or how much they will be, because no one knows how many mistakes are waiting to be made, until they actually make them. The only thing you thing you can do about this is hire really good engineers, who catch more of their mistakes on the white board, leaving fewer to be caught in the wind tunnel, and this makes engineering faster... but it doesn't make engineering more predictable. Gantt charts are nothing but a collection of lies that corporations have taught themselves to tell themselves, lies that middle managers try to make true by enforcing them as promises. The ultimate reason that machines are 30% unnecessary parts is that the corporations that build them are 30% unnecessary people. This is what's different about Elon Musk. It's not that he's a better engineer. It's that he's a better manager. He understands engineers and engineering, and he doesn't hate them because he is one. He understood all along that green-field design is full of unknown-unknowns, and that there is absolutely no number-crunching, pie-chart, MBA magic that can eliminate this risk... it can only be hidden from view. The critical understanding is in the video clip below, where he says that SpaceX only had a 10% chance of success. You cannot say something like that unless you get it. And when you get it, you are free. Free from artificial anxiety about schedules and budgets. Anxiety about schedules and budgets is based on the delusion of control. Managers can't make a project finish "on time". They never could. The only power they have is the power to screw it up. The fate of a project is already written in the unknown unknowns before it ever starts. And the best, the absolute best, an engineering team can ever do, under any circumstances, is to confront those unknowns with clear-eyed honesty, and a willingness to adapt. Well, when you say to yourself, "This project has a 10% chance of succeeding", you've already confronted the pain of those admissions, which means you have already conquered the fear. The fear that makes you try to treat a prediction as a promise. The fear that makes you insert an extra turbopump, when what you really need to do is get busy redesigning the pipes, even though you have no idea how long it will take or much it will cost. Even when your rockets blow up. The SpaceX Raptor engine isn't just, or even primarily, a triumph of engineering smarts. It's a triumph of character. It's about an entire team with virtues MBAs lack: self-awareness, persistence, courage, humility, and, ultimately, hope. Because that's what it takes to pursue the best design, the RIGHT design, not even knowing if it exists to be found, much less whether you'll find it before you run out of money. Great things are not accomplished by middle managers with spreadsheets and Gantt charts. They are accomplished by teams of experts with passion and vision. Who are willing to risk failure so they can succeed. So what's the point in me saying all this? Am I just writing a puff piece on SpaceX and the Raptor engine? No. The point is that this is not special, one-off, magic alien technology. It's the systematic result of a correct understanding of engineering. Which means that EVERY COMPANY CAN BE LIKE THIS. If the people who control the purse strings are willing to learn from this example, and stop managing with spreadsheets and fear.

This isn't alien technology, literally or metaphorically. The breakthrough here isn't in engineering at all — it's in corporate organization. See, most machines are broken because the organizations that make them are broken. As an engineer, I would estimate that at least 30% of the parts of any given device exist only to correct for the design flaws in the other 70%. Works like this. Suppose I, an engineer, design a set of pipes and injectors to feed fuel to a combustion chamber at a consistent and controllable rate. Except in testing, there's some corner cases it doesn't handle well. Now, if you're an engineer, you understand this is normal. Nobody ever gets a design right the first time, unless it's so trivial that it's probably been done before. Your first design doesn't survive the wind tunnel, your first code doesn't compile right away, and if does, it segfaults. Your rockets blow up. And there's a flow problem with your fuel feed lines. It happens. Doesn't mean you're stupid. Means you didn't have enough information. But you have an even bigger problem. Middle management. Middle management is a special variety of hazmat suit, which is worn by the finance, sales, or market guys who run companies, so they don't have to touch the icky engineers. C-suite guys hate hate hate engineers, because it's a terrifying sensation to be dependent on someone you cannot understand, who doesn't appear to respect you much. (It does not occur to them that it is also extremely frustrating to have your work paid for, and thus controlled, by someone who cannot understand what you do, who doesn't appear to respect you much.) The primary role of middle management is talk to engineers so C-suite guys won't have to, and the primary qualification is to be a member of the right social class, and to hate engineers. This qualification is dressed up in secret handshake buzzwords like "management experience", as used in the sentence "I know you have been an engineer for twenty years and the other engineers all come to you for advice and leadership, but you don't have management experience, so I am going to hire my golfing buddy's 23 year old kid, who just graduated business school." So the fact that the fuel lines lines are not working quite right isn't your problem. That's part of the normal engineering process. Your problem is that your manager hates you and everything you stand for, and doesn't trust you or take your word for anything. He think his job is to keep you in line rather than help or empower you. So when you say "the fuel feed lines need to be redesigned", he says "we already spent six months and seventeen million dollars design the fuel feed system, we can't let you do it again." He thinks you are telling him seventeen million dollars worth of work needs to be thrown away and redone, and he cannot be told otherwise, because he cannot be told anything. So he says "you have two weeks and fifty thousand dollars to fix it". So you add another turbopump. What else can you do in two weeks? Now there's a new part. And if something goes wrong with that, another new part will be added to fix it. Because the company's actual priority isn't what you are responsible for — the design. It's what middle management is responsible for — the schedule and the budget. You have to play the villain so they can play the hero. What middle management doesn't understand, is paid to not understand, is what engineering actually is. Engineering is the process of making mistakes until you run out of mistakes to make. So when you spend six months and seventeen million dollars, and ended up with a design that doesn't quite work right in all cases, you weren't throwing away money, you were burning through mistakes. You've gotten a lot of them out of the way and won't make them again. But you have to get rid of some more before the design is actually right and doesn't require extra parts. The work of engineering isn't making the thing. It's teaching yourself to make the thing. Once you've done that, you can make the thing with minimal effort and time, because you know how to make the thing. C-suite financiers would hate this idea if they understood it. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Financiers like safe investments that make money. Not knowing how long something will take or how much it will cost is terrifying to them. So they train engineers to lie to them, by hiring a middle managers who try to force them to lie, and just interpret every guess as a promise if engineers still refuse to do so. But lying to yourself doesn't make the truth go away. The truth is that engineering projects take as long as they take, and cost as much as they cost. And that no one knows how long or how much they will be, because no one knows how many mistakes are waiting to be made, until they actually make them. The only thing you thing you can do about this is hire really good engineers, who catch more of their mistakes on the white board, leaving fewer to be caught in the wind tunnel, and this makes engineering faster... but it doesn't make engineering more predictable. Gantt charts are nothing but a collection of lies that corporations have taught themselves to tell themselves, lies that middle managers try to make true by enforcing them as promises. The ultimate reason that machines are 30% unnecessary parts is that the corporations that build them are 30% unnecessary people. This is what's different about Elon Musk. It's not that he's a better engineer. It's that he's a better manager. He understands engineers and engineering, and he doesn't hate them because he is one. He understood all along that green-field design is full of unknown-unknowns, and that there is absolutely no number-crunching, pie-chart, MBA magic that can eliminate this risk... it can only be hidden from view. The critical understanding is in the video clip below, where he says that SpaceX only had a 10% chance of success. You cannot say something like that unless you get it. And when you get it, you are free. Free from artificial anxiety about schedules and budgets. Anxiety about schedules and budgets is based on the delusion of control. Managers can't make a project finish "on time". They never could. The only power they have is the power to screw it up. The fate of a project is already written in the unknown unknowns before it ever starts. And the best, the absolute best, an engineering team can ever do, under any circumstances, is to confront those unknowns with clear-eyed honesty, and a willingness to adapt. Well, when you say to yourself, "This project has a 10% chance of succeeding", you've already confronted the pain of those admissions, which means you have already conquered the fear. The fear that makes you try to treat a prediction as a promise. The fear that makes you insert an extra turbopump, when what you really need to do is get busy redesigning the pipes, even though you have no idea how long it will take or much it will cost. Even when your rockets blow up. The SpaceX Raptor engine isn't just, or even primarily, a triumph of engineering smarts. It's a triumph of character. It's about an entire team with virtues MBAs lack: self-awareness, persistence, courage, humility, and, ultimately, hope. Because that's what it takes to pursue the best design, the RIGHT design, not even knowing if it exists to be found, much less whether you'll find it before you run out of money. Great things are not accomplished by middle managers with spreadsheets and Gantt charts. They are accomplished by teams of experts with passion and vision. Who are willing to risk failure so they can succeed. So what's the point in me saying all this? Am I just writing a puff piece on SpaceX and the Raptor engine? No. The point is that this is not special, one-off, magic alien technology. It's the systematic result of a correct understanding of engineering. Which means that EVERY COMPANY CAN BE LIKE THIS. If the people who control the purse strings are willing to learn from this example, and stop managing with spreadsheets and fear.

Devon Eriksen

126,470 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

The first question you asked is why I walked four thousand kilometers—what created the need for us to do this? The reason is that all avenues of communication in India were shut. Every single one. No matter what we did, everything was blocked. We spoke in Parliament, but it wasn't televised. We went to the media, but they didn’t pick up what we said. We even presented documents to the legal system, but nothing happened. So, all the avenues were closed, and for a long time, we literally couldn’t understand how to communicate. Then suddenly, we hit upon the idea: if the media isn't reaching the masses and institutions aren't connecting us with the people, go directly to them. The best way to do that was to literally walk across the country. And so, that’s what we did. In the beginning, I must tell you, I had a knee problem. For the first 3-4 days, I thought, 'What have I done?' Because when you wake up in the morning and say, 'I’ll run 10 kilometers,' it’s fine. But when you wake up and say, 'I’ll walk 4,000 kilometers,' it’s a completely different paradigm. There were moments like that, where I thought, 'This is quite a big thing.' But surprisingly, it wasn’t difficult at all. And it fundamentally changed the way I think about my work. I would say it completely changed how I view politics, how I view our people, how I communicate with them, and how I listen to them. It wasn’t just me—many people were involved in the Yatra. For all of us, the most powerful thing that happened organically, something we didn’t even plan, was the introduction of the idea of love in politics. This is strange because if you look at political discourse in most countries, you’ll never find the word love. It simply doesn’t exist in that context. You’ll find hatred, anger, unfairness, corruption—all these words—but rarely the word 'love.' The Bharat Jodo Yatra actually introduced that idea into the Indian political system, and I’ve been amazed at how well that idea has worked. : Shri Rahul Gandhi at the University of Texas 📍 Dallas, USA

The first question you asked is why I walked four thousand kilometers—what created the need for us to do this? The reason is that all avenues of communication in India were shut. Every single one. No matter what we did, everything was blocked. We spoke in Parliament, but it wasn't televised. We went to the media, but they didn’t pick up what we said. We even presented documents to the legal system, but nothing happened. So, all the avenues were closed, and for a long time, we literally couldn’t understand how to communicate. Then suddenly, we hit upon the idea: if the media isn't reaching the masses and institutions aren't connecting us with the people, go directly to them. The best way to do that was to literally walk across the country. And so, that’s what we did. In the beginning, I must tell you, I had a knee problem. For the first 3-4 days, I thought, 'What have I done?' Because when you wake up in the morning and say, 'I’ll run 10 kilometers,' it’s fine. But when you wake up and say, 'I’ll walk 4,000 kilometers,' it’s a completely different paradigm. There were moments like that, where I thought, 'This is quite a big thing.' But surprisingly, it wasn’t difficult at all. And it fundamentally changed the way I think about my work. I would say it completely changed how I view politics, how I view our people, how I communicate with them, and how I listen to them. It wasn’t just me—many people were involved in the Yatra. For all of us, the most powerful thing that happened organically, something we didn’t even plan, was the introduction of the idea of love in politics. This is strange because if you look at political discourse in most countries, you’ll never find the word love. It simply doesn’t exist in that context. You’ll find hatred, anger, unfairness, corruption—all these words—but rarely the word 'love.' The Bharat Jodo Yatra actually introduced that idea into the Indian political system, and I’ve been amazed at how well that idea has worked. : Shri Rahul Gandhi at the University of Texas 📍 Dallas, USA

Congress

109,671 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨Crop Circles Are Still One of the Strangest Unanswered Questions But Why? Crop circles are one of those subjects people think they have figured out, no matter what side of the debate you sit on right? The easiest answer is that they are made by people with boards, ropes and a bit of planning, and that's fair because some most definitely are. But that doesn't answer why the phenomenon continues year on year. It doesn't explain why some formations appear with complex geometry, clean execution, unusual scale and almost no obvious ground disturbance. It doesn't explain why witnesses sometimes report lights, strange sounds, interference, or formations appearing in very short windows of time with nobody being seen during the formations. It definitely doesn't explain why the best ones feel like messages written in geometry, and that is exactly what keeps us all coming back. Crop circles are somewhere between art, folklore, hoax, mathematics, consciousness and the unknown. They are physical and visible. They can be photographed, measured, walked through and studied, and yet too this day the meaning remains elusive and different to almost everyone. So Are they human made land art, ritual symbols, social experiments, attempts to communicate? Or are they something stranger using the landscape as a canvas? The truth is probably messy. Some are most definitely fake and I accept that. Some are probably copycats of others. Some are truly beautiful human creations. But there are still formations that make you stop and ask why anyone would go to that level of effort in the dark, in a field, just to leave no signature and take no credit. That for me is one of the most questionable parts. Why go to all that trouble for zero recognition and risk getting arrested? The planning that it would take for some of these formations is absolutely incredible. A far cry from a couple of drunks with ropes and boards that's for sure. Organizing an army of people to coordinate and create these formations in short windows of time in the dark, must take months of preparation. The other questionable part for me, is why some formations have exploded nodes on the crop. Why crop in that area grows back bigger and stronger than the rest of the crop in that field. Why there are readings of elevated radioactivity in the formations, and feelings of euphoria for those that visit them? I'm not saying that crop circles are made by aliens, but they do prove something about us. We are still drawn to symbolism, we still look for patterns, because that is what we are, pattern recognition tools, no different to AI. But somewhere between the hoaxes and the mysteries, the question is still open enough to keep us all watching, because we don't have all of the answers. The reason for the post, is know a lot of people that research these formations. Each of them always has a different outlook on the meaning, but each as credible as the next. What I really want to know is... What do you think? #CropCircles #UAP #UFO #Mystery #Wiltshire #AncientSymbols #SacredGeometry #Disclosure #AlienLife #ufotwitter

🚨Crop Circles Are Still One of the Strangest Unanswered Questions But Why? Crop circles are one of those subjects people think they have figured out, no matter what side of the debate you sit on right? The easiest answer is that they are made by people with boards, ropes and a bit of planning, and that's fair because some most definitely are. But that doesn't answer why the phenomenon continues year on year. It doesn't explain why some formations appear with complex geometry, clean execution, unusual scale and almost no obvious ground disturbance. It doesn't explain why witnesses sometimes report lights, strange sounds, interference, or formations appearing in very short windows of time with nobody being seen during the formations. It definitely doesn't explain why the best ones feel like messages written in geometry, and that is exactly what keeps us all coming back. Crop circles are somewhere between art, folklore, hoax, mathematics, consciousness and the unknown. They are physical and visible. They can be photographed, measured, walked through and studied, and yet too this day the meaning remains elusive and different to almost everyone. So Are they human made land art, ritual symbols, social experiments, attempts to communicate? Or are they something stranger using the landscape as a canvas? The truth is probably messy. Some are most definitely fake and I accept that. Some are probably copycats of others. Some are truly beautiful human creations. But there are still formations that make you stop and ask why anyone would go to that level of effort in the dark, in a field, just to leave no signature and take no credit. That for me is one of the most questionable parts. Why go to all that trouble for zero recognition and risk getting arrested? The planning that it would take for some of these formations is absolutely incredible. A far cry from a couple of drunks with ropes and boards that's for sure. Organizing an army of people to coordinate and create these formations in short windows of time in the dark, must take months of preparation. The other questionable part for me, is why some formations have exploded nodes on the crop. Why crop in that area grows back bigger and stronger than the rest of the crop in that field. Why there are readings of elevated radioactivity in the formations, and feelings of euphoria for those that visit them? I'm not saying that crop circles are made by aliens, but they do prove something about us. We are still drawn to symbolism, we still look for patterns, because that is what we are, pattern recognition tools, no different to AI. But somewhere between the hoaxes and the mysteries, the question is still open enough to keep us all watching, because we don't have all of the answers. The reason for the post, is know a lot of people that research these formations. Each of them always has a different outlook on the meaning, but each as credible as the next. What I really want to know is... What do you think? #CropCircles #UAP #UFO #Mystery #Wiltshire #AncientSymbols #SacredGeometry #Disclosure #AlienLife #ufotwitter

Skywatch Signal

13,995 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

Elon Musk’s Elon Musk first principles algorithm: “Well, it's easy to say simplify and it's very difficult to do it. You know, I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run kind of as a mantra, which is to first question the requirements, make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, so you want to start off by reducing the number of requirements. And no matter how smart the person who gave you those requirements, they're still dumb to some degree. You have to start there because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question. So try to make the question the least wrong possible. That's what question the requirements means. And then the second thing is to try to delete whatever the step is, the part, or the process step. It sounds very obvious, but people often forget to try deleting it entirely. And if you're not forced to put back at least 10% of what you delete, you're not deleting enough. And it's somewhat illogical, people often, most of the time, feel as though they've succeeded if they've not been forced to put things back in. But actually, they haven't because they've been overly conservative and have left things in there that shouldn't be. And only the third thing is to try to optimize it or simplify it. Again, these all sound, I think, very obvious when I say them, but the number of times I've made these mistakes is more than I care to remember. That's why I have this mantra. So in fact, I'd say the most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist.”

Elon Musk’s Elon Musk first principles algorithm: “Well, it's easy to say simplify and it's very difficult to do it. You know, I have this very basic first principles algorithm that I run kind of as a mantra, which is to first question the requirements, make the requirements less dumb. The requirements are always dumb to some degree, so you want to start off by reducing the number of requirements. And no matter how smart the person who gave you those requirements, they're still dumb to some degree. You have to start there because otherwise you could get the perfect answer to the wrong question. So try to make the question the least wrong possible. That's what question the requirements means. And then the second thing is to try to delete whatever the step is, the part, or the process step. It sounds very obvious, but people often forget to try deleting it entirely. And if you're not forced to put back at least 10% of what you delete, you're not deleting enough. And it's somewhat illogical, people often, most of the time, feel as though they've succeeded if they've not been forced to put things back in. But actually, they haven't because they've been overly conservative and have left things in there that shouldn't be. And only the third thing is to try to optimize it or simplify it. Again, these all sound, I think, very obvious when I say them, but the number of times I've made these mistakes is more than I care to remember. That's why I have this mantra. So in fact, I'd say the most common mistake of smart engineers is to optimize a thing that should not exist.”

Beanie👾

271,429 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨 I WARNED YOU. A BIG STORM IS COMING!! Everyone's staring at red numbers this week. Almost nobody's noticing the thing that actually matters: they're all red at the same time. Korea down 10% in a day. Japan, Europe, US futures all sliding together. Crypto rolling over. Gold off its highs. Different countries, different asset classes, different stories… one direction. Here's what that means, in plain terms. In a healthy market, things disagree. Stocks zig, bonds zag, gold does its own thing - because each is pricing its own reality. But when everything starts moving as one block, that's not a bunch of separate markets anymore. That's a single, giant, leveraged bet wearing a hundred different tickers. And we've seen what happens when that bet unwinds: → 2008 - correlations went to 1, and "safe" and "risky" fell together. Nowhere to hide. → 2020 - every screen turned red in the same week, until the Fed flooded the system. → Right now - the same convergence is showing up again. Quietly. Across borders. When markets fuse like this, individual analysis stops working. You're no longer holding "stocks" and "crypto" and "gold." You're holding one trade - and it only takes one shove to move all of it at once. Look underneath the surface and the pressure is obvious: → Bond yields flashing stress → Liquidity tightening in the background → A Fed boxed into a corner - ease and reflate the bubble, or tighten and crack an overextended market Either path leads to the same place. Something breaks. That's the part people miss. A crash doesn't announce itself with one scary headline. It announces itself when correlation goes to one - when the market stops being a market and becomes a single, fragile thing that all moves together. That's what just started this week. Most people will call it "a normal pullback" right up until it isn't. I've spent 10 years watching turning points form, and this is exactly how they look from the inside. When everything moves as one, the only question left is which way and this week, it picked down. Don't be the last one still treating it like business as usual.

🚨 I WARNED YOU. A BIG STORM IS COMING!! Everyone's staring at red numbers this week. Almost nobody's noticing the thing that actually matters: they're all red at the same time. Korea down 10% in a day. Japan, Europe, US futures all sliding together. Crypto rolling over. Gold off its highs. Different countries, different asset classes, different stories… one direction. Here's what that means, in plain terms. In a healthy market, things disagree. Stocks zig, bonds zag, gold does its own thing - because each is pricing its own reality. But when everything starts moving as one block, that's not a bunch of separate markets anymore. That's a single, giant, leveraged bet wearing a hundred different tickers. And we've seen what happens when that bet unwinds: → 2008 - correlations went to 1, and "safe" and "risky" fell together. Nowhere to hide. → 2020 - every screen turned red in the same week, until the Fed flooded the system. → Right now - the same convergence is showing up again. Quietly. Across borders. When markets fuse like this, individual analysis stops working. You're no longer holding "stocks" and "crypto" and "gold." You're holding one trade - and it only takes one shove to move all of it at once. Look underneath the surface and the pressure is obvious: → Bond yields flashing stress → Liquidity tightening in the background → A Fed boxed into a corner - ease and reflate the bubble, or tighten and crack an overextended market Either path leads to the same place. Something breaks. That's the part people miss. A crash doesn't announce itself with one scary headline. It announces itself when correlation goes to one - when the market stops being a market and becomes a single, fragile thing that all moves together. That's what just started this week. Most people will call it "a normal pullback" right up until it isn't. I've spent 10 years watching turning points form, and this is exactly how they look from the inside. When everything moves as one, the only question left is which way and this week, it picked down. Don't be the last one still treating it like business as usual.

🚨BSC Gems Alert🚨

27,761 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Alex Karp just described how America identifies its most valuable minds and systematically filters them out. The system isn’t broken. It’s performing exactly as designed. Built to produce compliant industrial labor for an economy that no longer exists. The factories closed. The compliance engine never did. Karp: “All of our tests are built around things that were valuable in the Industrial Revolution.” Every test. Every metric. Every benchmark. Calibrated to measure one thing. Obedience. Not cognition. Not creativity. Not the ability to build something from nothing. The ability to sit still and repeat what you’re told. The minds the system punishes hardest are the ones the future needs most. Karp: “Everybody who can’t sit or needs to build or wants to build have to go into a separate slot.” The neurodivergent. The dyslexic. The kid who can’t stop moving but can reverse-engineer anything they touch. The system doesn’t overlook them. It identifies them, labels them defective, and routes them out. That’s not a failure of detection. That’s the detection working perfectly. The system locates its biggest threats and neutralizes them before they ever reach a launchpad. Karp: “Vocational training in Germany is very technical. The people building the cars at BMW or even in the French version Airbus, very complicated jobs, they didn’t go to college. They went to a very, very high-end high school. And they come out without any debt.” Germany routes elite technical talent straight into building jet engines and precision machinery. No university. No debt. Immediate sovereign output. America runs that same talent through four years of institutional processing and hands them a credential, six figures of debt, and a skill set an LLM absorbs before the decade ends. One system builds. The other processes. And processing is not building. Karp: “We should have gotten you before you got turned down at Goldman and said this is a waste of your time. You could be building something important.” Instead of handing builders something real, the system funnels them toward desk jobs they’ll be rejected from anyway. Then asks why nothing gets built. The AI race won’t be decided by credentials on a wall. It’ll be decided by one question. Which nation found its builders before the system finished converting them into something replaceable? Because the system doesn’t miss them by accident. It finds them first. Then it eliminates them. That’s not a flaw in the design. That is the design. But here’s what it never accounted for. The builders it discards are the only ones who can build what replaces it.

Alex Karp just described how America identifies its most valuable minds and systematically filters them out. The system isn’t broken. It’s performing exactly as designed. Built to produce compliant industrial labor for an economy that no longer exists. The factories closed. The compliance engine never did. Karp: “All of our tests are built around things that were valuable in the Industrial Revolution.” Every test. Every metric. Every benchmark. Calibrated to measure one thing. Obedience. Not cognition. Not creativity. Not the ability to build something from nothing. The ability to sit still and repeat what you’re told. The minds the system punishes hardest are the ones the future needs most. Karp: “Everybody who can’t sit or needs to build or wants to build have to go into a separate slot.” The neurodivergent. The dyslexic. The kid who can’t stop moving but can reverse-engineer anything they touch. The system doesn’t overlook them. It identifies them, labels them defective, and routes them out. That’s not a failure of detection. That’s the detection working perfectly. The system locates its biggest threats and neutralizes them before they ever reach a launchpad. Karp: “Vocational training in Germany is very technical. The people building the cars at BMW or even in the French version Airbus, very complicated jobs, they didn’t go to college. They went to a very, very high-end high school. And they come out without any debt.” Germany routes elite technical talent straight into building jet engines and precision machinery. No university. No debt. Immediate sovereign output. America runs that same talent through four years of institutional processing and hands them a credential, six figures of debt, and a skill set an LLM absorbs before the decade ends. One system builds. The other processes. And processing is not building. Karp: “We should have gotten you before you got turned down at Goldman and said this is a waste of your time. You could be building something important.” Instead of handing builders something real, the system funnels them toward desk jobs they’ll be rejected from anyway. Then asks why nothing gets built. The AI race won’t be decided by credentials on a wall. It’ll be decided by one question. Which nation found its builders before the system finished converting them into something replaceable? Because the system doesn’t miss them by accident. It finds them first. Then it eliminates them. That’s not a flaw in the design. That is the design. But here’s what it never accounted for. The builders it discards are the only ones who can build what replaces it.

Dustin

51,753 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

🚨 I WARNED YOU. A BIG STORM IS COMING!! Everyone's staring at red numbers this week. Almost nobody's noticing the thing that actually matters: they're all red at the same time. Korea down 10% in a day. Japan, Europe, US futures all sliding together. Crypto rolling over. Gold off its highs. Different countries, different asset classes, different stories… one direction. Here's what that means, in plain terms. In a healthy market, things disagree. Stocks zig, bonds zag, gold does its own thing - because each is pricing its own reality. But when everything starts moving as one block, that's not a bunch of separate markets anymore. That's a single, giant, leveraged bet wearing a hundred different tickers. And we've seen what happens when that bet unwinds: → 2008 - correlations went to 1, and "safe" and "risky" fell together. Nowhere to hide. → 2020 - every screen turned red in the same week, until the Fed flooded the system. → Right now - the same convergence is showing up again. Quietly. Across borders. When markets fuse like this, individual analysis stops working. You're no longer holding "stocks" and "crypto" and "gold." You're holding one trade - and it only takes one shove to move all of it at once. Look underneath the surface and the pressure is obvious: → Bond yields flashing stress → Liquidity tightening in the background → A Fed boxed into a corner - ease and reflate the bubble, or tighten and crack an overextended market Either path leads to the same place. Something breaks. That's the part people miss. A crash doesn't announce itself with one scary headline. It announces itself when correlation goes to one - when the market stops being a market and becomes a single, fragile thing that all moves together. That's what just started this week. Most people will call it "a normal pullback" right up until it isn't. I've spent 10 years watching turning points form, and this is exactly how they look from the inside. When everything moves as one, the only question left is which way and this week, it picked down. Don't be the last one still treating it like business as usual.

🚨 I WARNED YOU. A BIG STORM IS COMING!! Everyone's staring at red numbers this week. Almost nobody's noticing the thing that actually matters: they're all red at the same time. Korea down 10% in a day. Japan, Europe, US futures all sliding together. Crypto rolling over. Gold off its highs. Different countries, different asset classes, different stories… one direction. Here's what that means, in plain terms. In a healthy market, things disagree. Stocks zig, bonds zag, gold does its own thing - because each is pricing its own reality. But when everything starts moving as one block, that's not a bunch of separate markets anymore. That's a single, giant, leveraged bet wearing a hundred different tickers. And we've seen what happens when that bet unwinds: → 2008 - correlations went to 1, and "safe" and "risky" fell together. Nowhere to hide. → 2020 - every screen turned red in the same week, until the Fed flooded the system. → Right now - the same convergence is showing up again. Quietly. Across borders. When markets fuse like this, individual analysis stops working. You're no longer holding "stocks" and "crypto" and "gold." You're holding one trade - and it only takes one shove to move all of it at once. Look underneath the surface and the pressure is obvious: → Bond yields flashing stress → Liquidity tightening in the background → A Fed boxed into a corner - ease and reflate the bubble, or tighten and crack an overextended market Either path leads to the same place. Something breaks. That's the part people miss. A crash doesn't announce itself with one scary headline. It announces itself when correlation goes to one - when the market stops being a market and becomes a single, fragile thing that all moves together. That's what just started this week. Most people will call it "a normal pullback" right up until it isn't. I've spent 10 years watching turning points form, and this is exactly how they look from the inside. When everything moves as one, the only question left is which way and this week, it picked down. Don't be the last one still treating it like business as usual.

Shelpid.WI3M

2,891,739 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The biggest improvement ever made to the most complex machine in human history came from a guy holding a camera. Not a propulsion engineer. Not a systems architect. Not anyone on the SpaceX payroll. A YouTuber named Tim Dodd. Dodd was touring Starbase when Musk explained how they eliminated the entire cold gas thruster system on the Super Heavy booster. Instead of a separate mechanism with its own weight and its own failure points, they just vented hot gas straight from the propellant tanks. Zero added weight. Zero extra parts. Dodd asked one question. “But this is only for the booster, right?” Musk stopped. Musk: “Although, arguably, now you mentioned it, it might be wise to do this for the ship too. We’re gonna fix that.” Seven months later, Musk confirmed it was one of the biggest improvements ever made to the vehicle. That moment should have been impossible. Thousands of the most brilliant aerospace minds alive work at SpaceX. They designed this system. Reviewed it. Tested it. Shipped it. Defended it in rooms where challenging the architecture has a cost. None of them asked the question. Not because they were stupid. Because they were expert. We worship expertise. We hire for it. We pay for it. We promote for it. We have built entire civilizations on the assumption that the person who understands a problem most deeply is the one most qualified to solve it. But depth is not the same thing as sight. Expertise is not a straight line toward truth. It is a circle. You learn enough to solve the problem. Then you learn enough to justify the solution. Then you learn enough to defend the justification. And eventually you know so much about why things are the way they are that you lose the ability to ask whether they should be. The SpaceX engineers understood exactly why the cold gas thrusters existed on the ship. Thermal constraints. Attitude control requirements. Heritage design logic. They had context and history and institutional memory and ten perfectly valid reasons the ship was different from the booster. Every single one of those reasons was a wall between them and the obvious. Dodd had none of it. No history telling him the question was already answered. No career incentive to leave the architecture alone. No knowledge of why things were the way they were. He just had the question. And the question was right. The cold gas system on the ship was not a mistake anyone was hiding. It was a mistake nobody could see. Because the only way to see it was to know less. Not more. Now think about your own expertise. The thing you have built or maintained or defended longer than anyone around you. The system you understand so deeply that nobody questions your judgment on it anymore. What is the question nobody around you is asking? Not because it is hard. Because it is so simple it feels beneath the room. That question is probably worth more than everything your smartest people have produced this quarter. And right now it is sitting in the mouth of someone you would never think to invite to the meeting. The rocket got lighter because someone didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to ask. Most expertise will spend its entire life making sure no one does.

The biggest improvement ever made to the most complex machine in human history came from a guy holding a camera. Not a propulsion engineer. Not a systems architect. Not anyone on the SpaceX payroll. A YouTuber named Tim Dodd. Dodd was touring Starbase when Musk explained how they eliminated the entire cold gas thruster system on the Super Heavy booster. Instead of a separate mechanism with its own weight and its own failure points, they just vented hot gas straight from the propellant tanks. Zero added weight. Zero extra parts. Dodd asked one question. “But this is only for the booster, right?” Musk stopped. Musk: “Although, arguably, now you mentioned it, it might be wise to do this for the ship too. We’re gonna fix that.” Seven months later, Musk confirmed it was one of the biggest improvements ever made to the vehicle. That moment should have been impossible. Thousands of the most brilliant aerospace minds alive work at SpaceX. They designed this system. Reviewed it. Tested it. Shipped it. Defended it in rooms where challenging the architecture has a cost. None of them asked the question. Not because they were stupid. Because they were expert. We worship expertise. We hire for it. We pay for it. We promote for it. We have built entire civilizations on the assumption that the person who understands a problem most deeply is the one most qualified to solve it. But depth is not the same thing as sight. Expertise is not a straight line toward truth. It is a circle. You learn enough to solve the problem. Then you learn enough to justify the solution. Then you learn enough to defend the justification. And eventually you know so much about why things are the way they are that you lose the ability to ask whether they should be. The SpaceX engineers understood exactly why the cold gas thrusters existed on the ship. Thermal constraints. Attitude control requirements. Heritage design logic. They had context and history and institutional memory and ten perfectly valid reasons the ship was different from the booster. Every single one of those reasons was a wall between them and the obvious. Dodd had none of it. No history telling him the question was already answered. No career incentive to leave the architecture alone. No knowledge of why things were the way they were. He just had the question. And the question was right. The cold gas system on the ship was not a mistake anyone was hiding. It was a mistake nobody could see. Because the only way to see it was to know less. Not more. Now think about your own expertise. The thing you have built or maintained or defended longer than anyone around you. The system you understand so deeply that nobody questions your judgment on it anymore. What is the question nobody around you is asking? Not because it is hard. Because it is so simple it feels beneath the room. That question is probably worth more than everything your smartest people have produced this quarter. And right now it is sitting in the mouth of someone you would never think to invite to the meeting. The rocket got lighter because someone didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to ask. Most expertise will spend its entire life making sure no one does.

Dustin

75,490 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Japan’s bullet trains had a problem big enough to threaten the future of high-speed rail. At 200 mph, tunnels turned them into sonic bombs. Noise complaints grew. Communities suffered. Speed restrictions became a real risk. What stands out to me is this: The solution did not come from more force. It came from a bird. Engineer Eiji Nakatsu studied the kingfisher, which moves from air into water with barely a splash, and used that insight to redesign the Shinkansen’s nose. The result was remarkable: ↳ sonic boom dramatically reduced ↳ trains became about 10% faster ↳ electricity use dropped by around 15% But this was never just about noise. This is the deeper impact: ↳ 15% less energy has been framed as 200,000 fewer tons of CO2 annually ↳ 10% faster speeds can mean more people living outside expensive cities while still commuting ↳ quieter tunnels can mean families near the tracks finally sleeping through the night That is what makes this story bigger than engineering. One bird’s beak did not just improve a train. It reshaped how an entire system could perform, with less friction for people and the environment. I see a much bigger lesson here. The best innovation does not always come from adding more power, more cost, or more complexity. Sometimes it comes from observing better. Nature has already solved for speed, efficiency, resilience, and adaptation. The real question is whether we are humble enough to learn from it. Because the future will not belong only to those who build more powerful systems. It will belong to those who build systems that work better with reality. What system in your industry is still being forced forward when it should be fundamentally redesigned? #Innovation #Biomimicry #Engineering #Leadership #Technology #Transportation #Sustainability #AI #FutureOfWork #PascalBornet

Japan’s bullet trains had a problem big enough to threaten the future of high-speed rail. At 200 mph, tunnels turned them into sonic bombs. Noise complaints grew. Communities suffered. Speed restrictions became a real risk. What stands out to me is this: The solution did not come from more force. It came from a bird. Engineer Eiji Nakatsu studied the kingfisher, which moves from air into water with barely a splash, and used that insight to redesign the Shinkansen’s nose. The result was remarkable: ↳ sonic boom dramatically reduced ↳ trains became about 10% faster ↳ electricity use dropped by around 15% But this was never just about noise. This is the deeper impact: ↳ 15% less energy has been framed as 200,000 fewer tons of CO2 annually ↳ 10% faster speeds can mean more people living outside expensive cities while still commuting ↳ quieter tunnels can mean families near the tracks finally sleeping through the night That is what makes this story bigger than engineering. One bird’s beak did not just improve a train. It reshaped how an entire system could perform, with less friction for people and the environment. I see a much bigger lesson here. The best innovation does not always come from adding more power, more cost, or more complexity. Sometimes it comes from observing better. Nature has already solved for speed, efficiency, resilience, and adaptation. The real question is whether we are humble enough to learn from it. Because the future will not belong only to those who build more powerful systems. It will belong to those who build systems that work better with reality. What system in your industry is still being forced forward when it should be fundamentally redesigned? #Innovation #Biomimicry #Engineering #Leadership #Technology #Transportation #Sustainability #AI #FutureOfWork #PascalBornet

Pascal Bornet

54,743 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I watched this video posted by a tourist in Zimbabwe who has been promoting Zimbabwean tourism on his journey across the country. My first instinct was to ask, what is this? There are times when we do not just have to criticise, but must look for solutions. I think this is not a tourism problem, it is a policing problem that affects tourism, and it is a problem that does not just affect tourists but Zimbabweans as well who are driving across the country. The solution, in my view, is straightforward. When tourists enter our country, at the point of the border, they should be required to purchase all the necessary road safety paraphernalia demanded by the Zimbabwean police. First of all, I do not understand why one needs four triangles. Triangles are meant for when your car breaks down, you place one at the back and one at the front, that is two triangles. This tourist had three, yet he was told he needed four. I do not know why he needed four. But even if, for argument’s sake, he needed a hundred, then tell him at the border that he needs a hundred, and that there is a shop there selling them, even if it is a government-run shop. Make it a requirement that no motorist drives out of the border clearing area without the required triangles. They must buy them there and then. When they get to the exit gate, at that final clearing bay, they show the triangles and proceed, so that they do not encounter problems on the roads. If this is not done, you create situations like this one, where the Ministry of Tourism is dragged into an issue that has nothing to do with it, yet its work ends up being affected because of the ineffectiveness and lack of coordination among different government agencies. The requirement for triangles falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which superintends the police, so it must ensure that before any vehicle is cleared to leave the border, it complies. In most countries, you do not need four triangles. I have seen this absurdity in Zimbabwe only, and I experienced it. I own a car which has inbuilt reflectors, factory-fitted safety reflectors that perform the same function. Yet when you get to a Zimbabwean roadblock, they still want to see a separate portable reflector, even though the inbuilt system does the same job. This is a breakdown of common sense, and it does not just affect tourists, it affects Zimbabweans too. So instead of simply criticising, I chose to offer a solution. The responsible government agency and ministry must make it a requirement that any motorist entering the country has the stipulated triangles before they are cleared to leave the border. And if they do not have the four triangles, as required, as ridiculous as it sounds, there must be a facility at the border where they can purchase them and then proceed with their journey without harassment.

I watched this video posted by a tourist in Zimbabwe who has been promoting Zimbabwean tourism on his journey across the country. My first instinct was to ask, what is this? There are times when we do not just have to criticise, but must look for solutions. I think this is not a tourism problem, it is a policing problem that affects tourism, and it is a problem that does not just affect tourists but Zimbabweans as well who are driving across the country. The solution, in my view, is straightforward. When tourists enter our country, at the point of the border, they should be required to purchase all the necessary road safety paraphernalia demanded by the Zimbabwean police. First of all, I do not understand why one needs four triangles. Triangles are meant for when your car breaks down, you place one at the back and one at the front, that is two triangles. This tourist had three, yet he was told he needed four. I do not know why he needed four. But even if, for argument’s sake, he needed a hundred, then tell him at the border that he needs a hundred, and that there is a shop there selling them, even if it is a government-run shop. Make it a requirement that no motorist drives out of the border clearing area without the required triangles. They must buy them there and then. When they get to the exit gate, at that final clearing bay, they show the triangles and proceed, so that they do not encounter problems on the roads. If this is not done, you create situations like this one, where the Ministry of Tourism is dragged into an issue that has nothing to do with it, yet its work ends up being affected because of the ineffectiveness and lack of coordination among different government agencies. The requirement for triangles falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which superintends the police, so it must ensure that before any vehicle is cleared to leave the border, it complies. In most countries, you do not need four triangles. I have seen this absurdity in Zimbabwe only, and I experienced it. I own a car which has inbuilt reflectors, factory-fitted safety reflectors that perform the same function. Yet when you get to a Zimbabwean roadblock, they still want to see a separate portable reflector, even though the inbuilt system does the same job. This is a breakdown of common sense, and it does not just affect tourists, it affects Zimbabweans too. So instead of simply criticising, I chose to offer a solution. The responsible government agency and ministry must make it a requirement that any motorist entering the country has the stipulated triangles before they are cleared to leave the border. And if they do not have the four triangles, as required, as ridiculous as it sounds, there must be a facility at the border where they can purchase them and then proceed with their journey without harassment.

Hopewell Chin’ono

88,503 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

More than a hundred years ago, San Francisco built a city out of jewels and then tore almost all of it down on purpose. You are looking at the Panama–Pacific International Exposition of 1915. For ten months, on six hundred acres along the city's northern waterfront, San Francisco raised an entire fantasy metropolis of palaces, colonnades, fountains, and towers, and invited the world to walk through it. Nearly nineteen million people did. What makes it almost unbelievable is the timing. Only nine years earlier, in 1906, San Francisco had been flattened by one of the worst earthquakes and fires in American history. Much of the city had burned to the ground. The exposition was the city's answer to the world: not only have we survived, we can build something more beautiful than anything you have ever seen. At its heart stood the Tower of Jewels, 435 feet of triumphal arch and tower rising over the fairgrounds. Its surface was hung with more than 100,000 small cut-glass "jewels," each dangling on a tiny hook so it would tremble in the wind. By day they flashed in the sunlight. At night, more than fifty spotlights were turned on them, and the entire tower shimmered above the bay like something out of a dream. People had never seen anything like it... Around it spread a city of wonders. The Palace of Fine Arts, a vast Roman ruin reflected in its own still lagoon, designed to evoke the beautiful melancholy of a vanished civilization. The Palace of Machinery, so enormous that an airplane was once flown inside it. Grand courts and avenues lined with sculpture, all built in a soft, unified palette of color, glowing under the new technology of indirect electric light. And nearly all of it was designed to disappear. When it closed in December 1915, the dream city was systematically pulled down. Only one structure was saved. The Palace of Fine Arts, the most beloved of them all, was considered too beautiful to lose. Decades later it was rebuilt, and it still stands in San Francisco today, the last survivor of an entire city that existed for less than a year... Perhaps that’s what haunts us most: not that we built temporary palaces, but that we chose not to keep them. We built beauty knowing we would destroy it, as if beauty itself were disposable. Roger Scruton once said: "There is a deep human need for beauty, and if you ignore that need in architecture, your buildings will not last, since people will never feel at home in them." I started this newsletter because the people who came before us were capable of extraordinary things, and almost no one is teaching us about them anymore. Every week I try to. If that is something you would like to be part of, you can join here: I write about beauty in all its forms. If you'd like to support the work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible. Thanks for reading.

More than a hundred years ago, San Francisco built a city out of jewels and then tore almost all of it down on purpose. You are looking at the Panama–Pacific International Exposition of 1915. For ten months, on six hundred acres along the city's northern waterfront, San Francisco raised an entire fantasy metropolis of palaces, colonnades, fountains, and towers, and invited the world to walk through it. Nearly nineteen million people did. What makes it almost unbelievable is the timing. Only nine years earlier, in 1906, San Francisco had been flattened by one of the worst earthquakes and fires in American history. Much of the city had burned to the ground. The exposition was the city's answer to the world: not only have we survived, we can build something more beautiful than anything you have ever seen. At its heart stood the Tower of Jewels, 435 feet of triumphal arch and tower rising over the fairgrounds. Its surface was hung with more than 100,000 small cut-glass "jewels," each dangling on a tiny hook so it would tremble in the wind. By day they flashed in the sunlight. At night, more than fifty spotlights were turned on them, and the entire tower shimmered above the bay like something out of a dream. People had never seen anything like it... Around it spread a city of wonders. The Palace of Fine Arts, a vast Roman ruin reflected in its own still lagoon, designed to evoke the beautiful melancholy of a vanished civilization. The Palace of Machinery, so enormous that an airplane was once flown inside it. Grand courts and avenues lined with sculpture, all built in a soft, unified palette of color, glowing under the new technology of indirect electric light. And nearly all of it was designed to disappear. When it closed in December 1915, the dream city was systematically pulled down. Only one structure was saved. The Palace of Fine Arts, the most beloved of them all, was considered too beautiful to lose. Decades later it was rebuilt, and it still stands in San Francisco today, the last survivor of an entire city that existed for less than a year... Perhaps that’s what haunts us most: not that we built temporary palaces, but that we chose not to keep them. We built beauty knowing we would destroy it, as if beauty itself were disposable. Roger Scruton once said: "There is a deep human need for beauty, and if you ignore that need in architecture, your buildings will not last, since people will never feel at home in them." I started this newsletter because the people who came before us were capable of extraordinary things, and almost no one is teaching us about them anymore. Every week I try to. If that is something you would like to be part of, you can join here: I write about beauty in all its forms. If you'd like to support the work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible. Thanks for reading.

James Lucas

51,018 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

$Elon Musk just posted three numbers that should terrify every semiconductor company on Earth. A terawatt of chips. A terawatt of solar. Ten million tons to orbit per year. That is not a product roadmap. That is a species-level engineering ultimatum. Musk: “Build a terawatt of chips, a terawatt of solar, and 10 million tons to orbit per year.” A terawatt is roughly the entire power generation capacity of the United States. He is not asking for a bigger factory. He is asking for a second grid. The name alone tells you the scale. Terafab. Not gigafab. Tera. A thousand times the prefix. A thousand times the ambition. Every chip company on the planet currently begs TSMC for allocation. They wait in line. They negotiate quarters in advance for a fractional increase in supply. Musk looked at that line and started building the factory that makes it extinct. Vertical integration from lithography to packaging. Design to deployment. Under one roof in Texas. But the factory is not the point. The destination is. Most of this output is not staying on the ground. That is where SpaceX turns from a rocket company into the supply chain for orbital compute. You build the chips. You build the solar. You launch them into the vacuum where the Sun never sets and nothing on Earth can compete. The companies optimizing their server racks in Nevada are solving last decade’s problem with last decade’s ceiling. Musk is fusing Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI into a single organism. One builds the energy. One builds the delivery system. One builds the thing they are both feeding. Nobody has ever welded three companies together into a vertical stack like this. Because nobody has ever tried to do what he is actually attempting. Which is not building a chip factory. It is building the industrial base for a civilization that does not end at the atmosphere. And this is what separates Musk from every other CEO alive. He does not manage companies. He runs them like engineering floors where the only thing that matters is whether you can build. No committees. No twelve layers of approval. No political career tracks disguised as leadership. You either ship or you leave. That is why the most talented engineers on the planet keep walking through his doors. Not because the hours are easy. Because the mission is real and the bureaucracy is gone. Every other company on Earth makes you fight the org chart before you fight the problem. Musk deleted the org chart. Musk: “Join us on this journey.” That is the most understated recruiting pitch for the most ambitious project a human being has ever publicly committed to. And he said it the same way he says everything. Like it is already done.$

Elon Musk just posted three numbers that should terrify every semiconductor company on Earth. A terawatt of chips. A terawatt of solar. Ten million tons to orbit per year. That is not a product roadmap. That is a species-level engineering ultimatum. Musk: “Build a terawatt of chips, a terawatt of solar, and 10 million tons to orbit per year.” A terawatt is roughly the entire power generation capacity of the United States. He is not asking for a bigger factory. He is asking for a second grid. The name alone tells you the scale. Terafab. Not gigafab. Tera. A thousand times the prefix. A thousand times the ambition. Every chip company on the planet currently begs TSMC for allocation. They wait in line. They negotiate quarters in advance for a fractional increase in supply. Musk looked at that line and started building the factory that makes it extinct. Vertical integration from lithography to packaging. Design to deployment. Under one roof in Texas. But the factory is not the point. The destination is. Most of this output is not staying on the ground. That is where SpaceX turns from a rocket company into the supply chain for orbital compute. You build the chips. You build the solar. You launch them into the vacuum where the Sun never sets and nothing on Earth can compete. The companies optimizing their server racks in Nevada are solving last decade’s problem with last decade’s ceiling. Musk is fusing Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI into a single organism. One builds the energy. One builds the delivery system. One builds the thing they are both feeding. Nobody has ever welded three companies together into a vertical stack like this. Because nobody has ever tried to do what he is actually attempting. Which is not building a chip factory. It is building the industrial base for a civilization that does not end at the atmosphere. And this is what separates Musk from every other CEO alive. He does not manage companies. He runs them like engineering floors where the only thing that matters is whether you can build. No committees. No twelve layers of approval. No political career tracks disguised as leadership. You either ship or you leave. That is why the most talented engineers on the planet keep walking through his doors. Not because the hours are easy. Because the mission is real and the bureaucracy is gone. Every other company on Earth makes you fight the org chart before you fight the problem. Musk deleted the org chart. Musk: “Join us on this journey.” That is the most understated recruiting pitch for the most ambitious project a human being has ever publicly committed to. And he said it the same way he says everything. Like it is already done.

Dustin

190,523 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

New episode of Long Strange Trip with benahorowitz.eth of a16z is now live. The first time I pitched Ben for HubSpot, he passed on us. It stung. So naturally, it’s the first thing I brought up with him in this convo. He’s seen more founders up close over the last 20 years than most, so I wanted to ask him what separates good founders from great ones, what CEOs get wrong the most, and how they can fix it. He even names the best CEO he currently works with… Even at our Series D, when Ben passed, deep down I felt like I had no idea what I was doing. Turns out, that’s pretty common. The dangerous response is to start over-deferring to others to compensate, which is exactly when things go sideways. Here’s what else I got from this conversation: • On ‘Founder Mode’ going too far: The original insight from Brian Chesky is right: don't over-hire senior people and then over-defer to them. That creates fiefdoms and a political vacuum. But Ben thinks people have twisted it into "don't hire experienced people at all," which is dangerous. Founder mode means staying accountable to outcomes and having the confidence to manage people with more experience than you. • Decision debt: Ben calls decision debt "the worst debt" a company can carry because it paralyzes the entire organization. Founders who hesitate at 52/48 decisions, waiting for certainty that never comes, create a vacuum that breeds politics and dysfunction. The pile of decisions you're avoiding? A bad hire you are still trying to make work? A board member dynamic that's off and has been for awhile? A pricing model you know isn't scaling? I had this at HubSpot. Every 4-5 months I'd look up and realize everything had slowed down, and the only fix was to make a bunch of decisions I'd been dodging. The moment I made them, things started flowing again. • “Constructive confrontation”: Running away from the truth to spare feelings is dangerous. One of my bugs as CEO of HubSpot was that I’m pretty conflict averse. I think a lot of first-time founder CEOs are. But bad news has to travel fast inside fast growing companies, it’s a good thing if it reaches the CEO efficiently. And that only happens if people are willing to say the hard thing, and you’re willing to hear it. I probably should have leaned into that earlier. • Why founder-engineers suck at hiring salespeople: This is where most technical founders get wrecked. Engineers and salespeople are wired opposite: Ask an engineer a question, they try to find the correct answer. Ask a good salesperson the same question, their first instinct is: Why are you asking me that? If you're an engineer interviewing a sales candidate, their answers are going to feel evasive and it's going to annoy you: that's exactly why you'll reject the best ones and hire the worst ones. • His fix? Blind references. Call people who owe you a favor, not people who owe the candidate one. And ask who they can bring with them. Great sales leaders have a crew of followers. • What the best CEOs actually have in common: The greats can be introverts or extroverts, ivy-leaguers or dropouts. None of that stuff matters. The through-line he sees across Zuckerberg, Musk, Jensen Huang, Ali Ghodsi: they think for themselves (you can feel when someone's working from original thought vs. reading the room), they stay deeply curious, and they are blunt. This was a fun one. Enjoy.

New episode of Long Strange Trip with benahorowitz.eth of a16z is now live. The first time I pitched Ben for HubSpot, he passed on us. It stung. So naturally, it’s the first thing I brought up with him in this convo. He’s seen more founders up close over the last 20 years than most, so I wanted to ask him what separates good founders from great ones, what CEOs get wrong the most, and how they can fix it. He even names the best CEO he currently works with… Even at our Series D, when Ben passed, deep down I felt like I had no idea what I was doing. Turns out, that’s pretty common. The dangerous response is to start over-deferring to others to compensate, which is exactly when things go sideways. Here’s what else I got from this conversation: • On ‘Founder Mode’ going too far: The original insight from Brian Chesky is right: don't over-hire senior people and then over-defer to them. That creates fiefdoms and a political vacuum. But Ben thinks people have twisted it into "don't hire experienced people at all," which is dangerous. Founder mode means staying accountable to outcomes and having the confidence to manage people with more experience than you. • Decision debt: Ben calls decision debt "the worst debt" a company can carry because it paralyzes the entire organization. Founders who hesitate at 52/48 decisions, waiting for certainty that never comes, create a vacuum that breeds politics and dysfunction. The pile of decisions you're avoiding? A bad hire you are still trying to make work? A board member dynamic that's off and has been for awhile? A pricing model you know isn't scaling? I had this at HubSpot. Every 4-5 months I'd look up and realize everything had slowed down, and the only fix was to make a bunch of decisions I'd been dodging. The moment I made them, things started flowing again. • “Constructive confrontation”: Running away from the truth to spare feelings is dangerous. One of my bugs as CEO of HubSpot was that I’m pretty conflict averse. I think a lot of first-time founder CEOs are. But bad news has to travel fast inside fast growing companies, it’s a good thing if it reaches the CEO efficiently. And that only happens if people are willing to say the hard thing, and you’re willing to hear it. I probably should have leaned into that earlier. • Why founder-engineers suck at hiring salespeople: This is where most technical founders get wrecked. Engineers and salespeople are wired opposite: Ask an engineer a question, they try to find the correct answer. Ask a good salesperson the same question, their first instinct is: Why are you asking me that? If you're an engineer interviewing a sales candidate, their answers are going to feel evasive and it's going to annoy you: that's exactly why you'll reject the best ones and hire the worst ones. • His fix? Blind references. Call people who owe you a favor, not people who owe the candidate one. And ask who they can bring with them. Great sales leaders have a crew of followers. • What the best CEOs actually have in common: The greats can be introverts or extroverts, ivy-leaguers or dropouts. None of that stuff matters. The through-line he sees across Zuckerberg, Musk, Jensen Huang, Ali Ghodsi: they think for themselves (you can feel when someone's working from original thought vs. reading the room), they stay deeply curious, and they are blunt. This was a fun one. Enjoy.

Brian Halligan

25,016 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Vitalik Buterin on why consortium blockchains have mostly failed “The original vision of consortium blockchains — the idea that you have 5 banks or major companies that come together and create their own chain — has been mostly a failure. I think the reason why is it ends up inheriting most of the disadvantages of centralization and most of the disadvantages of decentralization at the same time.” “The first five banks join, and they all feel like ‘Yay, we’re building a system together. We can all be part of it.’ But then once bank #6 and bank #7 and bank #29 come in, they’re joining a system where there’s already an established power structure, established participants, and basically to them it still feels like they’re joining some kind of centralized thing that’s controlled by a cartel.” “You don’t actually gain the benefits of true openness that people are looking for. You don’t have Etherscan. You don’t have a connection to an open, public network. At the same time, if you build on one of those systems, you have to figure out how to program distributed systems; you lose privacy — you might think you still have some, but the reality is you’re putting your data on a network where the only people that get to see it are you and all your closest competitors. From a privacy perspective, it actually doesn’t make much sense.” “The compromise between centralization and decentralization that actually makes a lot more sense is: you have an application and today that application is a server. You can keep your server, but instead, we’re going to add scaffolding on top to give users extra security guarantees. You put Merkle roots on chain. You put proofs on chain. And you give your users assurance that whatever is happening inside of your system is actually following the rules. So you have high scale, high performance, and you optimize for a minimal delta for existing centralized infrastructure deployment. Keep your existing infrastructure the way it is, and you just add a side car that makes the roots and the proofs.” Source: Arbitrum

Vitalik Buterin on why consortium blockchains have mostly failed “The original vision of consortium blockchains — the idea that you have 5 banks or major companies that come together and create their own chain — has been mostly a failure. I think the reason why is it ends up inheriting most of the disadvantages of centralization and most of the disadvantages of decentralization at the same time.” “The first five banks join, and they all feel like ‘Yay, we’re building a system together. We can all be part of it.’ But then once bank #6 and bank #7 and bank #29 come in, they’re joining a system where there’s already an established power structure, established participants, and basically to them it still feels like they’re joining some kind of centralized thing that’s controlled by a cartel.” “You don’t actually gain the benefits of true openness that people are looking for. You don’t have Etherscan. You don’t have a connection to an open, public network. At the same time, if you build on one of those systems, you have to figure out how to program distributed systems; you lose privacy — you might think you still have some, but the reality is you’re putting your data on a network where the only people that get to see it are you and all your closest competitors. From a privacy perspective, it actually doesn’t make much sense.” “The compromise between centralization and decentralization that actually makes a lot more sense is: you have an application and today that application is a server. You can keep your server, but instead, we’re going to add scaffolding on top to give users extra security guarantees. You put Merkle roots on chain. You put proofs on chain. And you give your users assurance that whatever is happening inside of your system is actually following the rules. So you have high scale, high performance, and you optimize for a minimal delta for existing centralized infrastructure deployment. Keep your existing infrastructure the way it is, and you just add a side car that makes the roots and the proofs.” Source: Arbitrum

Etherealize

131,342 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Marc Andreessen just coined a term that perfectly describes what's actually happening to programmers right now and it's the opposite of what the doomers predicted (Save this). He calls them AI vampires. Andreessen's says that programmers using Codex, Claude Code and AI coding tools are not being replaced but they're working harder than ever, sleeping less than ever, with massive bags under their eyes and they are completely euphoric. What's remarkable is that the phenomenon extends far beyond professional engineers. Andreessen described an a16z partner who had never written a single line of code in his career, who built an entire AI powered work system for himself and when asked if he'd ever looked at the underlying code, the answer was simply "hell no." The data behind the anecdote is extraordinary. Andreessen says the leading-edge programmers at a16z portfolio companies are now 20x more productive than they were a year ago, the most dramatic increase in programmer productivity in the history of the industry. The METR May 2026 AI usage survey found technical workers self reporting a 1.4–2x change in work value from AI tools, with 75% of software engineers using AI for at least half their work. The software engineer hiring rate is actually increasing up to 22.77% of new hires in 2025 from 19.32% in late 2023 and companies are now bidding more aggressively for senior engineers specifically because AI empowered engineers have a higher ROI than ever before. The US economy added 115,000 jobs in April 2026 alone, beating the 62,000 consensus forecast precisely as AI adoption hit its highest level on record. This is exactly what basic economics predicts and what almost no one who writes about AI and jobs bothers to say. Classic marginal productivity theory says: when you increase the productivity of a worker, you don't diminish human work, you expand it. The worker becomes more productive, gets paid more, does more, and more jobs are created in the process. Andreessen's ATM analogy holds here because ATMs were supposed to eliminate bank tellers but instead, teller employment rose because lower operating costs let banks open more branches. The no-code AI market has exploded from $4.3 billion in 2023 to $21.2 billion in 2026 not because programmers are being replaced, but because the universe of people who can now build software has expanded by orders of magnitude. The blind spot, as Andreessen notes, is that productivity is now outrunning comprehension. The a16z partner building AI systems he's never looked at the code for represents something genuinely new, software being summoned faster than it can be understood. That's not necessarily dangerous but it does mean the verification, security, and governance layer of the AI development stack is more important now than it has ever been.

Marc Andreessen just coined a term that perfectly describes what's actually happening to programmers right now and it's the opposite of what the doomers predicted (Save this). He calls them AI vampires. Andreessen's says that programmers using Codex, Claude Code and AI coding tools are not being replaced but they're working harder than ever, sleeping less than ever, with massive bags under their eyes and they are completely euphoric. What's remarkable is that the phenomenon extends far beyond professional engineers. Andreessen described an a16z partner who had never written a single line of code in his career, who built an entire AI powered work system for himself and when asked if he'd ever looked at the underlying code, the answer was simply "hell no." The data behind the anecdote is extraordinary. Andreessen says the leading-edge programmers at a16z portfolio companies are now 20x more productive than they were a year ago, the most dramatic increase in programmer productivity in the history of the industry. The METR May 2026 AI usage survey found technical workers self reporting a 1.4–2x change in work value from AI tools, with 75% of software engineers using AI for at least half their work. The software engineer hiring rate is actually increasing up to 22.77% of new hires in 2025 from 19.32% in late 2023 and companies are now bidding more aggressively for senior engineers specifically because AI empowered engineers have a higher ROI than ever before. The US economy added 115,000 jobs in April 2026 alone, beating the 62,000 consensus forecast precisely as AI adoption hit its highest level on record. This is exactly what basic economics predicts and what almost no one who writes about AI and jobs bothers to say. Classic marginal productivity theory says: when you increase the productivity of a worker, you don't diminish human work, you expand it. The worker becomes more productive, gets paid more, does more, and more jobs are created in the process. Andreessen's ATM analogy holds here because ATMs were supposed to eliminate bank tellers but instead, teller employment rose because lower operating costs let banks open more branches. The no-code AI market has exploded from $4.3 billion in 2023 to $21.2 billion in 2026 not because programmers are being replaced, but because the universe of people who can now build software has expanded by orders of magnitude. The blind spot, as Andreessen notes, is that productivity is now outrunning comprehension. The a16z partner building AI systems he's never looked at the code for represents something genuinely new, software being summoned faster than it can be understood. That's not necessarily dangerous but it does mean the verification, security, and governance layer of the AI development stack is more important now than it has ever been.

Milk Road AI

136,921 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Tesla halfshaft clicking and rattling is solved - costing Tesla millions. Making the Small Drive Unit immortal wasn’t easy – but it also wasn’t impossible and we did it again. Simply changing working SDU wasnt cheap or sustainable nor buying existing repair kits is was not enough because milling or clicking noise was still there. The clicking noise and axle vibrations we noticed on an SDU we received over two years ago seemed like an isolated case at first, most likely caused by the half-shafts. But in the past two years we received around 20 similar inquiries, and we weren’t fully certain about the root cause, so we didn’t act prematurely. After 5 months of dedicated work, we finally identified the real issue, sourced suppliers, and solved the last missing piece: the output differential gear. The repair process itself demands precision and attention to detail – inspection of the gear seat radius and bearing surface, machining or polishing when required (in this case polishing was sufficient), production of hardened shims to fine-tune gear backlash, and the use of new shafts heat-treated to 61 ± 2 HRC and precision ground to the required tolerance. Pin holes are drilled with carbide tools, side faces milled for oil relief, while the hardened gears themselves usually remain intact, with wear limited mainly to the shims. In this work, even a deviation of 0.01 mm can make a crucial difference. Soon we’ll release a full video and a new repair kit, complete with an exchange program for refurbished differentials (“old for new”), as well as reconditioned motors available for other workshops and franchises. We also discovered why Model S and X often destroy brand-new half-shafts in a short period of time. The cause is not only wheel suspension or motor mounts – but also a worn differential inside the e-motor. Excessive wear and internal play within the planetary gear set cause the axle to shift off-center under load, ultimately destroying the CV joint. OEM Price: 3800€ + Tax OEM Labor Rear : Front : 800€ : 1200€ EVC Reman : 2000 + Tax EVC Labor Rear / Front : 400€ : 800€ EVC Diff: 580€ + Tax Part numbers: 1035000-00-F, 1037000-00-F

EV Clinic

117,142 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten