What is this a hedge fund for chickens?
Sydney/San Francisco
Joined June 2011
- Tweets2.9K
- Following3.4K
- Followers598
- Likes8.5K
Chook Capital retweeted
The White House has just said it wants to eliminate some mosquito species (and ticks)
Is this good news? Yes! Ppl don't realize how bad they are, and how we already have the technology to do it!
Here's the problem, the solutions we have, and why we haven't done anything yet:
Chook Capital retweeted
Up to 76% of children with autism may actually have an autoimmune disorder which blocks uptake of folate into the brain, leading to a cerebral deficiency
Autistic children were 19 times more likely to test positive for folate receptor alpha antibodies, which bind with and block folate receptors at the blood-brain-barrier
These children had normal blood results, but very low levels in cerebrospinal fluid
Treatment with a specialized folate supplement, calcium folinate/folinic acid (aka Leucovorin), led to improvement in ~65% of autistic children studied
Standard testing is useless because blood levels of folate show up as normal, but the brain is deficient
Ordinary folate supplements (folic acid, methylfolate) are ineffective because their transport system is blocked
Calcium folinate, on the other hand, works by penetrating the brain via alternative transporters (reduced folate carriers) to effectively restore folate levels
However it must be taken in extremely high doses to achieve this effect. Leading physicians are using approx. 2mg/kg body weight.
Refs:
PMID: 38392599
PMID: 38248763
PMID: 34834493
PMID: 32892962
Chook Capital retweeted
FUCK.
Been a while since I posted something this interesting.
Today, QQQ was
▪ Up at least +2.75%
▪ On a day VXN (VIX for QQQ) was up at least +1.00 point
And how has QQQ done 2 weeks and 1 month after every similar event in the past?
Hahahahahahafuck.
Chook Capital retweeted
In response to the clip going around with the African lady saying 'WHAT WHITE CULTURE!?!'
Because I can explain it in more detail than anyone else... here are the main things that create western civilisation.
The principle, the law of nature that is an adaptation to and what operation it creates in our civilisation.
THE WESTERN CIVILISATION STACK
Western civilisation can be understood as a set of adaptations to the laws of nature that allow millions of people to cooperate, solve problems and innovate together.
1. SOVEREIGNTY — Let people act.
Law of nature: Knowledge and ability are distributed among individuals.
No ruler or institution can know everything everyone knows. Sovereignty gives people freedom to choose, experiment and solve problems for themselves. That creates millions of independent problem-solvers instead of waiting for one authority to find the answer.
2. RECIPROCITY — Don’t impose your costs on others.
Law of nature: Cooperation survives when it benefits both sides.
Freedom cannot mean freedom to steal, defraud, injure or force others to carry your costs. Reciprocity means pursuing your interests while respecting the same right in others. It turns conflict into cooperation and makes peaceful life among strangers possible.
3. RESPONSIBILITY — Make people accountable for consequences.
Law of nature: Every action produces consequences.
Freedom works when the person making a decision also bears responsibility for its results. When people can keep the benefits of their choices while forcing the costs onto others, cooperation breaks down. Responsibility reconnects choice with consequence.
4. PROPERTY — Make control and consequences clear.
Law of nature: Resources are scarce and cannot satisfy every competing use at once.
Property establishes who controls something, who may use or exchange it, and who bears the consequences of those decisions. That reduces conflict, encourages people to improve what they possess, and makes investment and long-term planning possible.
5. TRUTH — Correct error faster than reality punishes you for it.
Law of nature: Reality does not change because we believe something false.
Truthful testimony, open criticism and evidence allow people to discover mistakes before those mistakes become catastrophes. A civilisation that can criticize and correct itself can learn faster than one that protects comforting falsehoods.
6. CONTRACT — Make cooperation possible across time.
Law of nature: Cooperation requires predictable future behaviour.
Promises backed by reputation and law allow strangers to trust one another enough to cooperate. Contract lets one person invest today because another can credibly promise performance tomorrow. That makes enormous networks of specialization, trade and investment possible.
7. RULE OF LAW — Replace arbitrary power with predictable rules.
Law of nature: People have conflicting interests, and power creates opportunities for predation.
Law provides a common procedure for resolving disputes without violence or personal rule. When rulers and citizens are both constrained by known rules, people can cooperate, invest and experiment without constantly fearing arbitrary interference.
8. DUE PROCESS — Test accusations instead of trusting authority.
Law of nature: Human beings are biased, mistaken and sometimes dishonest.
An accusation is not proof. Evidence, defense, confrontation, impartial judgment and appeal create an adversarial process for discovering error. Due process protects both society from wrongdoing and individuals from arbitrary punishment.
9. DECENTRALISATION — Let many solutions compete.
Law of nature: No one knows in advance which adaptation will work best.
Families, firms, towns, institutions and governments can try different solutions to different problems. Failures can remain local while successful solutions spread. Decentralisation therefore turns society itself into a continuous experiment.
10. MARKETS — Let reality select among competing solutions.
Law of nature: Evolution advances through variation, selection and retention.
Markets allow people to try different products, services and ways of organising resources. People select among them through voluntary choice. Successful solutions attract resources; unsuccessful ones disappear or improve. Markets turn millions of choices into continuous social learning.
11. SPECIALISATION — Let differences become advantages.
Law of nature: People differ in knowledge, ability, resources and circumstances.
Instead of everyone doing everything badly, specialization lets people become exceptionally good at different things and exchange the results. Cooperation converts human differences from a source of conflict into a source of increasing productivity.
12. SCIENCE — Institutionalise error correction.
Law of nature: A false model eventually fails when tested against reality.
Science turns doubt into a productive institution: observe, propose, test, criticize, replicate and correct. Knowledge therefore does not have to depend upon authority or tradition. Every generation can discover where the previous generation was wrong and build upon what it got right.
13. CAPITAL — Preserve successful adaptations.
Law of nature: Progress compounds only when successful adaptations survive.
Tools, businesses, infrastructure, institutions and knowledge allow yesterday’s successful experiments to become tomorrow’s starting point. Each generation does not begin again from zero. It inherits accumulated solutions and adds another layer.
14. EDUCATION — Transfer accumulated knowledge between generations.
Law of nature: Individuals die; knowledge does not have to.
Writing, schools, apprenticeships and universities allow discoveries to survive their discoverers. Instead of every generation rediscovering mathematics, engineering, medicine and law, it begins with thousands of years of accumulated learning.
15. COMMONS — Build things that make everyone more capable.
Law of nature: Cooperation can produce benefits no individual could produce alone.
Courts, roads, standards, security, scientific knowledge, infrastructure and trustworthy institutions multiply everyone's ability to act. A successful civilisation does more than protect private interests: it continually creates shared capital that makes future cooperation cheaper and more productive.
THE RESULT
These principles form a system:
Sovereignty creates experimentation.
Reciprocity makes it peaceful.
Responsibility makes it sustainable.
Property makes interests clear.
Truth corrects error.
Contract creates trust across time.
Law suppresses predation.
Decentralisation preserves alternatives.
Markets select successful solutions.
Specialisation multiplies productivity.
Science accelerates discovery.
Capital preserves what works.
Education transmits it.
Commons multiply everyone's capabilities.
That is the deeper logic of the Western stack:
Stable rules + distributed freedom + relentless error correction = cooperation at scale and accelerating innovation.
Chook Capital retweeted
Albo and King are the only two politicians who currently hold Qantas Lifetime Platinum status
Both declared these as a gift on the Parliamentary Register of Interests
Qantas supported Albo’s referendum for The Voice and King rejected Qatar Airways’ bid for more flights
Insanity by the Australian govt! They hate the polls and are seeking to silence their critics
Since @realDonaldTrump returned to the White House, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has courted the American president and boasted of the results. In October 2025, the two men signed a critical minerals framework at the White House. Albanese told reporters that “our historic critical minerals framework is going to see us break new ground together” and that “this means more jobs in Australia, it means more resilience for our economy.” He described the meeting as “as warm and friendly as you saw.” The framework commits the two governments to “a combined $3 billion towards an $8.5 billion future pipeline of priority critical minerals projects in Australia.”
But on Monday the Albanese government introduced draft legislation that would let the government impose sweeping censorship on American social media platforms, including X, owned by Trump ally Elon Musk, and perhaps even on Americans, for practically any reason whatsoever, with the transparent intention of silencing rising public opposition to mass migration. One section lets the government censor “any other material or conduct” that the Communications Minister “is satisfied may cause serious harm.”
That could, in practice, be anything, including criticisms of mass migration and Muslim migrants following terrorist attacks, like the one last December when a father and son, inspired by the Islamic State, killed 15 people, including a 10-year-old girl, rabbis, and a Holocaust survivor, at Bondi Beach, a popular site for Jewish Australians, during an annual celebration of Chanukah by the Sea. Australians who complain that migrants bring terrorism could find themselves censored by social media platforms under orders from the government. A platform facing an up to A$109.2 million penalty has every incentive to suppress posts about protests that involved any unlawful act.
In July, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) presciently warned that the Bondi tragedy was being used by the government “as an excuse for internet censorship and surveillance.” Albanese has already said One Nation, a right-wing populist party in the mold of AfD and RN in Germany and France, would “peddle misinformation and disinformation.” When asked about whether the legislation would allow her to censor misinformation, Communications Minister Anika Wells said, “We can emphatically rule that out.” But the legislation would allow her to censor anything that “may cause serious harm.” Last year the Albanese government claimed anti-mass migration protesters were linked to neo-Nazis.
This could upset the Trump administration, which has made defending American social media platforms and free speech a high priority.
In December 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio barred the former top censor with the European Commission and the leaders of three censorship NGOs in Germany, Britain, and the United States, saying they “have advanced censorship crackdowns by foreign states.” And Rubio vowed to “expand this list if others do not reverse course.”
In February, a report by the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Trump ally Rep. @Jim_Jordan, revealed that Europeans had censored American social media companies for years by pressuring them to change their content moderation (censorship) rules and ”successfully pressured social media platforms to censor true information in the United States.” When the Commission’s vice president flew to California in 2024 to discuss “election preparations” with TikTok, the company asked whether she meant EU or US elections. The Commission replied, in writing, “We are interested in both.”
Australia’s social media regulator, Julie Inman Grant, the “eSafety Commissioner,” has tried to censor Americans in the past. When she ordered X to remove a stabbing video for users worldwide in 2024, a Federal Court Justice in Australia declined to extend her injunction, saying that she “would be deciding what users of social media services throughout the world were allowed to see on those services.” She dropped the case that June. In November of last year, Jordan wrote to Inman Grant and called her a “noted zealot for global takedowns.”
On Monday, a reporter asked Albanese if he was worried about upsetting Trump. “We know that some, at least some of these big tech companies are already making very clear they don’t like these changes,” noted a reporter. “Some of these, you know, the heads or the owners of these companies are quite friendly with Donald Trump. How are you going to handle that if they raise this as an issue with the US President and he in turn arcs up about it?”
Albanese said, “Look, we’re a sovereign nation, we decide our policies based upon the Australian national interest. I as Prime Minister will do that regardless of what the issue is. But my relationship with the US President is indeed very good and I look forward to seeing President Trump in New York in a couple of weeks’ time.”
The Trump administration may do nothing, and left-of-center leaders abroad have learned that a fight with Trump can pay. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva saw his approval rise from 40% to 43% after Trump announced 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods in July 2025. In November 2025, Trump lifted 40% tariffs on Brazilian beef, coffee, cocoa, and fruit. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the administration wanted to “focus on affordability.” Australia has similar leverage, supplying the minerals that Trump said would arrive in such quantity that “you won’t know what to do with them.”
But a few hours ago a White House spokesman said President Trump had “unequivocally warned” trading partners about “digital services taxes, fines and other forms of extortion” on US companies. “The administration remains committed to raising these issues with our trading partners....”
xitter.cf/shellenberger/status/2…
Please subscribe now to support Public’s defense of free speech and to read the rest of the article.
xitter.cf/shellenberger/status/2…
OMFG and so it begins… they don’t like the election results coming through so now they will legislate “the algorithms” to ensure they are only allowed to promote party sponsored ideas
It’s 1984 😱
Social media used to be about following your friends, but increasingly it’s serving up outrage. We need to rein in the angry algorithms that are polarising society. ministers.treasury.gov.au/mi… #auspol
Chook Capital retweeted
Regret the tone of my post on data centers yesterday.
What I should have said:
There were reasonable concerns about data centers 18ish months ago: water, taxes, jobs, electricity prices, the environment and what they would do to small towns. Well-structured data center projects have largely addressed these concerns today and we should be celebrating this.
On balance, data centers are awesome for America in every way.
On water: U.S. data centers use a fraction of what golf courses use. A lot of the numbers from 18 months ago were off by over 1000x. Newer data centers use closed-loop systems or recycled water. Should be required by every town approving a data center project.
On taxes: looking only at sales-tax exemptions, as Ronan Farrow did, is the wrong way to evaluate this. Data centers pay significant property taxes. Loudoun County, which is the wealthiest county in America, now collects on the order of $1 billion a year from data centers. In Quincy, WA, data centers are more than half the property-tax roll. Over time, property taxes can go to zero while government spending increases in these towns.
On jobs: this has been unambiguously awesome for blue collar Americans. Demand for electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC techs, and contractors has gone vertical, and it is not a one-time construction job. These buildings get upgraded and expanded over time. That is why the building trades are fighting for them, and why some unions are now treating opposition to data centers as a reason not to endorse politicians.
On power: the original fear was that households would pay for the incremental electricity demand in the form of higher prices. That is why the ratepayer-protection deals and the new large-load tariffs exist. The right structure is: the data center brings or pays for new generation and signs a contract long enough that existing customers are protected. Where that is happening, utilities are cutting or freezing residential rates and saying so on the record. Where it is not, people are right to object. Electricity prices are going down *today* in a number of large states because of data centers.
On the environment: data centers overwhelming use natural gas today, which is the cleanest power source outside of nuclear, solar and wind. And the companies that are building the data centers are committed to carbon neutrality such that an equivalent amount of solar will likely be built. Maybe more importantly, the data centers need batteries to function effectively and these batteries can also sell energy back into the grid (which recently prevented blackouts in Texas). Over time, data centers will run on solar plus batteries.
On the towns: Poverty in Quincy, WA fell from 29% to 6%. Data center taxes paid for a new high school, a hospital, a library, police and fire stations. This is happening in many left for dead former mill and farm towns that had no other bidder for the land.
Data centers are actually reindustrializing parts of America and creating the kind of working-class jobs both parties have spent decades claiming to support. That should not be a partisan issue. Data centers can and should be awesome for America and they increasingly, overwhelmingly are. Supporting the outsourcing of data centers to China will likely age just as well as support for the outsourcing of high quality, blue collar manufacturing jobs to China has aged.
When the facts change, I change my mind. I hope that reasonable people who had good faith reasons to oppose data centers at least consider updating their beliefs given the change in the facts over the last 18 months. This really matters for America.
I will say I also think the idea of making data centers beautiful is a good one that has yet to be implemented. Data centers should be just as beautiful as Grand Central Station. We can learn a lot from the railroad buildout. Neoclassical revival ftw.
Might write up open-weight AI tomorrow as this is equally essential to America.
One job people, all the rest is just cream
The sociologist Susan Pickard chose career over motherhood. She writes about being the last of her line.
compactmag.com/article/daugh…
Chook Capital retweeted
Risk management 101—every exposure should have a limit, even when you’re sure nothing could go wrong. After all, the Titanic sank and AAA mortgage bonds went to zero. I worry about the market’s (and the economy’s) unlimited appetite for exposure to the positive AI revenue story.
Chook Capital retweeted
Incredible. Jensen is completing the circle.
- Bankers don’t like GPUs as collateral because the depreciation is unpredictable
- It’s unpredictable because a new GPU can obsolete an old one
- Jensen knows his own roadmap
- so he’s offering depreciation insurance to the banks
- the depreciation insurance (up to 25%) helps the banks get marginal deals over the line
Speculation
- Nvidia will also advise the banks on “reference designs” for datacenters that will make them fungible
- Having them be fungible means that the debt can repackaged into Asset Backed Securities, Collateralized Loan Obligations and Collateralized Debt Obligation (ABS, CLOs and CDOs from 2008 haha)
- This allows tranching to get investment grade ratings on the debt so that it can be resold to pension funds and insurance firms
- It also allows the banks to trade idiosyncratic project specific credit risk for sector wide credit risk
So Jensen is trying to get his customers the same cost of financing as real estate rather than venture equity.
This is going to move the data center game out of the VCs and into the big leagues.
Chook Capital retweeted
Most people don't realize how big of a growth wave we are currently experiencing.
So far, with 88% of S&P 500 companies reporting earnings, the index has posted +50.4% growth in earnings year-over-year.
To put this into perspective, the already astronomical expectation of +23.1% growth has been more than doubled.
This will mark the 2nd consecutive quarter of earnings growth above +25% and the 7th consecutive quarter of double-digit earnings growth for the S&P 500.
The last time growth was this strong was in Q2 2021 as the US economy emerged from the pandemic and $4+ trillion in stimulus was handed out.
We are arguably in the midst of the biggest technological revolution in US history.
The data is absolutely insane.
Chook Capital retweeted
Don't ever forget:
No one "stabilizes" the market when it's going up, only on the way down.
This is not a coincidence.
Chook Capital retweeted
Schau dir diese Grafik genau an. Sie erklärt, warum sich in Deutschland Leistung nicht mehr lohnt.
Ein Paar, zwei Kinder, beide arbeiten.
Bei 4.000 Euro brutto bleiben rund 2.700 Euro.
Bei 5.000 Euro brutto bleiben rund 2.650 Euro.
Du liest richtig. Tausend Euro mehr verdient. Weniger im Portemonnaie.
Und jetzt der Teil, der wirklich weh tut: Bei 2.000 Euro brutto stehen dieser Familie etwa 2.350 Euro zur Verfügung.
Bei 5.000 Euro brutto sind es 2.650 Euro.
3.000 Euro mehr erarbeiten. 300 Euro mehr haben.
Das ist kein Rechenfehler. Jeder zusätzlich verdiente Euro zieht Wohngeld, Kinderzuschlag und Freibeträge mit sich in den Abgrund, während Steuern und Sozialabgaben gleichzeitig steigen.
Man nennt es Transferentzugsrate. Ökonomen kennen das Problem seit Jahren. Die Bundesregierung hat Gutachten dazu bestellt.
Passiert ist nichts.
Und dann wundert sich die Politik, warum niemand mehr die Stunden aufstockt. Warum die Zweitverdienerin in Teilzeit bleibt. Warum der Facharbeiter die Beförderung ablehnt.
Die Leute sind nicht faul. Sie rechnen.
Ein System, das Anstrengung und Fleiß nicht belohnt, bekommt am Ende genau das: keine Anstrengung.
Chook Capital retweeted
Another reason some Australians are building their futures elsewhere: 🇦🇺
In 2008, Australia’s top 45% marginal tax rate kicked in above A$180,000.
In 2026, it starts at just A$190,000.
Adjusted for inflation, the 2008 threshold would be A$290,000 today.
That’s nearly A$100,000 of silent bracket creep.
Insane.
Chook Capital retweeted
Fatherhood strips the paint off every man alive, all that enduring self mythology you carved out for yourself over decades of living, that entire carefully manicured persona gone in six months because a child does not care who you think you are. a child cares what you do when you think no one is looking, and someone is always looking now. your son will learn what you are not from your words but from watching your face when his mother is talking, from how you sit when you're tired, from whether you get up anyway. and if what he finds there is weakness he will know it with the same dumb immediate certainty that an animal knows rain is coming
Chook Capital retweeted
havent seen one person from OAI or Ant address Jon's argument here.
the point is simple: the USG does not owe either of the large labs a business model. if the economics of selling tokens don't work due to distillation/cheap clones/Chinese AI magick, the American enterprise and consumer will be A-OK. they will benefit from hyperdeflation in the cost of digital cognition just like everyone else. the hyperscalers will be fine. it's just OAI and Ant that won't be – in their current forms at least. if they are willing to adapt, they can develop new business models.
so what if the token merchants don't do well? the neoclouds will be fine. the internet companies will be fine. the consumer gets cheaper queries. the enterprise will still incorporate AI.
the only world in which this isn't fine, is if you hold a quasi-religious belief that we're on the cusp of a kind of AI rapture in which one of the labs Logs On And Wins Forever, namely hits RSI and we enter some kind of sublime post economic society run by GEOTUS Dario. so to accept that Ant's business model might be suboptimal or impaired by China's commoditization is to accept the unacceptable; namely that someone other than the anointed might kick off the runaway feedback loop and that they, instead might log on and win forever.
this appears to explain the discrepancy in reaction to Deepseek Moment v254 Kimi edition. everyone has bag bias, of course. but leaving that aside, most people think it's pretty much ok if Ant and OAI suffer margin compression due to Chinese distillation / industrial sabotage via open weight models. the American economy is not reliant on those two firms. they could blink out of existence and we would pretty much be ok. the AI capex supercycle will still produce tokens, closed weight or not. American firms will consume those tokens. OAI and Ant would probably still scratch a living, due to the latent preference of some token consumers to buy domestic and face off against a known entity.
this is only unacceptable if you think AI is strongly path dependent; that is, if it really matters who the market leader is when AI reaches a breakout level of capability. this is true both in the good case (superintelligence, singularity, etc) and the bad case (this is the essence of safetyism). but if this sounds more like wishcasting than forecasting, you probably don't mind the labs being pressured economically.
now you can clearly tell which side I'm on. I think AI is a fantastic technology which is hyperdeflating the cost of cognition and will fundamentally reshape society but there are real reasons why it wont diffuse as fast as the AGI people think it well. I would prefer an American firm achieve RSI relative to a Chinese one but I think either outcome would be suboptimal; better that we don't end up with a closed oligopoly composed of Ant/OAI. China by crushing the margins of the labs is doing everyone a favor by eliminating their pricing power and empowering the buyers of AI, namely, everyone.
objections:
-but you can't celebrate America losing to China!
- in my opinion this is a minor victory for China but not necessarily an enduring one. USA still has the chip, datacenter, and neocloud advantage, not to mention, it still has the best frontier models. Chinese labs releasing open weight models have no business model of their own. so even if they hurt the US labs, they have nothing to show for it. it's profoundly unlike their successful dumping campaigns with solar panels, batteries, drones, etc where they eventually built big domestic industries. (if China kills American AI with open weight models, we can even the score the moment they try and release a proprietary model). even if open weights win, the USA can still leverage AI extremely well and potentally retain the aggregate compute advantage. yes, the US would be more assured of victory if OAI or Ant won forever, but I don't know if I want to live in that world.
- no one will ever train a model again
- this is where I think the concern is unwarranted. let's say distillation really is a golden bullet and kills big training runs. that doesn't advantage either China or the US. that's a stalemate. not to mention, the trend seems to be less focusing less on massive pretraining budgets and more on finetuning for specific genres of tasks, thinking machines style. and lastly I find it hard to believe that training runs will stop altogether. the labs can probably develop anti-distillation techniques. you could adopt a whitelist style permission for everyone using your model. different consortia could be put together to share in the cost of training a model, if it is seen as too expensive for an individual firm.
- the AI buildout is path dependent and OAI/Ant are now load bearing GDP infrastructure
- it would be a significant setback for investors if they had to cancel their IPOs and suffered big markdowns, and some neoclouds with lab based RPOs would suffer for a while, but everyone would be fine, really. does Microsoft need OAI or Ant? does Meta? does Google? ordinary Americans have ~no exposure to either OAI or Ant. would the world want any less compute if it turns out to be another order of magnitude cheaper? certainly not. as we all know at this point, consumption would go up. I don't think the economy is so dependent on the labs that it couldn't handle their margins compressing.
Look I think I've figured this whole thing out. Follow along as I try to steelman, and tell me where I'm wrong.
OpenAI guys on the TL believe that if they can't sell metered inference tokens at a sufficient markup, then they will not have enough of a business to fund the next big training run.
They are surely correct about this.
They believe that if people release powerful open models, this will probably fatally impact their ability to sell inference tokens at enough of a markup to fund the next big training run.
They are surely correct about this, too.
They also think that if they cannot fund the next big training run (again, by selling inference tokens at a markup), then NOBODY will be able to fund the next big training run because it means there's no money in it.
This last bit seems to me & many others to be not just wrong, but totally bananas in a "guy, have seen the actual software industry and how it works in real life?!" kind of way.
There are a lot of ways to monetize software out there in the world. Insofar as inference can add new capabilities to software, there will be lots of ways to monetize it.
In other words, if you're telling me, "we can't have a business selling inference if X or Y thing keeps happening," then my only response is, "ok well that sucks for you... sounds like that's a terrible business."
But if you're telling me that "selling metered inference tokens is a terrible business" is tantamount to "nobody will fund big training runs that are upstream of more effective & economically valuable inference tokens", then I think you are extremely wrong and should get out more and learn about other parts of the software ecosystem.
Workplace automation is huge and will be even bigger in the future as models get better. You can sell workplace automation very profitably in lots of different packages (depending on the workplace and the type of automation). Like, I'm sorry that you really really want to be in the metered inference token business and not the workplace automation business, but them's the breaks. The market wants what the market wants. We all need to live in reality and not beg for Uncle Sam to save us all from open source -- because that was already tried and it didn't work.
Jesus how can you match the stupidity of “agree to disagree” on something that is so simple to understand
Choose the low cost equities index fund option. Taking you super out of the hands of “active managers” is the best thing you can do for yourself
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wants to leverage the country’s $4.5 trillion superannuation pool as a national asset, but banking chief Anthony Miller has pushed back. ebx.sh/BNnv0d
Chook Capital retweeted
Your median professor sits so far left that AOC, Sanders, and Warren would count as moderates in any faculty lounge.
Faculty from 55 elite universities form one towering blue spike of ideology far out on the left, density exploding past 6, with virtually nothing on the conservative side.
This was built through decades of selective hiring, social enforcement, and the systematic purge of dissent.
And because they credential the people who run media, law, government, and tech, the monoculture leaks into every elite institution downstream.
