Marc Andreessen on why he thinks Europe actually wants to be left behind on AI
"Europe seems, I just take them at their word, determined to be left behind. They seem enthusiastic about being left behind. They seem to really badly want that"
"25 years ago, if you did a list of the 50 biggest tech companies in the world, a pretty significant number were European, probably 15 of the top 50. Today you're basically down to Spotify. Which is great. I love Spotify"
"I think they would be very happy if AI didn't happen inside the EU. I think they'd be very happy if social media didn't exist. I think they'd be quite happy to shut up the internet"
Máté Lang retweeted
At this point the whole EU Inc negotiations are so lost in the details that everyone forgot the main goal: Creating a standard.
Basically, allow founders to raise quickly globally and use stock options to hire competitively.
Let’s say it quite clearly:
1) If EU Inc isn’t providing a standard it’s useless. We already got 30+ legal entities in Europe. Experienced founders use Delaware Inc already because of this.
2) If EU Inc doesn’t fix stock options Delaware Inc is still the better option.
I understand the there are complex details and people are worried about loopholes. But you can’t lose the actual goal of it because of it.
An EU Inc that doesn't provide a standard is pointless. Nobody will care about intricacies of compromises reached in political committees if the market can't use the outcome.
If you are in contact with your political leaders (prime ministers, presidents, et al) please reach out to them. Or to founders/investors in your network who might have that access.
🔥🇪🇺✌️
xitter.cf/euinc_petition/status/…
Máté Lang retweeted
Saying software is dead because everyone can create it with agents is like saying movies are dead because billions of ppl have a high res video camera in their pockets
Movies doing better than ever+more ppl make a living from videos, movies, TV than ever
(Analogy from @simonw)
Saying software is dead because anyone can build it is like saying photography is dead now that everyone in the world has a camera in their pocket
Not only is it not dead it's the beginning of the Kodak Brownie moment for software, and we will see an absolute explosion of it
It will be the first generation for who building software will feel no different than using it. This is crazy!
The quality and bar of what we expect from our everyday apps will be raised dramatically, we'll have personal software, we'll have disposable software, and agents will be the foundation for most of it
Tech has always been chaotic and evolving, the people who have been able to adapt and move in front of new opportunities have always excelled, this is nothing new, I'm seeing it now and we'll see it 10 years from now
Find the opportunities in the chaose and disruption, there are countless of them
Socialism is impossible. Read that again.
Here is why:
1. Ludwig von Mises and the Calculation Problem; then 2. Friedrich Hayek and the Knowledge Problem.
They are distinct, and it's important to understand the difference.
Mises fired first. In his 1920 paper "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," he drove a stake through the heart of central planning by showing that rational economic calculation is impossible without private ownership of the means of production. Prices are not arbitrary numbers. They are signals generated by actual bids and offers between property owners who face real profit and loss. Strip away private property, and you strip away the bidding process. Strip away the bidding process, and prices become bureaucratic guesses. A Soviet planner deciding how much steel to allocate between rail construction and tractor manufacturing has no genuine price for steel because no one is buying or selling it freely. He is flying blind. The problem is structural, not administrative. Hire smarter planners, give them faster computers; it changes nothing. The information cannot exist without the market process that generates it.
Communists read this and realized Mises was right. They found a roundabout way to keep going. They would simply use prices from Western capitalist countries.
Then Hayek hit them with his 1945 essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society." His target was subtly different. Hayek accepted that prices aggregate information. His contribution was to identify what kind of information markets process: local, dispersed, tacit knowledge that no central authority can collect. A warehouse manager in Düsseldorf knows that his particular supplier is three weeks behind schedule. A farmer in Kansas knows the soil conditions on his specific plot after last month's frost. A textile merchant in Lyon knows which dyes his buyers currently prefer. None of this knowledge is written down anywhere. Much of it the people holding it cannot fully articulate. It lives in habits, relationships, and on-the-ground experience accumulated over years. No survey, no commissar's report, no algorithm extracts it reliably. You cannot copy it from one country to another.
Mises showed that central planners lack the mechanism to generate rational prices. Hayek showed that even if planners somehow had prices, they still could not possess the ground-level knowledge those prices encode. Mises's problem kills socialist calculation at the structural level. Hayek's problem kills it at the epistemological level. The two arguments are complementary, stacked on top of each other like floors of a building.
The Soviet Union ran this entire experiment in full. Central planners in Moscow set over 20 million prices by the late Soviet period. Shortages and surpluses coexisted everywhere. Bread rotted in one city while another city's bread lines stretched around the block. Planners were not uniquely corrupt or stupid. They were operating inside an institutional structure that made rational allocation geometrically impossible, exactly as Mises predicted in 1920 and exactly as Hayek's epistemology explained in 1945.
Every government price control, every production quota, every centralized allocation scheme you live under today repeats this mistake at a smaller scale. The mechanism fails whether the commodity is steel, housing, or healthcare. The scale changes; the logic does not.
Máté Lang retweeted
“Higher taxes will not reduce the deficit, except for a brief interval. They will simply increase government spending. That is the lesson taught by past experiences.”
— Milton Friedman
Máté Lang retweeted
This will replace Excalidraw for me. Ferroprint.
Ferroprint after the ferroprussiate process that made the first blueprints
Next step: Dubai 🇦🇪
Do I know someone who could host a little indie hacker get-together on October 25th? 🤗
Istanbul meetup sold out in 2 hours!
~150 people came. The team at @eachlabs booked a wonderful venue and organized everything!
They even brought baklava, and I ate one on stage 😅 Tip: Twist the baklava upside down so it's doesn't drip.
My dear friend @alexwestco flew from Cyprus to give a little speech too. He's been going from 0 → $1M → 0 again. He summed up 10 years in a 10-minute speech.
I've been humbled by how welcoming Turkish people are. Everybody is just so kind and warm!
Thanks to everyone who joined yesterday, it was awesome seeing you ❤️
Peterson on the virtue of becoming dangerous is not just a plea for the individual man, but for the Leviathan too. Well-functioning societies need the capacity for formidable violence, such that they may keep the peace, but paired with the control to use that power sparingly.
Máté Lang retweeted
Increíble de ver a los “expertos” en solventar la emergencia de vivienda que vive España! En cada televisión! @telediario_tve @A3Noticias @tele5_noticias @noticias_cuatro La realidad es que tenemos a políticos que intentan crear decretos y soluciones cuando no tienen la preparación ni el conocimiento para idear una solución real al problema que vivimos.
España no tiene un problema de falta de decretos. Tiene un problema de falta de viviendas.
Y mientras el Gobierno siga confundiendo anunciar medidas con resolver problemas, seguiremos pagando las consecuencias de su inacción.
Subvencionar la demanda sin aumentar la oferta presiona los precios. Regular cada vez más un mercado sin construir vivienda nueva no elimina la escasez: la administra. Castigar fiscalmente una modalidad de alquiler puede cambiar incentivos, pero tampoco pone un solo ladrillo.
El Gobierno puede aprobar todas las medidas que quiera y venderlas como grandes soluciones. Puede encadenar decretos, anuncios y campañas de propaganda. Pero hay una pregunta que desmonta cualquier discurso:
¿Cuántas viviendas nuevas crea todo esto?
Porque la vivienda no se abarata repartiendo la escasez. Se abarata acabando con ella.
España necesita construir. Mucho.
Más suelo disponible. Licencias en meses, no en años. Más densidad donde sea posible. Seguridad jurídica. Muchísima más vivienda pública y también privada.
Pero el Gobierno no está haciendo lo necesario. Prefiere intervenir sobre las pocas viviendas que existen antes que crear las condiciones para que haya muchas más. Prefiere presentar parches como soluciones y cargar sobre propietarios, promotores y ciudadanos el coste de su fracaso.
Lo demás puede servir para redistribuir, proteger a determinados colectivos o cambiar incentivos. Pero no confundamos eso con solucionar el problema de fondo.
No se arregla una falta de vivienda repartiendo mejor las pocas casas que existen. Se arregla haciendo que existan muchas más.
Menos propaganda. Menos parches. Menos obsesión por intervenir sobre el mismo piso.
Más oferta. Más construcción. Más casas.
I'm noticing Westerners are continously having lower standards every year and seem to not even notice the declining quality standards of everything around them
I do notice it and when I tell them (IRL or on here) they make me sound jaded or disconnected from reality as if we expect too much
They're literally boiling the frog and most don't notice it
Then we fly out to Switzerland, UAE or East and parts of South East Asia and we realize there's nothing to complain about so it's not us, it's the West
Máté Lang retweeted
There is a cohort of people who love play "Chicken Little". They are typically associated with the left, and their goal is the acquisition of power.
They screamed "No Nukes" when nuclear power was the safest form of power generation ever created. They managed to delay the use of Nuclear power for decades. Now, of course, we really need it.
They screamed "Climate, Climate, Climate" and manage to increase the price of fossil fuels. They seemed oblivious to the fact that those Nukes they blocked would have prevented a lot of CO2 from being dumped into the air.
Now they are screaming "AI will kill us all". And they are having the same effect. They will impede the progress on the one thing that could help us solve all those other problems.
Why? Because they want the power that breeding fear in others gives them.
Should we be cautious with Nukes? Sure. Should we be cautious with the climate? Sure. Should we be cautious with AI? Sure.
But we should not let fear dominate us -- that fear will be our undoing.
Máté Lang retweeted
I was born before Sputnik. I watched Armstrong step out onto the Moon. I cheered for the Hubble, and the Mars rovers. I wept for the Challenger, and Columbia. I feared that our foray into space was on the wane.
I am 73 and, today, I am more hopeful than I have ever been.
The only programmers who are really in trouble with the competition from artificial intelligence are the ones who insist the world today isn't all that different from the one we lived in last year.
Embrace the paradigm shift or perish.
(This has always been true.)
This has never been more true. The opportunity cost of endless planning and contemplation just went way up. Agents allow you to just try vastly more stuff, so let them, and you'll learn way more, way faster.
This quoted post is unavailable.





























