cuuupid

Fireworks is an inference provider that specializes in running open source models very fast and makes almost all of their margin on chinese models

So the economic incentive is literally their entire business model lol

This is essentially the point of the visa, it feels wrong especially as YC drops standards and increases cohort sizes, but the same power laws that keep them winning also apply here in maximizing economic value of each O-1 approval

Basically of all visas O-1 is virtually guaranteed to have highly positive economic value

This admin and its policies on immigrant visas have been around for 1 year and Biden was famously pro immigration

This makes even less sense, Trump admin has been here for 1 year, the implication here is a university grad on H1-B in January would become a world class researcher capable of building a frontier model in <18mo

The visa that would correlate to this is the O-1 visa

20k O-1 visas were issued last FY which was mostly under the Trump admin, up from 19.5k the previous FY under the Biden admin

I sold my company ~2 years ago for a very decent 8-figure exit where we cleared multiples, everybody got paid, fat bonuses all around, etc. just real pipedream founder stuff. Was incredibly excited and thought "we've made it!"

Currently barely affording a condo in Jersey City (not Manhattan). Don't really understand why the prices are this high, none of these homes are selling, the ones that sell are vacant EB-1 investments of which there surely cannot be that many, and there's no way an upper-middle class family could afford this.

More ludicrously taxes keep going up, property tax is super high making it impossible for buying to ever be better than renting.

Everyone in tech keeps talking about how AI might usher in a permanent underclass but it's already here. It's not "you will own nothing and be happy" for most people I think it's already "you own nothing and aren't happy." It's very confusing what is happening with the real estate market but what is obvious is that local politicians and housing regulations have invented feudalism from first principles.

I genuinely do not understand the controversy here, imagine somebody said this about bread.

1) It is the 12th century. Local lords own all the wheat farms and bakeries. Bread is incredibly expensive, nobody can buy bread, people are simply buttering the bread and licking off the butter, and still having to pay a portion of their wages to help maintain the bakeries.

2) ~1000 years pass. Everyone looks back at that time as the worst economic reality in human history, the foundation of most political systems is the ability for anyone to own bread and operate bakeries, people can buy bread.

3) One day you go to the bakery to buy some bread and it's now $120 a loaf. You say WTF this is so expensive, nobody can buy bread anymore, but there are so many loaves on the shelf. You're informed all of these loavess are spoken for by the people in the parking lot who are apparently gambling on the value of bread.

4) Nobody is saying you can't gamble on the value of bread. Instead, everyone agrees it would cost less if we would simply make more bread. But the people in the parking lot, who are already rich and supposedly champion a totally free bakery, say we can't make more bread as that might drop the value of bread and reduce their portfolio value, which would be worse than starvation, so we must limit the bakery. This is obviously ridiculous.

5) Then somebody walks into the bakery and says, I am a champion of the working class, I am one of you, I too cannot afford bread, make me your leader! So you think amazing, let's put them in charge, they will make more bread.

6) Unfortunately, no, for a variety of reasons that sound like they were made up on the spot, they further reduce the supply of bread, stop people from building more bakeries, and install a series of their supporters to 'review' the grain quality of bread at great expense. Also, a very small group of people will get a loaf of bread for free.

7) The price of soars further, everyone agrees that all of this is making it even less affordable. However it becomes culturally unacceptable to reverse any of these policies.

8) You have obviously been betrayed by the current leader. One of the current leader's supporters decides they want to be leader. The other supporters, who again are responsible for this crisis, back this person and say this is the next leader. They say you cannot question them, you must put them in charge or you're to blame for the bread prices. They run constant smear campaigns against anybody who disagrees, branding them all the same as the people in the parking lot, and scare people on the brink of starvation. So fine, you put them in charge, but demanding they change things.

9) They say yes we have a great solution. The people in the parking lot who are gambling on the prices of bread will now let you borrow a slice from them. You cannot eat it but you may butter it and lick the butter. If the butter seeps into the bread, as tends to happen with butter, you will be charged for the cost of drying out the slice later.

10) It is the 21st century. Local lords own all the wheat farms and bakeries. Bread is incredibly expensive, nobody can buy bread, people are simply buttering the bread and licking off the butter, and still having to pay a portion of their wages to help maintain the bakeries.

Genuinely incredible

Am I reading this right? They surpassed SOTA (Qwen 3.7) by finetuning an older model (Qwen 3.5)?

Not missing the forest for the trees, this effectively means in 3-5 months China will drop open source models that are every bit as capable and dangerous as current day Mythos except with no safeguards.

And the only companies safe from this are the large corporations that shook hands with Anthropic? Because Fable doesn't seem to have actual safeguards, more like 'if you talk about this you will be talking to Opus.' It doesn't guard against offensive use, it prevents all use (offensive AND defensive).

Rationalists are inventing oligopolies from first principles, absolutely incredible things happening in SF

if you're in Gmail this filter works really well for me:

("list-unsubscribe" OR "unsubscribe" OR "list-id")

I'll disagree because the primary issues with gun control in the US are:

[1] Guns are a core part of culture for much of America, very deeply so outside coastal cities. Most of the left wing in the US lives in coastal cities and either grew up there or immigrated very recently and does not leave, so this is an alien concept to them, but even in very blue cities like D.C. you would be shocked how many liberal democrats have armories. It is literally amendment #2!

[2] They are already widely distributed and it would be a logistical impossibility to actually enforce gun control.

This is directly analogous to NPM where:

[1] The package registry working the way it does and people quickly installing packages without thinking much is deeply part of JS culture. It doesn't help that JS caters very heavily to as wide of a market as possible, of which the majority is going to be entry level/junior to associate engineers for whomst script kiddying or letting AI install whatever is essentially a way of life. As evidence, this type of thing is not really a problem with derivatives like Bun, especially in mature organizations where it's easy to enforce a minimum 72 hour wait time between publish and installation of a package.

[2] Packages are already widely distributed and part of dependency stacks (e.g. the infamous leftpad) where it is a logistical impossibility to change how things work.

I also view startups and companies like Vercel as essentially the NRA here, Next.js has taken over huge swathes of the ecosystem and highly encourages dependency-maxxing.

Another direct analogy: proponents of gun control say they are unnecessary for self defense (esp. because law enforcement is good now), too heavy duty to begin with, and fundamentally dangerous.

Similarly I would criticize dependency-maxxing as unnecessary for capability (esp. because AI is good now), too heavy duty to begin with, and fundamentally dangerous.

Died is such a charged word for acquired which is usually celebrated for the company

I hear this a lot but their fleet is valued upwards of a billion, they own most of their fleet it was just financed with debt (it's not like a house where the bank has equity in the asset, the lender has debt with spirit and levers on that debt that control what it converts to on default but Spirit legally owns the planes). The slots are <100M total

The company is not forced to sell immediately to whoever offers it money, they can sell themselves off for parts.

I heavily doubt PE firms are interested here as there is no potential for growth or a multiple. Spirit's assets are mainly their fleet, there are like 4 maybe 5 people who could buy, of these 2-3 are facing similar financial crises.

In the US I think nobody except United can afford to make a move, more likely some Asian airlines will move; many have grown and have route demand they can't service due to lack of aircraft. If you fly to Asia often you'll note that much of the time Asian airlines have to operate an aircraft from a US airline.

This isn't really a scam because no money moves and this is non-binding. Here are a list of glaring issues I see here:

1) Pledges being non-binding means there is no proof of funds. This means they can't actually make an offer, presumably they will have to email everyone who pledged to put in cash and hope it resembles a solid offer.

2) How much is Spirit worth? Their market cap was ~50M a few days before they shut down. Where are we getting 1.75B$ from?

3) Since these are non-binding pledges I'm inclined to believe most of these numbers are bots / fake. Especially as accredited investors skew older and make up less than 1/5th of the population!

4) 666 is a very specific significant number for the average pledge size to consistently stay at. I've watched the number of patrons go up by thousands and yet the average pledge size stay the exact same. The total pledged is certainly fake as a result, although see [3] pretty sure these are all fake numbers.

5) You get nothing in return for your pledge and definitely nothing in return for your money. They go to great lengths to add disclaimers that everything is proposed and subject to change at their discretion.

6) Just like the entire site is AI slop, the disclaimers are too, not worded correctly like regular financial disclaimers, in many places not required and in other places not good enough.

7) They pretend to care a lot about disclaimers and legal verbiage yet there is no mention of the entity or who is working on this bid so missing the most basic mark when it comes to financial disclosure!

8) It says "Spirit didn't fail because people stopped flying. It failed because Wall Street loaded it with debt and extracted every dollar it could." This is just a lie, no matter how Wall Street trades your stock it doesn't affect your treasury. Spirit failed because of horrible financial mismanagement and both an inability to maintain solvency under operating costs (which rose even further recently due to jet fuel shortages) as well as an inability to secure a line of credit. Technically you could also blame their corporate strategy although this was pretty good with the Jet Blue merger, so blame here also lies directly with Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz (unlikely duo!) for championing blocking the merger. You can find this from a simple Google search or asking your AI of choice.

9) While we're on the subject of financial mismanagement, whoever wrote this clearly has not much idea of how the finances for something like this would work. _It's not just AI generated — it's AI slop._

10) Whoever made this has no idea whether the assets are actually still there nor do we. Spirit may already be under binding agreements for asset sales.

11) Whoever wrote this also does not understand how companies run. First of all they think they are doing something revolutionary with equity, when almost every company has ESOPs/EIPs. Profit-sharing relative to ownership is also literally how shares work and Spirit already regularly paid these out prior to beginning their financial crisis. Every publicly traded company has open books and openly reports their financials each quarter.

12) "One member, one vote — your voice is equal regardless of pledge size." What incentive would anyone have for pledging more? Also, voice in what? Vote in what?

13) "No golden parachutes — executive pay capped at a fair ratio to median worker pay." First of all, this is not what a golden parachute is. Secondly, either the fair ratio will be ridiculous to allow properly compensating execs, or they will be underpaying by a large margin and find it difficult to get any proper execs in place. Then they can speedrun the last few years of mismanagement at Spirit.

14) "The cooperative model has worked: REI, Ocean Spray, Land O'Lakes, the Packers — all people-owned." These organizations all have well thought out models. This is not the same as AI slop.

15) "Private equity is already circling the wreckage." First of all, Spirit is freely undergoing an asset sale. Their operations etc. are shut down. Not only is this not appetizing to PE, but in general PE firms stay very far away from airlines which are famously low margin difficult to operate businesses with limited potential for growth once established. PE normally focuses on airports and airport services, neither of which Spirit has (their airport assets are limited to slots at LGA which are useless to anyone except airlines). The much more obvious buyer is other airlines looking to expand control and consolidate aircrafts.

16) It is common for a company facing insolvency to shut down, do an asset sale of expensive assets, and then come online in a much smaller form with remaining assets, funding itself with the sold off assets. I don't see why Spirit would not do the same thing, in which case even if a cooperative bid is put together it would be much weaker than disjoint buyers (e.g. Frontier and JetBlue separately buying some aircrafts).

17) Lastly whoever wrote this has absolutely no plan to deal with the high operating costs and failing industry here, which is really much more important than ownership incentive structures. No amount of kumbayah we're all in this together is going to drive jet fuel prices down or change the economics of commercial aviation.

No longer rumored as they filed for IPO!

This is actually an amazing sweetheart deal for Cursor. Many times with these high profile acquisitions, most stock is tied to LPA's and employment at the company, and also earnout provisions. The company then finds a way to parachute them out early, which both voids the earnout and their employment, thus they never vest most of the units and the few units they do vest get bought out at 409A valuations which are typically much, much lower.

In the case of Cursor this is an amazing boon as SpaceX listed at an almost 100x multiple which is absolutely staggering. Had SpaceX stayed private they could have 409a'd Cursor and got it for effectively ~100M$ cash.

I'd argue Meta is much worse:

Palantir builds these systems for the US government which is (hopefully) something you can hold accountable / can reasonably trust.

Meta builds these systems for itself to make digital cocaine and sell personal data to profit off everyone (including and moreso primarily the elderly and children). You can't hold them accountable, actually pretty much nobody can hold Zuckerberg accountable.

When Palantir helps USG spy on the planet the primary purpose is defeat enemies + protect assets. When Meta builds these systems the primary purpose is digital cocaine.

What are they buying with this money? If you're the rich 1% and have replaced the 99% with AI there is no longer an economy for you to participate in. We don't have to imagine this scenario, we already did feudalism, and it famously boiled down to land and military.

slave class

This sentiment is by far the most ridiculous because you are simultaneously projecting a reality where AI does everything and so people are no longer needed, but at the same time people are needed and become a slave class. "Oh no the tractor was invented! Now nobody will need humans to tend the fields! They will surely now force us to tend the fields!"

Top 1% and top 20% are entirely different numbers, and majority does not mean all. If the bottom 99% or even 80% of people were unable to meaningfully engage in the economy it would collapse. We already know this model does not work due to several centuries of feudalism.

It's also insane that we have come to the point that you can say something like this and publish an Axios link when anybody could just go outside and see most people are employed, participating in the economy, not homeless, have food, buy things and enjoy luxuries.

Am I to believe that Jeff Bezos is the primary driving force behind Labubus? Is the Chipotle down the street waiting for Elon to come to town so they finally have a customer?

I can usually defend what appears to be federal incompetence with nuance and vice versa but even I can't say anything about this.

Whoever fulfilled this contract gets a stop work order for gross incompetence and the CORs/COs should be terminated immediately

I am, CMMC 2.0 requires and is essentially satisfied by FedRAMP Moderate, and NIST 800-171 is a subset of FedRAMP. Notably both CMMC and FedRAMP were met with immense criticism from industry which was mostly ignored.

It would be better to compare this to commercial, like SOC 2, which is achievable even for small startups without much effort and on much more affordable budgets.

Notably SOC 2 full service is $20k including tooling (Vanta + Workstreet + audits), NIST is $20-30k (Vanta + partners), while FedRAMP is $500k-1M (Coalfire) just for implementation before getting into tooling and audits.

Palantir FedStart is a new program, and a quick look at the FedRAMP marketplace will show you there are literally 0 tech startups listed that are there without jumping on Palantir’s ATO. I find it difficult to believe you have been through FedRAMP twice but would declare something as ‘absolute fiction’ when it can be easily proven

A home costs 10-20x more than a car, you are being incredibly disingenuous by boiling them both down to “major purchase.”

It's amazing how much of leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible

This is not a program, it is a term used by the HUD and very explicitly does not relate to income levels. That is the point I keep making, when the modern (<5y) left keeps touting “affordable housing” they are misusing the term simply because they don’t want to say “low income housing” even though everybody acknowledges they are actually referring to “low income housing.”

It is very important to distinguish the two because “affordable housing” is a marketing term that could reasonably convince someone that the policy is meant to help 80% of people including themselves, when in actuality it is low income housing which is restricted to <20% of the area population and even fewer voters.

Some background: DC has one of the most prolific automated traffic camera systems in the world and violations bring in $250M+ annually. The only US city with higher ticket revenue is NYC at $300M+, but the NYC metro has more than 3x the population and traffic of DC.

For nearly every homebuyer, a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth. It needs to be a good long term investment that at least reasonably paces with inflation, otherwise you are losing money by buying a home and everyone has to rent and then you have feudalism with extra steps.

The good news is this is totally fine with keeping cost of living under control and overbuilding, because prices will go back up over time. Most people aren't going to own their home until the 30 year mark so it really is a much, much longer term investment than anything like overbuilding or other factors can reasonably affect.

The problem is really that people started seeing 2x-10x returns on homes and started treating that like the norm. That is not a 'good investment' that is a 'money printer,' and in most cases the government does not want to safeguard that behavior, but it's hard not to when those same people panic like crazy if their home only goes up 2% in value in a year or, god forbid, decreases in value for a year.

There is really no good solution to that mentality, if there really was one then Wall Street would have uncovered it ages ago to get more people into long term ETFs.

There is no "progressive" definition, income level is not at all part of the definition. Per the universal legal definition of 'affordable housing,' if a home costs $1B but is occupied by Elon Musk, it would still be affordable because it is less than 30% of his gross income.

When you are dealing with income levels it is universally called 'low income housing,' and the HUD definition is already scaled to local income levels, the 'A' in AMI stands for 'Area.'

You are conflating marketing ('we need more affordable housing!') with policy ('low income housing')

If you live in a magical fairy world where supply and demand are fixed, sure. In the real world, prices going down 10% leads to a surge in demand, and so you can fill more of your units. This leads to either equal or increased revenue, for the same construction (flat cost), which actually yields higher margins. This is why developers are usually concerned with occupancy rates, and prices are more a concern for homeowners.

There are only really 3 scenarios where prices are low and demand is low:

[1] There is a dramatic surplus of supply, in which case if a developer is trying to build they've not done research and probably should not get financing

[2] There is some other factor (usually high crime) in which case again, developer should do their research, and the market is operating fine

[3] You are developing super early and operating within incentives offered by the city, usually tax abatements, which drive down the carrying cost and make it a better investment.

Also important to note that in scenario [3] a smart developer will slowly release inventory to restrict supply to meet demand, and as demand grows, release more inventory at the newly raised price, continuing to do so as long as the tax abatements advantage the strategy. This is common in successfully developed areas e.g. Jersey City, and is fine as long as broad scale collusion doesn't occur

You are quite literally debating what the definition should be, because this is _not_ the existing definition of affordable housing, it is legally what OP is saying. "Affordable housing" is just when the household spends <= 30% of gross income on housing related costs. This is the definition used by the HUD and the same definition applied in policymaking.

What >you< are referring to and what it is conflated with by progressive policymakers is "low income housing" which imposes an AMI based restriction on the resident's income. This in turn means that 30% of their income is much lower and restricts the sticker price of the home.

In recent years, most 'affordable housing' policy has been advanced by progressives, who use that term for marketing purposes, whereas the actual policy primarily relates to 'low income housing' or even 'very low income housing.' This does not mean 'affordable housing' = 'low income housing', it just means the term 'affordable housing' is used in the title and the actual measures advanced are related to AMI and 'low income housing.'

This is actually how you start a city though, you build a suburb and wait for it to grow into a city. This takes a really really long time so it's better to build near existing cities.

We don't observe this phenomenon occurring often in the modern day only because cities sprawl rapidly and so the evolution of the suburb becomes a borough of the existing city rather than a brand new city. Otherwise Brooklyn, Jersey City, Weehawken, etc. would all be considered new cities instead of being referred to as the NYC metro.