jmyeet

This is a good article. I've been curious about how this is going to play out. A couple of data points:

1. An enthusiast had a project to get a V100 working on his PC [1]. This was a ~$10k GPU 10 years ago. It's now sold for scrap;

2. The A100 came out in 2020 and cannot run a large model like DeepSeek v4 Pro. It can run Flash. You need a 16xH100 cluster to run Pro and that's a ~4 year old GPU and AFAICT 8xB100 or 4xB200;

3. We're about to roll out R100/R200s.

I'm surprised that NVidia is moving to a 1 year product cycle (per this article) because the big question I've had is what's that going to do to existing investments in GPUs. Why? Because if 4xR100 can do the work of 32xH100 then that's a massive advantage in performance-per-Watt, which I think is going to be the only metric that ends up mattering.

In addition to raw power, new capabilities are developed and come online. For example, certain smaller, more efficient quantization methods just didn't exist on older hardware.

Oh, another thought from this: a 9% annual failure rate just goes to show you how ridiculous the idea of orbital data centers really is. Orbital DCs were always just a pump-and-dump scheme for SpaceX's IPO.

Currently it gets expensive to run models larger than ~31B locally. You start to need some pretty expensive hardware. That's going to change. I don't expect we'll be running 1T+ models on a Macbook Pro within 5 years (at reasonable inference rates) but I think people today will be shocked at what's being run locally in 5 years and that'll easily be 100-200B+ models.

[1] https://www.hackster.io/news/hacking-a-server-grade-nvidia-g...

We shouldn't allow people to hoard housing and land. That’s the core problem here. It should be super expensive to own more than one property. I refer people to the Housing Theory of Everything [1].

I disagree with the Ultra-YIMBYs who believe in removing all zoning and regulation. If you do that, you get Houston. Because that's what Houston is. What we need is to prioritize living over investment returns in housing. Part of this (IMHO) is to have expansive social housing like Vienna to compete private land use "honest". Also, we should really not allow rich enclaves. There should be social housing in every ZIP code.

[1] https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...

This is just wrong. Western economies have largely been hollowed out from productive output in favor of hoarding land and property because there is inelastic demand and increasing prices has become a political goal.

It should be super expensive to own more than one house. This by the way is what China did where Xi Jinping famous said "houses are for living, not for speculation" [1] as he quietly popped the real estate bubble a decade ago.

Increasing house prices are just enriching the already rich and stealing from the next generation. Nothing more. Houses should depreciate in value. They should not be an asset class.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_are_for_living,_not_for...

When I was young, I thought mandatory voting was silly. It made uninformed people vote. Well, certainly in this case, I was the uninformed person because seeing how non-mandatory voting works (in the US) should convinced everyone that voting should be mandatory.

The history of the US is one of voter suppression. Women couldn't vote. After Emancipation, barriers were put in to stop black people from voting (so-called "grandfather" laws). We got the Voting Rights Act for a reason. Many reasons actually.

All the way back in the Reagan era we had the Republican Party engaging in voter disenfranchisement with, for example, the Ballot Security Task Force [1]. This was part of the reason why we needed federal preclearance until John Roberts and his Heritage Foundation henchmen decided that it was impossible to prove racism or disenfrachisement.

We continue this by not only removing the voting rights of felons (which should be unconstitutional) but we pass around lists of names of felons and strike off people from electoral rolls for having names that sound similar to that of a felon from a completely different state.

There is no widespread voter fraud. There is widespread voter disenfranchisement. All of this is just a pretext for stealing elections. We'll se on January 3rd if the current House Speaker refuses to certify results and swear in new members when the Republicans lose in a landslide. Or we see more shenanigans like in the 2020 election to overturn the presidential election.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force

While I generally agree there's some nuance here and that is that there really are few new ideas. Old ideas just get recycled.

For example, mainframes and minicomputer. Yes they were displaced by PCs. But what is cloud computing if not mainframes 2.0?

I do agree that in the next 2-3 years we're going to see real growth in local LLMs as the hardware becomes more accessible. It won't even necessarily be cheaper because data centers can run 24/7 and have cheaper cooling and electricity. It'll be done for privacy because your prompts and responses are themselves a commodity to AI companies and they live under a legal grey cloud. For example, does AI usage break attorney-client privilege? There are lots of opinions on this but it hasn't been tested in court.

Google is one of the most hated corporations for it.

This is such a terminally online take. It's important to not look at the bubble you're in and get fooled into thinking it's a representative microcosm when it almost never is.

I'm reminded of when Quora was hyped up on HN and in Silicon Valley in general. VCs were waxing lyrical about how "everyone" they knew was using it but "everyone" here was "everyone they knew", which is a subset of "everyone in the VC/SV space".

Google is not hated by the general public. My basis for this is the 2025 Harris poll on company reputation [1].

[1] https://www.axios.com/2025/05/20/axios-harris-poll-company-r...

I'm not a fan of Sundar Pichai, particularly given how much he's paid, but the one thing I'll give him credit for is starting the Chrome project at Google. I'm not sure people appreciate just how impactful this was. And it has nothing to do with browsers, really.

Google has a huge team that works on what's called Search Quality. Matt Cutts was the notional figurehead of this for the longest time. Google's goal was to have the first link on a search result be the one you want. In the early days of Google, the way they measured search equality was with a process called "side by sides" where a sampling of search results were compared by actual humans to see which was "better".

Chrome changed all that. It automated the feedback loop. Make a good browser (and, at the time, Chrome had one-process-per-tab when Firefox was freezing with one-thread-per-tab. Make it fast so enough people use it. And you get to measure how good your search results are. Nobody had access to this level of what we'd now call training data.

Part of the value proposition of cloud LLMs is that the AI companies have a comparable feedback loop. They get to see prompts and responses and train accordingly. It's why the ToS gives the companies ownership of this data and the right to use it. That falls apart if people don't have to use a remote LLM. And there's two reasons why that's under threat:

1. Chinese labs have managed to train LLMs at least in part by acting as an intermediary between Chinese users and the likes of OpenAI and Anthropic. There's a whole shadow economy in reselling tokens throough aggregated subscriptions that Anthropic (in particular0 constantly plays whack-a-mole to shut down but it's a losing battle. I think it's this data that is a key factor in the improvement o fChinese models; and

2. Within 2-3 years we will be seeing a rapid rise in local LLM usage by what are now large users of these platforms as the hardware becomes increasingly accessible. That's going to close off this feedback loop.

On top of all this, the Chinese government has decided that no company should be allowed to "win" AI, particularly a foreign company. It's an issue of national security. This was obvious from at least the very first DeepSeek release. I firmly believe the models are going to get commoditized and that's going to be a huge problem for OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX.

This is a kinda silly argument. Interstellar colonies would have the opposite problem: they'd cease to be the same species due to genetic drift.

If you look at the (im)practicalities of interstellar travel, it's going to take centuries. That means a generational ship of some kind. That means having a sufficient population to get there, which really means tens of thousands of people. Plus, the kind of ship that would make that would likely host up to millions. That's just not going to create a genetic bottleneck.

Also, you could even mitigate that by bringing frozen genetic material.

Journalist Alfred Henry Lewis said over a century ago that civilization is only 9 meals away from anarchy. I fear in the coming years we are going to be testing that theory.

Another quote that springs to mind is "Corporations behave like they're annoyed that they have to go through you to get to your money". The pandemic was a catalyst for a change in attitude by American corporations who were afraid to raise prices. That fear is now gone. Every aspect of corporations now are dedicated to raising prices and the easiest thing to raise prices on is things with inelastic demand. Food, housing, electricity. It's the entire basis of private equity, which seeks "pricing power". That's just another way of saying "inelastic demand".

All of this has been exacerbated by a pointless, unwinnable foreign war in Iran at the behest of a foreign state (ie Israel). The only thing thus far that has prevented a global economic collapse is China [1] but that is about to bite because the US SPR is about to hit the effective minimum [2]. And now the issue isn't going to be crude oil but shortages of refined petroleum products, particularly diesel. You can see this by looking at the 3-2-1 Crack Spread [3], which itself is also going to get worse because of the destruction of an estimated 40% of Russia's refining capacity, which has already resulted in halting diesel exports.

Diesel prices are a huge factor in inflation [4]. Another lagging issue here is that much of the crops planted in the northern hemisphere this year received less or no fertilizer because of the Iran war. That's likely to cause a famine impacting tens of millions of people and will further drive up food prices.

Rents keep going up. Food prices keep going up. Inflation keeps going up. The one thing that doesn't keep going up are wages. And people are rapidly running out of money to absorb it. And the American government that is inflicting this on not only the US but really the world, does not care.

[1] https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/china-oil-imports-i...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-stocks-us-strate...

[3] https://rbnenergy.com/market-data/3-2-1-crack-spread

[4] https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/market-minute-diesel-trucking-...

The Economist is a neoliberal dish rag.

There is a completely made up number that is an increasingly large portion of GDP in OECD nations and that number is imputed rent [1]. This is a fictional number that owner-occupiers "pay" themselves to live in their own houses. So as housing prices go up, so does imputed rent. House prices have increasingly become the best vehicle for investment funds because the returns are esentially protected. But none of that produces anything.

The UK in particular has been described as buy-to-let economy.

It doesn't have to be this way. If you limit property speculation then capital will find something else productive to do, like manufacturing. Dish rags like The Economist present it as inevitable that Western nations become financialized. It's simply not true. Look at Germany. Also look at the fact that Germany greatly limits the collaterialization and speculation on property. That's not an accident.

[1] https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/02/14/10-or-gdp-is-...

Google's process produced a price of IIRC $85/share and on first-day trading soared to >$100 so there was a lot of discussion at the time about how efficient that process was.

But really that's how all IPOs work, basically. You have one of more investment banks that underwrite the offering. They're basically guaranteeing to sell a certain number of shares to their clients at a given price. Those clients can be institutional investors, pension funds, high net worth individuals and so on. But there's a feedback loop here where clients might push back on a certain price.

IPOs love these sorts of investors because they tend to buy and not sell. If everyone sells the IPO will flop. Retail investors are far less "loyal".

The IPOing company also has levers where they can manipulate the price, most notably on the supply side ie by limiting or expanding the size of the float. SpaceX's float (as a percentage of the company) was actually really small.

What's unique about the SpaceX IPO was that it would immediately become one of the world's most valuable listed companies so there'd be a lot of induced demand from index funds. The underhanded (IMHO) aspect to all this was that the rules were deliberately changed so passive investors would be exposed almost immediately rather than first allowing some form of price discovery by the market. NASDAQ capitualted. S&P did not.

I guess the real manipulation here is the fiction that SpaceX is an AI company, which ultimately goes back to a series of bailouts for terrible decisions going back to the Twitter purchase. SpaceX's AI pitch was orbital data centers, which make no sense, and using their ill-gotten NVidia chip allocations to rent them to Google.

I think it's important to understand how we got here and a lot of it has to do with serving network requests or RPCs.

The first Web servers used CGI (Common Gateway Interface). This spawned an entire program (process) per request and had obvious overheads. This led to some optimizations (eg FastCGI, ISAPI/NSAPI) to reduce the overhead. This was the era of Perl scripts being popular.

Then came the model of having a persistent state across requests. Java servlets were a big example of this. Given the cost of exec'ing a process, this was a big deal. But then you've immediately created an environment where multiple threads were accessing the same resource and you could leak resources. There were other variants like CORBA.

Now this was abotu the time of the birth of PHP. PHP was revolutionary because it had a stateless core that allowed shared hosting environments, which were exceptionally cheap for the time (even though they had security issues). But the idea is that you avoided the threading issues of a persistent environment and didn't really have resource leaks because everything got torn down. Of course PHP had other issues. But this was a big deal because things like the initialization of a JVM class loader, for example, was relatively expensive and you had to tune Java servers around performance and STW GC pauses.

None of the above really has anything to do with programming languages other than people learned (or didn't learn) just how hard writing multithreaded code is, something that is true to this day and you absoultely want to avoid it if possible. It is incredibly difficult to get right in an era of cores, threads, different L1/L2 caches, out-of-order proccessing, branch prediction, etc etc etc. And your code may have to run on multiple architectures.

Now Go chose to get around this issue with goroutines and channels. I personally think these are a bad abstraction, particularly because buffered channels are used without understanding the impact (leading to deadlocks), you can have exploding goroutine sttacks and using unbuffered channels is a strictly inferior (IMHO) async/await abstraction.

I actually think that Facebook's Hack has basically the almost perfect async/await. The whole idea of async/await is that you get the benefits of the PHP model of being single-threaded in your own application code and you can tear down your environment when you're done. Any IO goes through async API functions.

Now how does the scheduler manage threads, exhaustion, etc in this environment? Honestly? I have no idea. It just basically works. So maybe the Tokio issue is that the scheduler itself is blocked, which seems to be the case from this article. That does seem like a flaw but a fixable one.

I get the whole colored function criticism but the reality of using Hack to serve HTTP requests is that everything is async anyway so it seems to be a non-issue in practice. You can if you really need to call call an async function from a non-async function with a blocking function but that's not best practice.

I do know that thread pools, particularly multiple thread pools, is not the answer.

Yeah this is just completely wrong.

Data centers pay sub-market rates for electricity (as well as getting tax relief, generally). Generally, they use so much electricity that more infrastructure needs to be built. Who pays for that? Not the data center. The utility's capex is spread across all customers (sometimes minus the data center).

Then the utility needs to generate moer power or buy it from elsewhere. That's typically at a higher rate than it's currently getting, which raises the average cost of electricity for everyone. But again, the data center is getting a discounted rate so you have a water bed effect raising everyone's prices there too.

And for what? Maybe a few dozens jobs. The "value" being created is for multinational corporations who likely won't pay anything in taxes for it.

Data centers should be taxed for the land value they allegedly create. We have precedents for this sort of thing, most notably imputed rent. So if you spend $300 million on a building that lasts 30 years, that's worth $10M/year+. Then there's all the compute hardware. Assume $700M amortized over 7 years. Well, the imputed rent is at least $110M/year in base costs, so likely $150M+/year.

All this adds up to it should have to pay tens of millions (and maybe as much as $100M/year) in taxes.

I'm a firm believer in this as well. You want to enforce a noncompete? Great. You have to pay me as much as what I was earning (plus benefits), possibly more, for as long as you want to enforce it. That amount should probably go up 50%+ per year too.

Private equity is cancer. It honestly should be illegal, particularly to buy a company with a loan and then strip-mine the assets to pay back that loan.

Private equity looks for "pricing power". This just means "inelastic demand". So housing, vets, healthcare, food and utilities are great targets because you can't opt out of basic needs. Healthcare (and vets) have the added layer that PE tends to buy all the practices in an area at the same time so there's no competition. And, like you say, they sign all the medical providers with these big contracts with onerous non-competes

Those non-competes, while onerous, tend to be regional. The region can be large however but if you moved (which, admittedly, most people don't want to do) then you could practice medicine elsewhere.

Here are two big ways PE is trying to corner these markets with mixed success:

1. Some states (eg Oregon) have laws that forbid companies from "practicing medicine" so when Apollo came and tried to buy their way into emergency care (so the hospitals fired the physician-owned emergency medicine group that had been running it for decades), they try this convoluted corporate structure where there's a company that ostensibly owns the new healthcare operation and it has some doctor placed as the chief but really it's a Trojan horse for the PE firm. So far, judges in Oregon have rejected this end-run around the law; and

2. Envision Healthcare was a massive PE failure because of a law change. Here's how it worked. Whatever insurance you have will have in-network and out-of-network providers. In a hospital environment you generally have little control over the various providers who see you. This has led to some surprises where, say, the anesthesiologist for your surgery might be out-of-network while your surgeion was in-network. The surgeon is getting an in-network fee of $8000 but the out-of-network anesthesioligist is charging $100,000. Unscrupulous doctors would evngage in revenuemaxxing by intentionally bringing in an out-of-network provider then splitting the much higher fee rather than using the residents in the hospital, which were essentially "free".

That was Envision's entire business model: surprise out-of-network billing. Then in 2021, the No Surprises Act was passed that basically outlawed this practice. It forced hospitals to only receive in-network rates for things like this. And the entire $6.5B purchase of Envision imploded.

This is partially why I get so angry when people try and defend PE as a concept. It's entirely parasitic. It's not even theoretically making a business more efficient. It's just hiking prices in a way where people have no choice. That's it.

The interesting part is that the PE firm will try and exit by IPOing the "restructured" company, which will only last a few years before the complicated debt structure implodes, a bit like subprime loans. A textbook structure is to "sell" all the real estate to a holding company and that's not listed and then you have complciated leaseback contracts that only keep going up in rent.

One of favorite "fun" facts about healthcare is when passing the Affordable Care Act, somebody snuck in a provision that made physician-owned hospitals illegal. Who? Nobody really knows as best as I can tell. It just made it into the final bill. Someobody argued doctors would have an unfair advantage or something. Who? Insurance companies.

Honestly, this entire system needs to be burned to the ground, Boudicca style.

We're maybe only 2 years away from really useful, relatively affordable local LLM usage. You can buy a 5090 PC for $5-6k but 32GB of VRAM really limits model sizes to ~31B. And that won't change (even with NVidia's next generation) because NVidia uses VARM as an aggressive market segmentation technique.

No, the hope really is these other platforms with a shared memory architecture. The DGX Spark won't be it because of the aforementioned market segmentation. So that leaves two players: AMD and Apple.

The AMD platform is still too low memory bandwidth, currently <300GB/s. For comparison a 5090 (or 6000 Pro) is 1.8TB/s and the M3 Ultra Mac Studio is ~900GB/s. Oh and B100/B200 uses HBM3e memory at ~3.2TB/s. The M5 Max in some Macbook Pros tops out at ~600GB/s. So you need access to better RAM and better CPU architecture for all this.

My great white hope is Apple. They have the market power to get memory and build silicon that coul dhave enough FLOPS to compete with NVidia's platform. They've started talking about it and I've seen rumors they're targeting the M7 generation (2028) for a huge leap. I'll believe it when I see it however.

But the point is, I think we'll be running 31B models at 100+tok/s on enthusiast hardware in 2 years and we'll likely be able to locally run 100-400B models, possibly larger.

I'm not sure that anyone under the age of 45-50 can truly appreciate just how big of a deal Terminator 2 was and how big movie releases can be. Like, nothing in the MCU era or the Star Wars prequels and sequels comes remotely close. Yes, they gross a lot of money but in terms of cultural significance, I've seen nothing close.

At the time I lived in a city when the local movie theaters would typically run major releases on 1, maybe 2 screens. Session times were like 11am, 2pm, 5pm, 8pm 6 days a week and I think 1 less on Sundays. This was before the age of smaller theaters in the large multiplexes so a big movie theater might only have 4-8 screens.

3 weeks after T2 was released, it was still showing on screens in my local movie theater for 12-15 sessions a day, even on Sunday, from 8am til midnight. I actually waited a couple of weeks for the hype to die down and went on an 8am Sunday session knowing basically nothing (because that's how things worked then) and the movie theater was still full.

The CGI was a big part of it. It has some fan service to it. My movie theater cheered when Arnie came out of the bar wearing the leathers and hopped on the bike. But it's not overboard. It's actually a really great story, which is kinda unusual for a sequel. Like, James Cameron really has to be commended for that.

But there was another aspect too and that was Linda Hamilton. This was one of the first mainstream big-budget movies that changed the way women were portrayed in film. Lots of people had posters of her wearing the sunglasses, carrying weapons, etc. It was actually a really big deal.

The 90s really was a golden era for movies. Like I used to go 1-2 times a week and just watch whatever was on, basically. I don't think I've been to a movie theater since Avengers End Game and even in the 2010s it was a 2-3 times a year thing max.

But it is amazing how much they did with CGI in the early 1990s for T2.

A lot of people end up commenting on current and potential conflicts clearly knowing nothing about logistics and it shows. I think this whenever I see "China will invade Taiwan". But it also shows up when people don't realize the Iran war is unwinnable and was unwinnable from the start.

First, China. 100 miles of open ocean separate mainland China and Taiwan. To invade you need to put boots on the ground. That means you also need armor. And then you need everything that goes with that. Food, medical, resupply, ammunition, a place to repair your vehicles and so on. You can't airlift this, even with air supremacy. It requires ships, a lot of ships. And that means Taiwan, the US and allies could, if they wanted to, wreak havoc with supply lines.

I've seen one estimate that it would take over a million soldiers for China to occupy Taiwan, possibly two million. China simply does not have that amphibious capability so this is a silly conversation. American politicians talks this up to give more money to weapopns manufacturers for weapon systems that are too expensive and don't work and also to propagandize the population into "China = bad". But it's not a real threat.

On a clear day from Calais you can see the white cliffs of Dover. I believe the distance at its closest point is 17 miles. Yet despite having an Army that exceeded 12 million soldiers, Germany was unable to invade Britain. This is big of a problem water was then. It hasn't changed.

Second, Iran. Iran is surrounded by mountains on 3 sides and the Persian Gulf on the 4th. There is nowhere where a US invasion could muster like they did with Kuwait (ie from Saudi Arabia). We saw the futility of this in the Iran-Iraq war, which was a complete stalemate (with over a million dead) despite an almost decade of the US supplying Saddam Hussein.

So with mountains on 3 sides, that leaves an amphibious landing. Again, the problem remains of where would troops muster? It can't be anywhere beyond the Strait of Hormuz because the Navy can't defend against drone and missile attacks at close range like that, let alone get thousands of supply ships through safely. So that leaves Pakistan or Oman. Both are in range of drone attacks. The US has essentially abandoned all Gulf bases because of the complete inability to defend them. How would the US defend a million troops and all the supplies they need, including landing craft?

Logisitcally, the operation would be as complex and large as D-Day. The US doesn't have that military anymore. The Navy has a pair of amphibious landing craft that could put 5000 Marines somewhere. Great. They'd die. For enough infantry, you'd need a draft. You'd need to build so many ships. It would take years and nobody has that kind of time.

The Joint Chiefs know this. It's why no US president has started a war with Iran despite the Israeli PM asking every one of them to do so since at least Reagan. It's only this president who took the bait of Mossad telling him how the regime would fall within days after a decapitation strike.

The entire Iranian military project is to resist the US military. Bases buried in mountains, cheap ballistic missiles and drones that can be mass-produced, a mosaic defense to avoid potential decapitation and air defenses that are seemingly good enough that the US, even with F35s, still has to stand off.

I bet you won't find a single serious military planner who thought this operation was possible.

So if the Iran war is still going on in 5 years the global economy has collapsed. I'm not sure people realize just how quickly this situation is going to be dire. 2-3 months more of this and certain countries are going to have rolling blackouts. We will be having shortages of avgas and huge price spikes in avgas, gas and diesel. Diesel in particular is going to have a massive impact on inflation.

Oil futures don't currently reflect this because a lot of players have exited the market because they're sick of being fleeced by Donald Trump who has bet big and then announced yet another fake ceasefire, at least a dozen times. We actually have a bunch of short positions, such that we risk a Gamestop like short squeeze.

Ukraine is harder to figure out because it's really difficult to get good information. We have people on one side saying Russia is on the verge of collapse (and has been for 3 years) while it's also clear that Russia still has a manpower advantage and Ukraine's army is facing desertion and a lack of soldiers to draft. It's also unclear what the real impact of strikes on oil infrastructure deep in Russia are really changing the battle lines and overall position. If anything it might just exacerbate the energy crisis brought on by the Iran war.

One of the first gravitational wave detections by LIGO was I think the merger of two black holes or maybe a black hole and a neutron star. It was over a billion light years away I think but was so energetic that it conveted approximately 5 Solar masses into energy in about one second. That's ~10^48 Joules. In 1 second that is ~10^48 Watts.

For comparison, the Milky Way has an estimate of 5x10^36 Watts so we're talking about the energy output, very briefly, of roughly a trillion Milky Way galaxies.

The other that gets me is amgnetars. These are neutron stars with an insane magnetic field. The strongest detected exceeds 1 billion Tesla, making is 30 trillion times stronger than Earth's magnetic field. Get too close and it would flatten atoms and ultimately break molecular bonds and rip electrons out of your body. Google seems to think that happens at ~1000km, which is pretty close to get to a neutron star but still, that's a magnetic field.

These things are quite rare and quite unstable. If you think about it, they must have a lot of protons to generate a field so strong, which means that the gravity is overcoming the strong nuclear force but also the electric repulsion.

It's really the plastic straws that are the problem. That and avocado toast. And in 1-2 billion years when the Sun has heated up the Earth such that it's uninhabitable anyway (or 100 years at the rate we're going), we can at least feel comfort in all the shareholder value we've created along the way.

You're making a different argument.

You're saying we need to retain manufacturing capability and expertise. I agree.

I'm saying we need to stop being bled dry by private weapons manufacturers on cost plus contracts who are rewarded, by definition, by making the system as expensive as possible.

If we were truly interested in having an effective military, we would bring production in-house and focus on standardized vehicles and weapons systems with standardized interchangeable parts on production lines that can be scaled up if necessary.

So I looked up the specs and found:

- Reapers fly at a "medium" altitude, which is up to about 50,000 feet;

- They can fly up to 300mph;

- Despite being relatively high up they are relatively slow so lots of country have the military capability to shoot them down and have done so. This includes Iran and the Houthis;

- A typical payload is 2x GBU-31 JDAM (1000lb each). The explosive payload is roughly half that but these are relatively cheap (<$50,000) because they're barely-guided gravity bombs;

- They will also have 4x AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, which are precision-guided, costs $100k+ each but only has an explosive payload of under 20lb. When people talk about drone assassinations that becccame super-popular in the Obama administration, this is largely what they're talking about;

- You can also skip the JDAMs and just have 8x Hellfires instead.

Now Shahed drones aren't as fast, don't fly as high, aren't as precise and you know they're there (a lot of Hellfire attacks are a surprise). But they're incredibly cheap and they overwhelm missile defences easily just by sheer volume. In fact, we're using $1-4M Patriot interceptors to shoot down $20k drones. Obviously that's not going to scale when Iran can produce thousands a month and the supply lag for Patriots is actually years long. Supplies of certain missile defense munitions are suspected to be critically low already and will take years to replenish.

So where I'm going with all this is that Reapers and Sheheds serve different purposes but however you look at it, a $50M Reaper with $1M+ in munitions is WAY less efficient at deliverying payloads that a swarm of cheap drones, particularly when your enemy has invested a lot in missile defense and your $50M Reaper is vulnerable to air-defense systems from even non-state actors (ie the Houthis).

Put another way, $20k for a 50-100kg payload is incredibly efficient and the US has essentially been forced to evacuate all their Gulf bases because they're completely unable to defend them. Billions in damage has been done to these bases too.

The Reaper just isn't fit for purpose anymore. Use it against a more militarized opponennt (eg Russia, China) and they'll shoot those things down like it was a carnival side show.

In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of establishing the military-industrial complex [1]. We are seeing the fruits of that now that despite an annual budget over $1T the US has been militarily defeated by Iran (and Afghanistan). We build $13B aircraft carriers that don't work [2].

Defense contracting is nothing more than a wealth transfer from the government to the wealthy. This is what unfettered cost plus contracts looks like. We ridicule the Russian military for their insane levels of corruption (eg paying for tanks that never get built and the generals pocketing the money) but really the same thing has happened here. The things get built but they don't work and the entire industry is built around hiring former Pentagon people who specialize in procurement.

It doesn't have to be this way. Some of the US military's past equipment was legendary. The M1 rifle and M4/M16 family were cheap, reliable and effective. The Jeep was legendary for its reliability. The original M1 Abrams tank is widely considered the best tank the military ever built. If you listen to anyone in the military they'll tell you the vehicles are constantly broken down, hard to repair, expensive to maintain and outright dangerous.

Every dollar spent on the military is a dollar not spent on roads, schools, bridges, hospitals and trains, things that would actually benefit people. We're bankrupting ourselves to enrich the shareholders of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corp and General Dynamics for what exactly?

And the proposed "defense" budget for 2027 is $1.5T, a roughly 50% increase.

This is also why I laugh whenever anyone pushes the idea that China is the Big Bad [tm], for two reasons. First, they don't have to be. We just want their to be a scary enemy to justify all this. Second, if they were, they would destroy us because it would ultimately come down to military industrial capability and we would lose. Orders of magnitude lose.

[1] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh...

[2] https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/04/the-ford-class-is-not-th...

I would say it's funny but really it's just true. Thunderbolt cables and a lot of other high bandwidth cables have chips in either end, which some people don't realize. And yes, these chips have to handle IO in the gigabit range. So these microcontrollers are a bit apples to oranges (just like my WCH570 vs 486 comparison, to be clear) but even with all those caveats, yes it's basically true.

And yeah, that's wild.

I don't even know how you learn to do something like this. I was curious about the CPU. I found the specs for the WCH570 [1]. Intel released the 486dx4/100 in1994 (for $650). It's not really the same thing but a 100MHz (kind of) 32 bit CPU (that does have an FPU) is about as close as you can find to this (which has no FPU but it does have USB2.0 and 2.4GHz wireless, which is well beyond what Intel CPUs could do at the time).

And this thing is 10-13 cents ~30 years later.

A better comparison would be the ARM CPUs you can get fairly cheaply today (eg the Broadcom BCM2712 in the RPi5) but they're way more capable than the CPUs of 30 years ago. The BCM2712 for example is a 64 bit quad core 2.4GHz CPU.

I guess I'm just amazed at how far hardware has come because I'm old enough to remember just how amazing the 486 was at the time.

[1] https://www.cnx-software.com/2025/04/02/10-cents-wch-ch570-c...

Whenever I see something like this, I'm always curious how the libertarians rationalize their world view. Because this is what they want: no regulations where companies can do whatever they want. And they will.

We're witnessing the looting of America. Every level of government seems increasingly dedicated to transferring wealth from the taxpayer to the wealthy. But even that's not sufficient. Apparently the wealthy also need to poison the land and people too for an uptick in profits. Why should they care? Capital is mobile. They'll simply leave whenever society collapses.

One thought I hate reading this is: do you need upward mobility?

It's a serious question because in an ideal (IMHO) society, people can have full and satisfying lives with security and family without becoming a CEO. In the US, for example, there's an obsession with "getting ahead" but, by definition, only so many people can get ahead. And why do they want to? Because, at least in part, a basic job in insufficient to make ends meet in most cases now. This is a form of coercion.

This is orthogonal to the issue of German social inclusion and forms of xenophobia (eg in the housing applications you mention).

Personally I'd rather in a society where everyone's needs are met and it's not a race against a rising tide where only 20% of the population are above it.

It's fascinating to see the effects of anti-China propaganda. There are plenty of stories about China cracking down on corruptiojn yet people need to do contortions to make this anti-China somehow.

There's no evidence that Xi Jinping is like Putin (who has enriched himself to abe unknown but expectedly high dgree), no evidence the military generals have enriched themselves with corruption (again, like Russia) or really anything else. Instead there's evidence that the likes of Jack Ma, a billionaire, are brought to heel, China has cracked down on so-called yin-yang contracts, sentenced to death people who messed with the baby formula supply chain and so on.

People really should reflect on why they're so willing to seek confirmation bias and why they have that bias at all.

Here's a tip: if you take anything China says or does at face value you will be more correct than 95% of the China "experts" that have entrenched themselves in the media and Western policy circles.

I firmly believe that we could solve a whole bunch of these problems by making it illegal to advertise to and target minors in online advertising on social media platforms. Remove the incentive and you'll get a lot better behavior.

The beauty of this is you can do this without age verification. How? These companies already derive demographics from behavioral and contextual information but also, preventing targeting is as simple as not giving an option in audience targeting for minors. We already do this, for example, with using race in housing ads, which is illegal (and yes, this was violated).

You need to identify and limit things that become a proxy for age and companies need to be punished for this. But the fact that social media companies would be suppressing advertising to minors anyway will really devalue this kind of workaround.