Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from the singularity is nearer
If you give some monkeys a slice of cucumber each, they are all pretty happy. Then you give one monkey a grape, and nobody is happy with their cucumber any more. They might even throw the slices back at the experimenter. He got a god damned grape this is bullshit I don’t want a cucumber anymore! Nobody was in absolute terms worse off, but that doesn’t prevent the monkeys from being upset. And this isn’t unique to monkeys, I see this same behavior on display when I hear about billionaires. It’s not about what I have, they got a grape. The tweet is here. What do you do about this? Of course, you can fire this women, but what percent of people in American society feel the same way? How much of this can you tolerate and still have a functioning society? What’s particularly absurd about the critique in the video is that it hasn’t been thought through very far. If that house and its friends stopped “ordering shit”, the company would stop making money and she wouldn’t have that job. There’s nothing preventing her from quitting today and getting the same outcome for herself. But of course, that isn’t what it’s about, because then somebody else would be delivering the packages. You see, that house got a grape. So how do we get through this? I’ll propose something, but it’s sort of horrible. Bring people to power based on this feeling. Let everyone indulge fully in their resentment. Kill the bourgeois. They got grapes, kill them all! Watch the situation not improve. Realize that this must be because there’s still counterrevolutionaries in the mix, still a few grapefuckers. Some billionaire is trying to hide his billions! Let the purge continue! And still, things are not improving. People are starving. The economy isn’t even tracked anymore. Things are bad. Millions are dead. The demoralization is complete. Starvation and real poverty are more powerful emotions than resentment. It was bad when people were getting grapes, but now there aren’t even cucumbers anymore. In the face of true poverty for all, the resentment fades. Society begins to heal. People are grateful to have food, they are grateful for what they have. Expectations are back in line with market value. You have another way to fix this? Cause this is what seems to happen in history, and it takes a generation. The demoralization is just beginning.
AMD is sending us the two MI300X boxes we asked for. They are in the mail. It took a bit, but AMD passed my cultural test. I now believe they aren’t going to shoot themselves in the foot on software, and if that’s true, there’s absolutely no reason they should be worth 1/16th of NVIDIA. CUDA isn’t really the moat people think it is, it was just an early ecosystem. tiny corp has a fully sovereign AMD stack, and soon we’ll port it to the MI300X. You won’t even have to use tinygrad proper, tinygrad has a torch frontend now. Either NVIDIA is super overvalued or AMD is undervalued. If the petaflop gets commoditized (tiny corp’s mission), the current situation doesn’t make any sense. The hardware is similar, AMD even got the double throughput Tensor Cores on RDNA4 (NVIDIA artificially halves this on their cards, soon they won’t be able to). I’m betting on AMD being undervalued, and that the demand for AI has barely started. With good software, the MI300X should outperform the H100. In for a quarter million. Long term. It can always dip short term, but check back in 5 years.
This is a map of primary trading partners, US vs China, and how it has evolved over the last 20 years. Think about it, and realize this probably reflects your experience. I know there was a similar panic about Japan in the 80s, but Japan by population has always been 3x smaller than the US, whereas China is 3x larger. In addition, we had and have military bases in Japan. This is not the same situation. The US, since I have been born, has been coasting. The main product made by the US is the dollar, and it used those manufactured dollars to outsource everything. Most jobs in the US are now basically fake. It’s basically an economy in which five people stick a pipe in the ground, but that pipe is the fed and the oil was the good will built up over 1870-1970. In 2008, with the bailouts, it was made clear that the US has no interest in reform. The next decade, in perhaps a spitting in your face move, the fed made the interest rate 0. Known as ZIRP, this had never been done before. This led to insane perversions. When I got into business, I didn’t understand that business in America was mostly a total scam. Sure, you might look at a single business, and be like, oh, that sounds reasonable, but then you zoom out and look at the entire system, and it doesn’t really make sense. It’s scams feeding other scams. Wanna each start a business, pass dollars back and forth over and over again, and drive both our revenues super high? Sure, we don’t produce anything, but we have companies with high revenues and we can raise money based on those revenues. We’ll both be rich! Let’s do it with a bunch of extra steps so people don’t catch on though. They’ll only see it reflected in the lack of movement of real macro metrics. You see, the US is a “developed” country, which means real growth is over? You do understand that guns and boats are made of steel, right? Oh, airplanes aren’t, they are made of aluminum. Oh…right, yea, it’s not just steel it is absolutely everything. The future is chips you say? All the good chips are made in the Republic of China you say? This 2021 article lays it out clearly, and it also explains why nothing I saw in Silicon Valley made any sense. I’m not going to go into the personal stories, but I just had an underlying assumption that the goal was growth and value production. It isn’t. It’s self licking ice cream cone scams, and any growth or value is incidental to that. It isn’t until you understand this that people’s behavior starts to make sense. America really is at a fork in the road. In one world, they abandon all hopes of being an empire, becoming a regional power with highly protectionist economics. This happened before, and it’s called Europe. I know it’s hard to believe now, but Europe used to be the seat of power for the whole world. The sun never set on the British empire. Now they put you in jail for memes. Protectionist America is a boring place and not somewhere I want to be. It kicks the can further down the road of poverty, basically embraces socialism, is stagnant, is stale, is a museum…etc, again there’s a contemporary example of this. When I said on Lex they were gonna nationalize NVIDIA, look at the AI Diffusion Framework, and notice how Trump hasn’t repealed it. It allows export of GPUs to only 18 countries. Nationalization with American characteristics. It tells the other 177 countries that they should plan on purchasing their AI infrastructure from China. The other path, which is the exciting path, is the attempt to maintain an empire. An empire has to compete on its merits. There’s two simple steps to restore American greatness: 1) Brain drain the world. Work visas for every person who can produce more than they consume. I’m talking doubling the US population, bringing in all the factory workers, farmers, miners, engineers, literally anyone who produces value. Can we raise the average IQ of America to be higher than China? 2) Back the dollar by gold (not socially constructed crypto), and bring major crackdowns to finance to tie it to real world value. Trading is not a job. Passive income is not a thing. Instead, go produce something real and exchange it for gold. The first will bring the value of “American” labor in line with its global market value. It is a particularly unique advantage of the US over China, the US has a potentially much larger pool of talent. Non ironically, diversity is our strength. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of resistance to American labor finding its market value. The second will prevent a lot of the scams. The reason the banking industry is so big is that it is close to the source of the made up dollars. If currency is gold backed, you could imagine something similar happening to the mining industry instead. However, the mining industry is real! It uses steel and aluminum to build physical things. And imagine when we start to mine space. That’s a way better reward function than scamming politicians out of fake dollars. Unfortunately, I doubt either will happen. They very much both can, but people haven’t been demoralized enough yet.
A lot of smooth brains on Hacker News about the last post. I’m sorry if you spent your whole life worshipping money, but hey, the Bible warned you about false idols, don’t shoot the messenger. “It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism” – Mark Fisher It’s actually very easy to imagine the end of capitalism. Imagine capitalism as a game of sharks, where eventually the biggest shark ends up gobbling up all the fish, and that one shark is the last player left standing with all the money. When one person (or company) has all the money, do you see how the money would be worthless? I’ll spell this out clearly. Money is a map, it is not a territory. Please understand what I mean by this before continuing to read. You can erase the mountains from the map, but you still have to climb over them in real life, and even worse, now you don’t have a map! “Everything around you that you call ‘life’ was made up by people who were no smarter than you” – Steve Jobs So, if money is the map, what territory is it attempting to capture? Presumably something having to do with value, but increasingly, as we are buying and selling baskets of derivatives of memecoins, nothing. A map that doesn’t accurately capture a territory is not a Schelling point. It’s not a useful map. And maps are only as good as their usefulness. Useless maps die out. Do you agree or disagree that money is supposed to be a map of value? If you disagree, that’s an ought and I can’t use logic to convince you otherwise, I can just call you a moron who refuses to burn paper $100 bills for warmth on a deserted island. Many capitalists I meet are as stupid as communists, trying to give a moral justification for their system. This is my money, I deserve it. I should be able to passively deploy my capital into the markets and live off the returns. “Moral victories are for minor league coaches.” – JAY-Z A economic system is only good in so much as it effectively deploys capital for real growth. If real economic growth is only 3 percent, any time you are earning beyond that, somebody else is losing. And yet somehow, today, you can put your money in money market accounts and earn a “risk-free” 5 percent…hmm something doesn’t make sense. Who is losing? You will eventually be unable to squeeze the productive people any further. The worst was an e-mail I got with someone who supposedly agreed with me. “Value creation (for all stakeholders) is at the core of the organization/ business model I am putting together…Anyway I wanted to let you know others out there who share your vision.” – anon email Fuck your stakeholders. Fuck your business model. You don’t understand me at all. Stop worrying so much about the distribution of the pie. Start thinking about how to make the pie bigger. With exponential (what 3 percent year over year is) growth, the latter outstrips the former by so much. The right distribution is simply: From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability to effectively deploy capital to achieve real economic growth. Communism is dumb cause it goes to the poor (who routinely demonstrate that they poorly deploy capital). Capitalism is dumb cause it goes to the rent-seekers (who frequently deploy capital to increase their moat). Acceleration is the way.
More in programming
One of life's greatest simple pleasures is creating something just for yourself.
One of the recurring challenges in any organization is how to split your attention across long-term and short-term problems. Your software might be struggling to scale with ramping user load while also knowing that you have a series of meaningful security vulnerabilities that need to be closed sooner than later. How do you balance across them? These sorts of balance questions occur at every level of an organization. A particularly frequent format is the debate between Product and Engineering about how much time goes towards developing new functionality versus improving what’s already been implemented. In 2020, Calm was growing rapidly as we navigated the COVID-19 pandemic, and the team was struggling to make improvements, as they felt saturated by incoming new requests. This strategy for resourcing Engineering-driven projects was our attempt to solve that problem. This is an exploratory, draft chapter for a book on engineering strategy that I’m brainstorming in #eng-strategy-book. As such, some of the links go to other draft chapters, both published drafts and very early, unpublished drafts. Reading this document To apply this strategy, start at the top with Policy. To understand the thinking behind this strategy, read sections in reverse order, starting with Explore. More detail on this structure in Making a readable Engineering Strategy document. Policy & Operation Our policies for resourcing Engineering-driven projects are: We will protect one Eng-driven project per product engineering team, per quarter. These projects should represent a maximum of 20% of the team’s bandwidth. Each project must advance a measurable metric, and execution must be designed to show progress on that metric within 4 weeks. These projects must adhere to Calm’s existing Engineering strategies. We resource these projects first in the team’s planning, rather than last. However, only concrete projects are resourced. If there’s no concrete proposal, then the team won’t have time budgeted for Engineering-driven work. Team’s engineering manager is responsible for deciding on the project, ensuring the project is valuable, and pushing back on attempts to defund the project. Project selection does not require CTO approval, but you should escalate to the CTO if there’s friction or disagreement. CTO will review Engineering-driven projects each quarter to summarize their impact and provide feedback to teams’ engineering managers on project selection and execution. They will also review teams that did not perform a project to understand why not. As we’ve communicated this strategy, we’ve frequently gotten conceptual alignment that this sounds reasonable, coupled with uncertainty about what sort of projects should actually be selected. At some level, this ambiguity is an acknowledgment that we believe teams will identify the best opportunities bottoms-up, we also wanted to give two concrete examples of projects we’re greenlighting in the first batch: Code-free media release: historically, we’ve needed to make a number of pull requests to add, organize, and release new pieces of media. This is high urgency work, but Engineering doesn’t exercise much judgment while doing it, and manual steps often create errors. We aim to track and eliminate these pull requests, while also increasing the number of releases that can be facilitated without scaling the content release team. Machine-learning content placement: developing new pieces of media is often a multi-week or month process. After content is ready to release, there’s generally a debate on where to place the content. This matters for the company, as this drives engagement with our users, but it matters even more to the content creator, who is generally evaluated in terms of their content’s performance. This often leads to Product and Engineering getting caught up in debates about how to surface particular pieces of content. This project aims to improve user engagement by surfacing the best content for their interests, while also giving the Content team several explicit positions to highlight content without Product and Engineering involvement. Although these projects are similar, it’s not intended that all Engineering-driven projects are of this variety. Instead it’s happenstance based on what the teams view as their biggest opportunities today. Diagnosis Our assessment of the current situation at Calm is: We are spending a high percentage of our time on urgent but low engineering value tasks. Most significantly, about one-third of our time is going into launching, debugging, and changing content that we release into our product. Engineering is involved due to limitations in our implementation, not because there is any inherent value in Engineering’s involvement. (We mostly just make releases slowly and inadvertently introduce bugs of our own.) We have a bunch of fairly clear ideas around improving the platform to empower the Content team to speed up releases, and to eliminate the Engineering involvement. However, we’ve struggled to find time to implement them, or to validate that these ideas will work. If we don’t find a way to prioritize, and succeed at implementing, a project to reduce Engineering involvement in Content releases, we will struggle to support our goals to release more content and to develop more product functionality this year Our Infrastructure team has been able to plan and make these kinds of investments stick. However, when we attempt these projects within our Product Engineering teams, things don’t go that well. We are good at getting them onto the initial roadmap, but then they get deprioritized due to pressure to complete other projects. Engineering team is not very fungible due to its small size (20 engineers), and because we have many specializations within the team: iOS, Android, Backend, Frontend, Infrastructure, and QA. We would like to staff these kinds of projects onto the Infrastructure team, but in practice that team does not have the product development experience to implement theis kind of project. We’ve discussed spinning up a Platform team, or moving product engineers onto Infrastructure, but that would either (1) break our goal to maintain joint pairs between Product Managers and Engineering Managers, or (2) be indistinguishable from prioritizing within the existing team because it would still have the same Product Manager and Engineering Manager pair. Company planning is organic, occurring in many discussions and limited structured process. If we make a decision to invest in one project, it’s easy for that project to get deprioritized in a side discussion missing context on why the project is important. These reprioritization discussions happen both in executive forums and in team-specific forums. There’s imperfect awareness across these two sorts of forums. Explore Prioritization is a deep topic with a wide variety of popular solutions. For example, many software companies rely on “RICE” scoring, calculating priority as (Reach times Impact times Confidence) divided by Effort. At the other extreme are complex methodologies like [Scaled Agile Framework)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_agile_framework). In addition to generalized planning solutions, many companies carve out special mechanisms to solve for particular prioritization gaps. Google historically offered 20% time to allow individuals to work on experimental projects that didn’t align directly with top-down priorities. Stripe’s Foundation Engineering organization developed the concept of Foundational Initiatives to prioritize cross-pillar projects with long-term implications, which otherwise struggled to get prioritized within the team-led planning process. All these methods have clear examples of succeeding, and equally clear examples of struggling. Where these initiatives have succeeded, they had an engaged executive sponsoring the practice’s rollout, including triaging escalations when the rollout inconvenienced supporters of the prior method. Where they lacked a sponsor, or were misaligned with the company’s culture, these methods have consistently failed despite the fact that they’ve previously succeeded elsewhere.
I used to make little applications just for myself. Sixteen years ago (oof) I wrote a habit tracking application, and a keylogger that let me keep track of when I was using a computer, and generate some pretty charts. I’ve taken a long break from those kinds of things. I love my hobbies, but they’ve drifted toward the non-technical, and the idea of keeping a server online for a fun project is unappealing (which is something that I hope Val Town, where I work, fixes). Some folks maintain whole ‘homelab’ setups and run Kubernetes in their basement. Not me, at least for now. But I have been tiptoeing back into some little custom tools that only I use, with a focus on just my own computing experience. Here’s a quick tour. Hammerspoon Hammerspoon is an extremely powerful scripting tool for macOS that lets you write custom keyboard shortcuts, UIs, and more with the very friendly little language Lua. Right now my Hammerspoon configuration is very simple, but I think I’ll use it for a lot more as time progresses. Here it is: hs.hotkey.bind({"cmd", "shift"}, "return", function() local frontmost = hs.application.frontmostApplication() if frontmost:name() == "Ghostty" then frontmost:hide() else hs.application.launchOrFocus("Ghostty") end end) Not much! But I recently switched to Ghostty as my terminal, and I heavily relied on iTerm2’s global show/hide shortcut. Ghostty doesn’t have an equivalent, and Mikael Henriksson suggested a script like this in GitHub discussions, so I ran with it. Hammerspoon can do practically anything, so it’ll probably be useful for other stuff too. SwiftBar I review a lot of PRs these days. I wanted an easy way to see how many were in my review queue and go to them quickly. So, this script runs with SwiftBar, which is a flexible way to put any script’s output into your menu bar. It uses the GitHub CLI to list the issues, and jq to massage that output into a friendly list of issues, which I can click on to go directly to the issue on GitHub. #!/bin/bash # <xbar.title>GitHub PR Reviews</xbar.title> # <xbar.version>v0.0</xbar.version> # <xbar.author>Tom MacWright</xbar.author> # <xbar.author.github>tmcw</xbar.author.github> # <xbar.desc>Displays PRs that you need to review</xbar.desc> # <xbar.image></xbar.image> # <xbar.dependencies>Bash GNU AWK</xbar.dependencies> # <xbar.abouturl></xbar.abouturl> DATA=$(gh search prs --state=open -R val-town/val.town --review-requested=@me --json url,title,number,author) echo "$(echo "$DATA" | jq 'length') PR" echo '---' echo "$DATA" | jq -c '.[]' | while IFS= read -r pr; do TITLE=$(echo "$pr" | jq -r '.title') AUTHOR=$(echo "$pr" | jq -r '.author.login') URL=$(echo "$pr" | jq -r '.url') echo "$TITLE ($AUTHOR) | href=$URL" done Tampermonkey Tampermonkey is essentially a twist on Greasemonkey: both let you run your own JavaScript on anybody’s webpage. Sidenote: Greasemonkey was created by Aaron Boodman, who went on to write Replicache, which I used in Placemark, and is now working on Zero, the successor to Replicache. Anyway, I have a few fancy credit cards which have ‘offers’ which only work if you ‘activate’ them. This is an annoying dark pattern! And there’s a solution to it - CardPointers - but I neither spend enough nor care enough about points hacking to justify the cost. Plus, I’d like to know what code is running on my bank website. So, Tampermonkey to the rescue! I wrote userscripts for Chase, American Express, and Citi. You can check them out on this Gist but I strongly recommend to read through all the code because of the afore-mentioned risks around running untrusted code on your bank account’s website! Obsidian Freeform This is a plugin for Obsidian, the notetaking tool that I use every day. Freeform is pretty cool, if I can say so myself (I wrote it), but could be much better. The development experience is lackluster because you can’t preview output at the same time as writing code: you have to toggle between the two states. I’ll fix that eventually, or perhaps Obsidian will add new API that makes it all work. I use Freeform for a lot of private health & financial data, almost always with an Observable Plot visualization as an eventual output. For example, when I was switching banks and one of the considerations was mortgage discounts in case I ever buy a house (ha 😢), it was fun to chart out the % discounts versus the required AUM. It’s been really nice to have this kind of visualization as ‘just another document’ in my notetaking app. Doesn’t need another server, and Obsidian is pretty secure and private.
At a conference a while back, I noticed a couple of speakers get such a confidence boost after solving a small technical glitch. We should probably make that a part of every talk. Have the mic not connect automatically, or an almost-complete puzzle on the stage that the speaker can finish, or have someone forget their badge and the speaker return it to them. Maybe the next time I, or a consenting teammate, have to give a presentation I’ll try to engineer such a situation. All conference talks should start with a small technical glitch that the speaker can easily solve was originally published by Ognjen Regoje at Ognjen Regoje • ognjen.io on April 03, 2025.
A large part of our civilisation rests on the shoulders of one medieval monk: Thomas Aquinas. Amid the turmoil of life, riddled with wickedness and pain, he would insist that our world is good. And all our success is built on this belief. Note: Before we start, let’s get one thing out of the way: Thomas Aquinas is clearly a Christian thinker, a Saint even. Yet he was also a brilliant philosopher. So even if you consider yourself agnostic or an atheist, stay with me, you will still enjoy his ideas. What is good? Thomas’ argument is rooted in Aristotle’s concept of goodness: Something is good if it fulfills its function. Aristotle had illustrated this idea with a knife. A knife is good to the extent that it cuts well. He made a distinction between an actual knife and its ideal function. That actual thing in your drawer is the existence of a knife. And its ideal function is its essence—what it means to be a knife: to cut well. So everything is separated into its existence and its ideal essence. And this is also true for humans: We have an ideal conception of what the essence of a human […] The post Thomas Aquinas — The world is divine! appeared first on Ralph Ammer.
