Andrew Winter @acwints

The math doesn't math anymore. Ecommerce is a harder game than it's ever been and there's less money for brands than ever. Brands, Agencies, and Service Providers need to change their models.

This looks awesome

Kit Langton @kitlangton

a day ago

hey. here's a little demo of the most meaningful improvement to my productivity since speech-to-text.

175 109 3K 222K 4K

Any more questions?

@jasonfried Genuinely very awesome, and goals af

Fwiw I think you’re wrong (and smart) Always so funny to me how much payments on the internet was assumed to be sketchy/fraud. Most purchases (+90%, by quantity - probably not by dollar amount), of purchases on the internet (will likely be ~50% of GDP?) will be by AI in 5 years.

We need to accelerate. We need a Protect Our Parks level effort here.

will o’brien @Willob

4 days ago

Who would have thought that it took a 29-year-old Irishman to put the teetotalers of San Francisco in their place I have been training to competitively drink Guinness for decades I was born for this Sorry @elonmusk

144 39 2K 341K 175

#charts

No Laying Up @NoLayingUp

4 days ago

How the top 10 in true strokes gained has evolved over the last five years via @DataGolf. What sticks out?

47 15 408 150K 41

Hi, I'm Felix. I'm an eng lead working on Claude. I love watching people take flight and do things they never thought possible. We often describe that as "being more ambitious" when using AI, which is tricky advice to follow. I wrote a tutorial: felixrieseberg.com/how-to-be-more…

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

siggy bilstein @sbilstein

5 days ago

the agents are superhuman but it’s gonna impossible to RL to be fun to hang out with, I think. I hope.

4 1 33 510K 11

The Bar Tab A few weeks ago I wrote that the music was playing and everyone in venture capital felt obliged to dance. A few weeks after that I wrote that history doesn't repeat but it rhymes, and walked through the last time a band this loud played a room this full, which was 2000, A lot of you wrote in to ask what comes next. I didn't know. So I did what any responsible investor does when he doesn't know something: I got a napkin and started doing arithmetic I wasn't qualified to do. Fair warning. Every time I tried to make the numbers kinder, they got worse. This is a known property of napkins. Start with the size of the band. Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Oracle spent about $230 billion on AI capex in 2024, about $400 billion in 2025, and have guided to around $800 billion this year. Goldman has $1.2 trillion next year and $1.4 trillion the year after. Add it up through 2029 and $4 trillion is the floor. Consensus is closer to $5.5 trillion. I'm using $4 trillion because I'm an optimist and because I only had one napkin. Now, a bar tab is a thing that eventually gets handed to somebody. What does $4 trillion have to earn? Say 12%, which is about what a sane person wants for setting that much money on fire in West Texas. That's $480 billion a year. Call it $500 billion of free cash flow by 2029. Then I remembered a GPU is not a building. Amazon depreciates servers over five years, and Michael Burry thinks that's charitable. If you want 12% on $4 trillion of equipment that'll be scrap before my youngest finishes college, you need about $1.1 trillion a year. I'm going to keep using $500 billion anyway. When the story is bad enough, you don't need to make it worse to get people's attention. Five hundred billion of free cash flow at a 50% gross margin means $1 trillion of revenue. Somebody has to write checks to the hyperscalers for a trillion dollars a year of AI compute by 2029. Who? Some of it is the hyperscalers buying themselves a round: Meta's capex buys Meta's ads. But the biggest outside checks come from the frontier labs, the handful of companies that train the models the rest of us build on. Full disclosure: Menlo is an investor in this category, so adjust for the fact that I'm a man with a drink in his hand telling you the bar is overpriced. Say the labs are half of it. That's $500 billion of revenue, as a group, by 2029. Their combined run-rate today is north of $100 billion. Three years ago it was $2 billion. That is the fastest revenue ramp in the history of business, it isn't close, and it still isn't enough. To hit $500 billion the category has to grow fivefold in three years, 70% a year, every year, from a base the size of Coca-Cola. There's no precedent for that. There was also no precedent for the last three years, which is the whole trouble with this moment. The people who've been right so far have been right by ignoring precedent, and a man who got rich ignoring precedent is the last man alive who'll start consulting it. So there are two forks in the road, and both of them are toll roads. Fork one: the labs don't get there, and the $4 trillion doesn't earn its keep. People say "debt crisis." Careful. Here's where the rhyme matters. In 2001 the trillion dollars of telecom debt was junk paper issued by CLECs with no revenue, and the bondholders got sixteen cents. Today the four big spenders fund about 70% of their capex out of operating cash flow and carry AA ratings. The debt lives at Oracle, CoreWeave, xAI, Meta's off-balance-sheet vehicles and in about $350 billion of private credit. That's not 2008. It's 2001 with better credit: write-downs, capex cuts, and a few bodies in the second tier. The band doesn't die. It just stops taking requests. And here's the thing nobody says out loud. About 40% of AI capex is GPUs, and Nvidia's gross margin is 75%. So roughly 30% of the $4 trillion has already been earned. By Nvidia. The return on this capex has, in a sense, already happened. It went to one company in Santa Clara, which is like finding out the band got paid up front and the tab is yours. Fork two: the labs do get there. Then $500 billion a year has to come from somewhere, because money is not conjured, whatever the deck says, and there are only three somewheres. It comes out of wages. US compensation of employees is $15.7 trillion. Five hundred billion is 3.2% of it. At $100,000 per fully loaded worker, that's five million jobs, which takes unemployment from 4.3% to about 7%. "Productivity" is what we call this at conferences. Or it comes from growth. Five hundred billion is 1.6% of US GDP. If AI makes the economy 1.6% bigger than it would otherwise have been, nobody loses, every deck was right, and I owe a great many people an apology, which I'll deliver cheerfully and from a boat. I'd note that AI is already adding about a point and a half to GDP growth, but that's the capex itself, not the output. So far the bar tab is being counted as revenue, which bartenders have been doing since the invention of bartenders. Or it comes out of someone else's budget. The world spends $1.44 trillion a year on software. Five hundred billion is 35% of every software dollar on earth, so software can't be the whole answer, but it's the first place the labs will look, and the IT services and outsourcing budgets behind it are another $1.7 trillion. In this version the thing that goes to zero isn't the hyperscalers. It's SaaS at ten times revenue. If you're long SaaS at ten times revenue, read that sentence twice. The honest answer is a blend, and the whole game is which blend, because every blend has a different loser. In fork one it's the lenders. In the wage version it's people with jobs. In the budget version it's everyone long software. In the growth version nobody loses, which is exactly why I don't trust it. In thirty years I have never seen a version where nobody loses. I have seen a great many decks that promised one. Reflexivity ends when the story and the cash get too far apart. The story is $4 trillion. The cash is $100 billion, growing faster than anything ever has. That gap closes one of two ways: the cash catches up to the story, or the story comes down to the cash. The music's still playing, the floor's still full, and I'm out there with everybody else, because that's the job. But I've started keeping one eye on the bar. In 2000 the bartender came around in about ninety days. He didn't ask who'd had the most fun. He just asked whose card was open.

@andrewjfaris Algo on a roll

@Jason Let’s chat JCal

@DjokovicEternal @chartsuno chart it

@nolanmdoyle

@antinertia We are rare and expensive

Riding my Lyft scooter down Chestnut when a Blue Angel flies over

Also under appreciated how much subscription dynamics allow brands/companies to make purchase decisions based on predicted demand. Agents rightfully will/should make it so all subscriptions are opt-in each month vs. opt out, but there will be a hidden cost given how much forecasted revenue is the key input to bulk inventory orders and economies of scale.

@zachmstuck Let’s chat!

Wonder how much the Blue Angels are spending on tokens

@sterlingmsnow Awesome