skybrian's recent activity
-
Comment on Gigafactory in Sacramento will produce sodium-ion batteries for grid storage in ~tech
-
Gigafactory in Sacramento will produce sodium-ion batteries for grid storage
7 votes -
Comment on The Voice of Google in ~tech
skybrian Linkhttps://archive.is/EeeAI From the article: [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]From the article:
Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, were bona-fide public figures by then, and self-made billionaires multiple times over, but in Charlie’s they were idols. They would often ascend the stage together, practically matching in sweat-wicking athletic clothes and Crocs. Larry had a dopey perma-smile, and seemed delighted by everything, especially Sergey. Sergey was the straight man, with a faint lilt, a product of his childhood in Russia, and an acrobatic build that made him look like he might launch into a handspring at any moment. Their charisma was unconventional, contextual; you had to be there. The audience of employees lapped up every word, giggled at every dad joke. During a Q. & A. portion of the proceedings, even adversarial questions were absorbed into the Google spirit—it all melted into laughs, love. Merriam-Webster had added “google” to the dictionary the year before. Fortune had crowned it the “Best Company to Work For” in America. Profits were, as the execs loved to boast, “up and to the right,” fuelled by an online-advertising machine that minted cash beyond Wall Street’s wildest dreams. But the company’s financial success felt almost incidental. What mattered, we told ourselves, was the mission—a conviction that technology could improve the world and that we were helping to build the future. The air in Charlie’s buzzed with collective belief.
[...]
No one else seemed eager to send out a weekly “Here’s how to tune in to TGIF” e-mail, so I volunteered to do it. I kept the notes straight at first, but soon began injecting more voice, writing things like “As the week folds gently in on itself and we collectively blink at the passage of time, we arrive—inevitably, beautifully—at TGIF. Also: beer.” The messages were casual, sly, a little irreverent—proof that Google wasn’t like any other company—while always amplifying the corporate mythology. I wrote about whatever products and feature updates we’d be spotlighting onstage that week as “epistemological experiments” and “peak experiences” in the pursuit of “Meaning and Truth,” and cast the executives appearing alongside Larry and Sergey as visionaries, prophets, and sages. T.G.I.F. was the weekly pageant in which the company talked to itself, but my e-mails became an important companion piece: folklore and fan fiction, the refrains of the gospel. Employees began to look forward to them. Every week, the moment the T.G.I.F. e-mail went out, an internal forum called Memegen exploded with reactions to what I’d written. One meme was captioned, “I want whatever Claire Stapleton’s on when she’s writing the TGIF emails.” Another christened me the Bard of Google. At Charlie’s, a group of engineers presented me with a wooden plaque naming me the company’s poet laureate. When I was promoted to manager, my performance review credited my “cult following.”
[...]
Eric had pontificated plenty, but Larry was the epitome of techno-optimism: Google wasn’t just going to organize the world’s information, he maintained; it was going to solve humanity’s biggest problems. In 2013, he launched Calico, a health-care company focussed on extending the human life span, and Time magazine ran a cover story with the headline “Can Google Solve Death?” “We need moon shots,” Larry would say, big, world-changing ideas and initiatives, to make employees excited about innovating again. (Curing cancer wasn’t necessarily a moon shot, he once suggested, since it would only extend the average human life span by about three years.) His aphorisms stacked up like motivational posters in a middle-school science classroom—“Have a healthy disregard for the impossible,” “If you’re not doing some things that are crazy, then you’re doing the wrong things”—but Larry seemed to experience them all as fresh revelations, and he expected them to invigorate the workforce in turn. He loved to tell a story about how he’d read an autobiography of Nikola Tesla when he was around twelve, and cried—he really emphasized the crying bit—because Tesla died poor. (This, I guess, taught him the all-important life lesson “Commercialize those inventions.”) “Computers should do the hard work,” Larry would repeat, so humans can get back to doing what humans do best: learning, living, and loving.
[...]
But the platform’s dark underbelly was becoming hard to ignore. One of the first “trends” Kevin briefed me on was dubbed Elsagate: a sprawling ecosystem of videos featuring beloved children’s characters in bizarre and profane scenarios—knockoff Paw Patrol dogs committing suicide, Peppa Pig having her teeth pulled out one by one by a sadistic dentist, Elsa giving birth. Disturbing enough on their own, many had also been labelled by YouTube’s recommendation systems as appropriate for young children. The company tried cracking down on the videos, but the problems felt too vast, too deeply woven into the platform itself, to imagine that they could really be fixed. Our editorial team was told to avoid spotlighting “Frozen” trends for a while, and otherwise to carry on. One day, my counterpart in London Gchatted me a link to an essay by the anthropologist David Graeber, called “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs,” about the rise of pointless office work in late capitalism. I read it twice at my desk, open-mouthed. “Huge swathes of people . . . spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed,” Graeber wrote. My co-worker said, “Bit nail-on-the-head, innit?”
[...]
I was promoted right afterward, and I started to ghostwrite the tweets of the latest C.E.O., a longtime Googler named Susan Wojcicki. Her voice was earnest and corporate, a mom enthusiastic about YouTube creators and new product features. But the controversies in which YouTube was implicated were multiplying. It was the year leading up to Trump’s 2016 election, and tech companies were being scrutinized for their part in polarizing public discourse. YouTube had played a role in Gamergate, an online harassment campaign against prominent women in the gaming world that became a culture-wars flashpoint. (Steve Bannon later described Gamergate as a useful way to recruit disaffected young men into Trump’s campaign.) Hard-right channels had always existed on the platform, but now they were growing bigger, becoming mainstream, pushing the boundaries of what kinds of talk were acceptable. How much was YouTube supposed to police its content? Management didn’t seem to be able to decide.
In the summer of 2016, I was put in charge of coming up with a big-budget get-out-the-vote campaign for the Presidential election. No one said outright that we hoped to tip the scales against Trump, but it was understood that YouTube could help the Democrats by boosting youth turnout. We called the campaign #VoteIRL, and we tapped tons of the platform’s biggest stars to encourage their audiences to register to vote. Even President Obama made a #VoteIRL video, lending the campaign an aura of official civic endorsement. Hillary Clinton lost, of course, but internally our campaign was deemed a success. The higher-ups gave me a big bonus and an internal award. Breitbart got hold of leaked footage from a T.G.I.F. meeting during which Larry and Sergey openly expressed their dismay over Trump’s victory: “Myself as an immigrant and a refugee, I certainly find this election deeply offensive, and I know many of you do, too,” Sergey said. Googlers peppered the executives with anxious questions about whether products like YouTube were reinforcing warped beliefs and making the country more divided.
YouTube had become a mirror, reflecting and amplifying the turmoil of the time. Its biggest star, a Swedish gamer named PewDiePie, was an anti-P.C. provocateur who made rape jokes (even putting out a music video literally called “It’s Raping Time”) and tossed around “gay,” “retard,” and “autistic” as playful insults during gaming playthroughs. His “edgy” humor only fuelled his popularity: for nearly six years, his was the most-subscribed-to channel on the platform. But, in 2017, he pushed things further, releasing a video in which he paid two South Asian men on a gig marketplace to hold up a sign that read “Death to all Jews.” In another video posted to PewDiePie’s channel, a guy dressed as Jesus declared, “Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong!” Soon YouTube was facing an “adpocalypse,” as brands including PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, and A.T. & T. realized that their commercials were appearing on the platform alongside extremism and hate speech. The company scrambled to placate the brands with new demonetization policies, stripping ads from huge batches of videos. This, in turn, slashed creator revenues and sent independent creators—the emotional lifeblood of the platform—into uproar.
[...]
That night, a member of the group posted on Memegen, the internal forum where commentary on my T.G.I.F. e-mails had once appeared: How about a walkout to stand against toxic workplace culture? Maybe a hundred people reacted with a “+1,” and women in the mom group were talking about it. I quickly created a new Google group to discuss the idea. We made our first decision almost immediately: the walkout would be Thursday, November 1st—just five days away. A project manager named Tanuja reached out and offered to help. We met in a conference room in my building; she was hyper-organized, fired up, ready to project-manage the hell out of this. In forty-five minutes, we outlined a rough plan and built an internal site: a “hub and spoke” model, with local leads in every participating office, customizing the day with their own stories and flair.
-
The Voice of Google
5 votes -
Comment on Union Pacific has started painting the sides of rails white to reduce heat in ~transport
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...] [...]From the article:
As warmer temperatures return, Union Pacific is applying an innovative concept to manage heat-related track conditions – part of a broader strategy that helped the railroad deliver its best-ever full-year derailment incident rate in 2025, improving 19% year over year.
“Steel rails expand in extreme heat,” said Rod Doerr, chief safety officer. “When that steel has nowhere to go, it can push sideways and create what we call a thermal misalignment.”
[...]
“We took a page from road striping,” Doerr said. “Using a high-rail truck and paint sprayer, we apply white paint to both sides of the rail.”
The idea is simple: by reflecting sunlight, the white paint lowers the rail’s surface temperature.
“We’ve seen about a 20-degree drop in the rail temperature,” Doerr said. “That’s huge. If you’re not fighting the sun’s heat, you dramatically reduce the risk of the rail shifting.”
Union Pacific began targeted deployment in high-heat areas last year, adding another layer of protection alongside existing maintenance and inspection practices.
[...]
“When people first saw it, they said, ‘Why haven’t we been doing this for a hundred years?’” Doerr said. “That’s the kind of question I love to hear, because it means the culture of safety innovation is alive and well.”
-
Union Pacific has started painting the sides of rails white to reduce heat
19 votes -
Comment on US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1b worth of Reapers in ~society
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...]From the article:
In a call for industry pitches, the Defense Innovation Unit’s notice described the US military’s current reliance on drones and crewed aircraft, each costing more than $30 million, as being “unsustainable against adversaries utilizing layered defenses enabled by increasingly low-cost antiaircraft capabilities.” It envisions deploying more “cost-effective” drones to “overwhelm enemy air defenses even while experiencing numerous [drone] losses.”
That is, in practice, what Ukraine’s military has been demonstrating with its long- and mid-range strike campaign against Russian supply lines, oil refineries, and various energy or industrial targets within Russia or occupied Ukraine. The Ukrainian campaign has been overwhelming Russia’s overstretched air defense capabilities by launching hundreds of relatively inexpensive drones and missiles on a daily basis to attack targets far behind the frontlines, while continuing to damage or destroy Russia’s most sophisticated air defense systems.
[...]
A heavy reliance on Reapers avoids putting more US pilots at risk, but it has also led to Iranian air defenses shooting down dozens of the hunter-killer drones. The US military had lost nearly 30 Reaper drones as of May 2026, including some destroyed on the ground by Iranian counterstrikes, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. The Air Force acknowledged such combat losses as reducing its Reaper fleet to about 135 drones.
The total US taxpayer bill for the destroyed Reapers comes to about $1 billion, according to Bloomberg. A typical Reaper may cost $30 million per aircraft, but the Air Force has said a Reaper equipped with a full sensor package can cost up to $50 million.
That number of Reapers lost in combat has almost certainly increased since May, as the United States and Iran have continued to trade airstrikes and drones despite so-called ceasefire periods and attempted negotiations. On July 8, as hostilities ramped up again recently with new Iranian strikes on commercial shipping triggering more US military airstrikes, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed to have shot down yet another Reaper drone.
The defense company General Atomics stopped manufacturing Reaper drones for the US military in 2025. But a General Atomics executive told Breaking Defense that the company is interested in pursuing the newest drone contract offering from the US military, and seemed to suggest it would provide a cheaper successor to the Reaper.
-
US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1b worth of Reapers
5 votes -
Comment on Where profits come from (the profits identity) in ~finance
-
Comment on Where profits come from (the profits identity) in ~finance
skybrian (edited )LinkOops, could someone remove the query string on the URL?Oops, could someone remove the query string on the URL?
-
Comment on Apple sues OpenAI for stealing trade secrets to build AI hardware in ~tech
skybrian Link ParentI don’t know what’s going on internally, but I’ve been using my $20/month ChatGPT subscription quite a bit and I’m quite happy using GPT-5.6 for coding. Usually Terra. Since I don’t use Claude...I don’t know what’s going on internally, but I’ve been using my $20/month ChatGPT subscription quite a bit and I’m quite happy using GPT-5.6 for coding. Usually Terra. Since I don’t use Claude Code, I can only use Claude at API rates and it’s too expensive.
-
Comment on AI mania is eviscerating global decisionmaking in ~tech
skybrian LinkIt’s good writing and this consulting thing seems to be working out for him, but when I read one of his articles, I wonder how it is that Suresh is invariably reporting what’s going on inside the...It’s good writing and this consulting thing seems to be working out for him, but when I read one of his articles, I wonder how it is that Suresh is invariably reporting what’s going on inside the worst companies.
-
Comment on Linus Torvalds says Linux is not "anti-AI", tells haters to 'fork it' and 'just walk away' in ~tech
skybrian Link ParentWhen there's a polarized debate there are always going to be people posting unreasonable nonsense. If people on the other side see that as an excuse to jump in and post more unreasonable nonsense,...When there's a polarized debate there are always going to be people posting unreasonable nonsense. If people on the other side see that as an excuse to jump in and post more unreasonable nonsense, it's just going to snowball.
-
Comment on Ukraine ‘cuts off’ Crimea from Russia, plunging it into an energy crisis in ~society
skybrian LinkFrom the article: [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]From the article:
Ukraine’s operation, named “Molochka”, began on July 6. Ukraine’s commander of unmanned forces, Robert “Madyar” Brovdi, said it “paralyzes the feeder fleet of Russian courier tankers”, in comments on his Telegram messaging channel.
[...]
These flat-bottomed tankers and barges ferry oil from the shallow waters of the Volga-Don Canal and Sea of Azov to larger tankers waiting in the Black Sea on the other side of the Kerch Strait, he said.
“It essentially prevents the export of ‘black gold’,” said Brovdi, and “restricts the delivery of scarce gasoline to Crimea via the narrow channel of the shallow Sea of Azov, leaving the main and very dangerous method of delivery as rail and road tank cars.”
During the first 10 days of the operation until July 16, Brovdi said, Ukraine had struck 147 tankers of the Russian shadow fleet. The majority, 117, were feeder tankers in the Sea of Azov. The rest were in the Black Sea.
[...]
On the night of July 13, Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) also struck several ferries used to transport military materiel across the Kerch Strait, as well as oil storage and trans-shipment points.
[...]
Ukraine also targeted the Crimean electricity supply, striking the Saky thermal power plant on July 9, five electricity substations on July 10 and nine more substations and the Kuban-Crimea electricity transfer point in Russia on July 13.
[...]
Crimea seems set for more suffering, however, as Ukraine’s campaign appears to be mounting.
The strikes against it and the Sea of Azov are part of a campaign of mid-range strikes begun this year to starve Russia’s front line of fuel and weapons, and the Kremlin of export revenue from fossil fuels.
[...]
On July 7, Russia said Ukraine tried to blow up the main compressor station on its TurkStream gas pipeline, which supplies 16.5 billion cubic metres of gas to Turkiye a year, and has a similar capacity designed to serve Southeast Europe.
[...]
Russian petrol production now reaches only two-thirds of seasonal needs, said the Reuters news agency, citing two industry sources and its own calculations.
-
Ukraine ‘cuts off’ Crimea from Russia, plunging it into an energy crisis
33 votes -
Comment on Where profits come from (the profits identity) in ~finance
skybrian (edited )LinkFrom the article: I was reading an economics blog that mentioned the "Kalecki-Levy profits identity" and I was curious about what it was. A search lead to me to this explainer, which describes a...From the article:
I was reading an economics blog that mentioned the "Kalecki-Levy profits identity" and I was curious about what it was. A search lead to me to this explainer, which describes a way of calculating the profits for a nation's business sector.
To start off, we need to define terms like investment and savings and wealth. From the article:
Investment here refers not to the purchase of stocks or bonds, but to activities that increase the total wealth in the economy, such as the construction of buildings and manufacture of business equipment. [...] Definitions of wealth vary; for example, the national income and product accounts
(the “GDP accounts”) recognize only a narrow class of wealth additions as investment:
structures, equipment, software, and additions to inventories of goods. [...]This is a bit hand-wavy, but after reading further, I think it can be justified by looking at how accountants might measure an increase in wealth. This is based on transactions. Accountants will treat the purchase of a building as buying a long-lived asset, so there is no profit for the firm buying it. But if a construction firm built the building, the same transaction counts as revenue. Any increase in revenue gets added to profits somewhere (before subtracting expenses). Revenue can be classified as either consumer or investment spending, and how it's classified determines the increase in overall wealth.
In the following, we are talking about flows. That is, the amount of money spent in some time period.
[...] the new wealth the economy accumulates equals the new wealth the economy creates. In other words:
Saving = InvestmentThis is a tautology because it's based on just one way of measuring investment: the prices of the transactions when buying assets considered to be investments. But later, we will see other kinds of savings that don't necessarily result in investment.
Total saving equals the saving by the business sector plus the saving by all other sectors, hence
Business saving + Nonbusiness saving = InvestmentThis is drawing a line between businesses and nonbusinesses. For example, we exclude governments and maybe other organizations like financial firms from the business sector that we're interested in. So "nonbusiness saving" is any increase in long-lived assets by entities that we've decided don't count as businesses for our purposes.
This can be rearranged:
Business saving = Investment – Nonbusiness savingBusiness saving is none other than profits after taxes and dividends. Therefore,
Profits after taxes and dividends = Investment – Nonbusiness saving...
[...] we simply add dividends and profits taxes to both sides of the equation, and we get the following:
Profits before tax = + Investment – Nonbusiness saving + Dividends + Corporate profits taxesThis is the profits equation. [...] [It] says nothing about causality.
To paraphrase, start with the total wealth increase in the period of interest for the entire country, subtract out any wealth increases that the business sector doesn't own, and then add back taxes and dividends, to get profits before taxes and dividends. (Why? See below.)
To explain this in more detail, they start with a toy cashflow model and gradually make it more complicated.
Money flows through the economy like water through an intricate network of pipes.
Dollars circulate continuously as they are received and spent by many different individuals
and organizations over the course of a year. Wages, profits, sales revenues, taxes, and
dividends are all flows of money, not static sums that sit in bank accounts or treasuries.They start with an extremely simple model where all revenue is consumer revenue and revenue is equal to wages. There are no long-term assets and therefore no saving, so profits are zero.
Then they allow for personal savings and borrowing:
Suppose total wage income is $1000, but households save $60. Figure 3 illustrates what
happens to profits in this case: household saving diverts some money from cycling back
to the business sector as expenditures, reducing the stream of revenue to business by $60
while leaving business expenses unchanged. Profits, which were zero when households
spent all of their wages (figure 2) are now -$60. Business has a loss equal to the amount
households save. Personal saving is a negative source of profits.To explain that in the more usual way: when consumers choose to lower their spending to increase savings, total revenue to businesses goes down and therefore businesses suffer losses. This is sort of like what happens in a recession. The model is still overly simple: it assumes that businesses don't react by cutting expenses and that consumers save their money in a way so that it's not invested in any business. Banks aren't modeled except as a storage tank for money.
The next step is to add investment to the model:
Net fixed investment is typically the largest and most important profit source in a capitalist
economy. It includes business investment in structures, equipment, and software. It also includes residential investment, which equals total outlays for the construction of all types of housing—from apartment buildings to single family homes—as well as outlays for additions and improvements. In keeping with NIPA conventions, we treat residential investment as another kind of business investment. This may seem puzzling at first, but there are good reasons [...] to consider home ownership a business.They count asset purchases as immediate revenue for some other business (for example, construction). Since assets wear out over time, they deduct that gradually. They also account for changes in inventory:
Profits = + Gross fixed investment – Capital consumption allowances + Inventory investment – Personal saving[...] it is now clear what determines the division of new wealth between profits and personal saving: the behavior of consumers. The identity method of deriving the profits equation did not indicate who or what decides what share of the economy’s new wealth goes to each sector. By contrast, the flows method shows that personal saving is a negative profit source and that it is largely at the discretion of consumers, who directly determine what part of income will flow on to the business sector as revenue. The more households save, the more they accumulate wealth at the expense of the business sector. Profits change in direct, immediate response to personal saving.
This is the same as it was in the simpler model: a drop in consumer spending reduces total revenue and causes a recession. But growth in investment spending does the opposite. If investors are exuberant enough, investment spending could counter a drop in consumer spending.
Also, while the article started out with
Savings = Investment,no connection between personal savings and investment is modeled and they can vary independently. More personal savings might increase investment (which would counteract the decreases in revenue and profits), but it's optional. Banks don't have to lend and businesses don't have to spend.The next step is to model international payments, which are very complicated, but they simplify it to:
Profits = + Net Investment – Personal saving – Foreign savingWhen the a nation imports more than it exports, foreigners build up savings. As with personal savings, foreign savings could be invested to offset the drop, but that's modeled as an independent decision.
Next, they add government. Since the US government usually runs a deficit, they model government spending as negative savings:
Profits ($125) = + Net Investment ($150) – Personal saving ($60) – Foreign saving ($30) – Government saving (–$65)Then they add corporate income tax:
[...] Profits taxes are flows from the business sector to government, but although they are sometimes referred to as “profits tax expense”, they are unlike the business expenses we have mentioned thus far. They are distributions of profits calculated after profits have already been secured and tabulated. [...]
We noted above that all government revenue reduced profits. But now, with profits taxes, this observation must be amended: all government revenue except profits taxes reduces profits. [...]
Profits ($125) = + Net Investment ($150) – Personal saving ($60) – Foreign saving ($30) – Government saving (–$5) + Profits taxes ($60)This is by accounting convention. When we say "corporate profits," it usually means profits before corporate income tax, so it has to be added back in.
Similarly for dividends. (Stock buybacks aren't mentioned, but they could be included here.)
Corporations do not count dividends as a business expense [...] they do not flow backward through the profit meter but directly [...] to households. Yet households spend
this additional income. If personal saving remains constant, the full amount paid out in dividends will come back to business in the form of consumer expenditures—as business revenue.Profits ($165) = + Net Investment ($150) – Personal saving ($60) – Foreign saving ($30) – Government saving (–$5) + Profits taxes ($60) + Dividends ($40)Then if you combine the different kinds of savings, this is the same as the identity given above.
-
Where profits come from (the profits identity)
6 votes -
Comment on I wonder if years from now hand written code will be antique in ~tech
skybrian LinkI think it will be sort of like writing poetry or making crossword puzzles - something you do for fun, with the expectation that other people will read the source code because there’s something...I think it will be sort of like writing poetry or making crossword puzzles - something you do for fun, with the expectation that other people will read the source code because there’s something interesting about it, not just run the program.
On that note, I once tried writing poetry in the Inform programming language.
-
Comment on Offbeat Fridays – The thread where offbeat headlines become front page news in ~news
skybrian LinkA new study finds that sometimes cats groom each other specifically to be annoying [...] [...]A new study finds that sometimes cats groom each other specifically to be annoying
To check whether this behavior was more widespread, Ms. Van Belle and her colleagues looked at 53 households across Europe with two or more cats. After telling the pet owners what to look for, the researchers had them submit videos of their cats’ interactions. The scientists then randomly selected a submission from each participant and used statistical analyses to tease apart the hidden nuance in cat-licking behavior.
[...]
The results revealed two things. The first was consistent with typical grooming behavior: The cats licked each other on the head, neck or ears. In these videos, the cats were much more likely to mimic each other’s body postures, either cuddling together or sitting next to one another before and after the grooming. The licks were clearly friendly gestures.
The other side of the cat-licking coin revealed something more in line with bullying. A subset of the videos showed that licking often preceded conflict. These interactions were defined by differing body postures, where one cat might stand and lick the other sitting cat. The aggressive licks were followed by signs of stress in the licked cat, including staring, yowling, rotating the ears, licking the lips or swiping at the other cat. The results were inconsistent with the prior conception of cat allogrooming.
[...]
The researchers suggest that unwanted licks might be an easy way to jab at another cat without getting into a fight. While a full scuffle could result in injury, a precisely placed irritating lick might be a safer way to tell your furry “friend” to get lost.
-
Comment on Claude Code is the ceiling on vibe-coded software in ~tech
skybrian Link ParentA fair point. But another possibility is that maybe their top people aren’t working on Claude Code at all, because they’re busy doing something else? You can’t count “top minds are on the job” as...A fair point. But another possibility is that maybe their top people aren’t working on Claude Code at all, because they’re busy doing something else? You can’t count “top minds are on the job” as an advantage if it’s actually the B team.
There’s a lot we don’t know from the outside.
From the article:
[...]
[...]