dative

i don't code
i negotiate with AI

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/JRxIcsJGUS

[dative @0xDative]

nobody teaches you how to do research

they hand you a desk, a vague problem, and assume the rest gets absorbed somehow

what actually gets absorbed is how to look like a researcher, not how to be one

richard hamming used to ask colleagues what the most important problems in their field were, then ask why they weren't working on them

people changed tables

that question still stings because most people don't pick their problems, they inherit them from advisors, trending papers, and whatever a big lab announced last quarter

this short breaks down why hamming called creativity a mindset, not a talent - and the article below is the thing most research guides skip: the actual stack of skills, laid out in the order they compound

[Vivek @itsreallyvivek]

https://t.co/ZhOgyq7Vgn

[dative @0xDative]

Anthropic just made their enterprise Claude products open source

the specialist layer behind Claude for Legal and Claude for Financial Services - the one companies pay a premium for - is now public and free

in this 4-minute video, Mark Pike, Associate General Counsel at Anthropic, shows how their own legal team cut contract review times from days to hours using Claude - no coding required

that workflow is built on the same foundation that is now free for anyone

it is called anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins, a repo of configured roles: sales rep, financial analyst, legal reviewer, marketing specialist, data analyst

each role arrives pre-wired with the tools, context, and slash commands a real professional in that seat uses daily

you are not prompting a general-purpose model anymore. you are activating a configured role

the article below maps out how each specialist role is set up and which slash commands to run first

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/xej8fDT5rN

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/xej8fDT5rN

[dative @0xDative]

the SpaceX S-1 buries a $4.28 billion quarterly loss in 300 pages of disclosure most retail buyers will never reach

pricing is June 11. trading starts June 12. the window to read the actual document is the next 48 hours, not after the pop

the executive summary and the back half of this filing are describing two different companies

i went through the numbers the roadshow is not foregrounding:

$4.94 billion net loss in 2025, after a profitable 2024

AI-segment losses running at roughly $2.5 billion per quarter with no reversal timeline disclosed

per-subscriber Starlink revenue down 23% year over year - in the segment financials, not the press release

retail allocation at 30%, three times the standard for a mega-cap IPO

the question is not whether SpaceX is a great company. it is whether $1.75 trillion is the right price for what the back half of the document actually describes

the article below is the part of the filing the roadshow is not covering

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/3QkRukRiIA

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/3QkRukRiIA

[dative @0xDative]

everyone is arguing about which model tops the leaderboard, almost nobody noticed the assumption baked into every benchmark

benchmarks today treat models as stateless

each example is independent, the system finishes a task and moves on as if nothing happened

Andrej Karpathy spent 3 minutes in this clip explaining why this is not the year of agents, and the gap he points at is the same one: models can't learn the way humans do, they don't carry anything forward

but that is not how real work happens

real assistants remember context

real agents learn from past tasks

real users come back tomorrow

a model that forgets everything between tasks is being graded on a game nobody actually plays

the article below digs into why stateless scoring misses what matters, and what testing models with memory would actually look like

[Lance Martin @RLanceMartin]

https://t.co/es0JQM4MS9

[dative @0xDative]

Claude refused to call Tesla a car company

i fed the 10-K, the energy filings, the FSD roadmap, the Dojo documentation, all of it - and not once did it describe Tesla as being in the car business

every summary called the vehicles a distribution mechanism. a means to an end

that reframe is not a take. it came directly from the filings

the clip above is Elon Musk saying the same thing people called him crazy for saying. turns out the filings say it too

Tesla deploys more grid-scale battery storage than any other single company on earth. FSD is a software license attached to a moving sensor array. Dojo is compute infrastructure that can rent itself out. Optimus is the top rung of a ladder where every floor below it is already being built

two segments generate real profit today. the rest is a bet on which rung actually gets completed

the article below maps all six layers - and the one question worth asking once you see the structure

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/wyCTh0Ziea

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/wyCTh0Ziea

[dative @0xDative]

everyone is arguing about whether prompt engineering is dead, almost nobody noticed what the debate was actually hiding

Dario Amodei said it plainly in a recent clip - coding is going away first, then all of software engineering end-to-end

but the real story is not that coding is dying, it is what replaces it

a single tweet by Peter Steinberger cleared 2.2 million views this week, and the top reply from Matthew Berman said it all: "nobody knows but him and boris."

the loudest idea in AI coding right now is one most people repeating it cannot explain

Boris Cherny, who built Claude Code, landed 259 PRs in 30 days where 100% of contributions were written by Claude Code itself - not by prompting, but by loops that prompt on his behalf

the job did not disappear, it moved up an altitude

the article below is where you go when you want to understand what these loops actually are, how they work, and why the feedback inside them is the part that matters

[Matt Van Horn @mvanhorn]

https://t.co/DM0CAuyprS

[dative @0xDative]

everyone is talking about the SpaceX IPO number, almost nobody is doing the actual math

Bloomberg reported this week that SpaceX already walked back its valuation target - it was above $2 trillion in April, now settling at $1.8 trillion after talks with advisers and investors

that move alone should tell you something

$1.75 trillion sounds like a valuation. it is not. it is a scenario - one where Starship flies at commercial scale, Starlink hits 80-100 million subscribers, and at least 2-3 unproven revenue streams become real businesses, all on a compressed timeline

Professor Jay Ritter, who has studied IPO pricing data for over 40 years, found that companies going public with a price-to-sales ratio above 40 have historically delivered disappointing returns

SpaceX is going public at 94x

the disciplined DCF lands at $150-200 billion

the $1.75 trillion number only appears in the "everything goes right, in the right order, in the right timeframe" scenario - which requires about 15 years to play out

the article below runs the actual numbers, separates confirmed revenue from speculation, and shows you the specific conditions that have to be true before the valuation makes sense

[plutos @plutos_eth]

https://t.co/hwjUIqbb3w

[dative @0xDative]

$8,217 last month. 3 hours of work.

this is the part people don't believe until they see the two tools that make it possible

Midjourney builds the characters. Runway brings them to life. that's the visual engine behind the whole thing.

then Claude writes the script. ElevenLabs voices it. Suno scores it. Make publishes it - twice a week, automatically, while the owner sleeps.

anime content. lofi streams. AI soundtracks. three channels, one build, running 24/7.

the article below is the full wiring diagram - every tool, every prompt, every automation step that gets you from zero to a factory that runs without you

[Fokki @0x_fokki]

https://t.co/kdLiApx5H2

[dative @0xDative]

SpaceX is pricing itself at $1.77 trillion while posting a $4.94 billion net loss

CNBC ran a segment on Squawk Box this week about the millionaires the SpaceX IPO is expected to create

that framing is doing a lot of work to hide some uncomfortable numbers

Morningstar puts intrinsic value at $780 billion - less than half the IPO price

that gap is nearly $1 trillion, and it exists almost entirely because of one variable most retail investors aren't modeling correctly

Starlink is real, profitable, and growing

the launch business is defensible

xAI is burning $2.5 billion per quarter from a position Morningstar calls "indeterminate"

when you buy at $135/share, you're not buying SpaceX's current business - you're buying three simultaneous bets, all of which have to pay off

the article below is the stress-test most financial coverage isn't running

[plutos @plutos_eth]

https://t.co/HchEPyTL4R

[dative @0xDative]

the smartest AI gets the applause. the cheapest one that works gets paid.

NVIDIA just dropped a 3-minute official launch video for Nemotron 3 Ultra - a 550B open-weights model built specifically for long-running agents

and the economics are hard to ignore

closed models at the same throughput would eat most of what a client pays

1 million tokens in a single pass - no chunking, no retrieval pipelines

open weights, fully deployable on your own hardware - data never leaves your network

78.7 non-hallucination score on the comparison set

up to 5.9x faster than GLM-5.1 on long generation tasks

the paid tier runs $0.50 and $2.50 per million tokens. the free tier runs at zero.

that gap between what the model costs and what clients pay - that's the entire business

the article below has the prompt structure, the offer ladder, and the outreach approach for building a service on this before the category gets crowded

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/3y5dNy2NLY

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/3y5dNy2NLY

[dative @0xDative]

SpaceX is pricing itself at $1.77 trillion

it posted a net loss of $4.94 billion last year

CNBC's Deirdre Bosa reported on the retail strategy this week - and what the coverage skips over is the number that matters

Morningstar puts intrinsic value at $780 billion - less than half the IPO price

that is not a rounding error

the gap exists because SpaceX is not one company, it is three bets sharing a ticker: launches, Starlink, and a newly merged AI company burning $2.5 billion per quarter

the question is not whether SpaceX is impressive

the question is whether all three bets pay off at the same time, at $135 a share

the article below has the scenario table that forces the math to be explicit

[plutos @plutos_eth]

https://t.co/HchEPyTL4R

[dative @0xDative]

teams are losing 30 to 40 percent of working time to knowledge management

most of it is wasted not because the knowledge isn't there - but because capturing it requires effort at the exact moment nobody has any

one emoji reaction fixes this

n8n picks up the signal, routes it to Claude, which extracts the insight and writes a structured note into a shared Obsidian vault - automatically, within ninety seconds, with zero follow-up action from the person who tagged it

Greg Isenberg's friend Vin showed exactly how this works - Claude reading across an entire Obsidian vault of interlinked notes, surfacing patterns the person writing them never saw

the system in the article below runs the same logic across slack conversations, meeting transcripts, and client emails without anyone managing it

the article below has every workflow, every Claude prompt, and the exact vault structure to run this yourself

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/0xPbER9bSp

[dative @0xDative]

https://t.co/0xPbER9bSp

[dative @0xDative]

Anthropic confirmed it: Claude Code is now writing Claude Code

not assisted. not co-piloted. written, end to end, by the model itself

the same is true for Cowork, Anthropic's internal desktop tool

Anthropic published the short clip above - and it only scratches the surface of what's actually running underneath

the stack is leaner than anyone expected - 15 prompts, a CLAUDE.md file, and session memory

no massive engineering org. no custom infrastructure. agents handing off to agents

the bottleneck in software development has shifted. it's no longer headcount. it's whether someone on your team can write a CLAUDE.md well enough to hold the constraints across the whole loop

that's a smaller, stranger skill than most hiring pipelines are built to find

the article below breaks down the 15-prompt system and how CLAUDE.md actually gets structured when agents are writing the agents

[Apollo @ApolloCrpt]

https://t.co/DtsC3NKyVD

[dative @0xDative]

everyone is arguing about whether SpaceX is the trade of the decade, almost nobody is checking the math behind the $1.77 trillion price tag

Baker Boyer's CIO John Cunnison put it plainly in this clip: excitement around innovative companies does not always translate into strong investment returns, and valuation discipline still matters

SpaceX posted a net loss of $4.94 billion in 2025 while pricing itself at more than twice what Morningstar's institutional model says it's actually worth

the gap between IPO price and Morningstar's $780 billion fair value estimate is nearly $1 trillion

that's not a rounding error

you're not buying a rocket company at this price - you're betting simultaneously on Starlink ARPU recovering, Starship achieving commercial viability, and xAI closing the gap with OpenAI and Anthropic

all three, at once, on a timeline that justifies $135 a share

the article below is the part that separates a thesis from a feeling

[plutos @plutos_eth]

https://t.co/HchEPyTL4R

[dative @0xDative]

apple went public at 15 times revenue in 1980

spacex just filed for what could be the largest IPO of all time - targeting nearly 100 times revenue in 2026

someone uploaded both IPO documents into Claude and asked one question: which company sold the future harder

the answer came back in 5 findings, and the third one reframes everything you think you know about how markets decide what a company is worth

apple led with revenue it already had, spacex leads with a $28.5 trillion market that mostly doesn't exist yet

one company was selling what it already was, the other is selling what it might become

the article below is the side-by-side that makes you see every future IPO differently

[John Doe @DoeOnChain]

https://t.co/UCFN9KRRKC