@FirstSquawk Maybe a game changer for Waymo. They’re already buying Zeekrs from China and eating a 100%+ tariff. If those cars can be built in the US, the economics get a lot better.
@Polymarket My car could be a mass casualty machine if poorly managed. I’ve therefore decided to slow down and focus on not running people over. Please praise my responsibility.
@StockSavvyShay My car could be a mass casualty machine if poorly managed.
I’ve therefore decided to slow down and focus on not running people over.
Please praise my responsibility and give me more $$$!
Not surprising. And I think we’ll see a lot more of this.
Not because these discoveries require intelligence beyond the human frontier, but because there have never been enough brilliant humans exploring every frontier at once.
We’re going from scarce intelligence to abundant intelligence. Expect the rate of discovery to explode.
Chess may be a preview of what happens to knowledge work.
Computers surpassed the best humans decades ago. Chess didn’t die. Humans got better.
Math may be next.
Many unsolved problems may not be beyond human intelligence. There are simply too few brilliant people working on them.
AI changes the economics of intelligence.
You don’t need another Terence Tao. You need 10,000 decent mathematicians exploring 10,000 paths in parallel.
That could create a golden age of mathematics.
But chess has one important difference:
Humans playing chess is the product.
In most knowledge work, it isn’t.
The last industrial revolution made physical labor abundant.
This one may make intelligence abundant.
When intelligence becomes abundant, value moves upstream — from solving problems to deciding which problems are worth solving.
Financially, I agree — and I’ve criticized Ramsey plenty. But Ramsey's advice is built around behavior and discipline, not financial optimization. It's like a recovering gambler refusing to carry cash into a casino. Having cash is convenient— until access to it causes much worse decisions. Sometimes you sacrifice a financial advantage to remove a behavioral risk.
@LorenzoBolsa I recall Buffett himself said multiple times he could make 50% annually on $1M easy and having little capital is a “huge structural advantage”.
Disagree. It is actually easier for a retail investor to consistently beat the market than this chart suggests. Many of these superinvestors put up 30–50%+ returns early in their careers when they were managing millions, then saw returns compress substantially as AUM grew into the billions.
Size kills flexibility. Managing other people’s money adds another layer of constraints. Retail investors have plenty of disadvantages, but being small isn’t one of them.
@ThierryBorgeat 51% of market cap, not 51% of companies. We’re talking about ~40 stocks. But I guess “8% of the S&P 500” didn’t sound scary enough...
I’ve always struggled with the $LMND moat. The product looks great and the automation is impressive, but the whole insurance industry is adopting similar tools. Insurance eventually comes down to boring stuff like loss ratio, LAE etc and I just don’t see LMND’s data consistently produces structurally superior underwriting economics over the years.
A cool brand and great UI only get you so far.
@realroseceline Most of M7 have billions of users. Nvidia has a highly concentrated customer base and its largest customers are working real hard to reduce their dependence on Nvidia.
I’d separate flights from hotels here.
Flights are mostly execution: I know where and when I’m going, so an agent can optimize the variables and book it.
Hotels are discovery. People often don’t know what they want until they scroll through photos, locations, reviews and options.
That makes the browsing layer much harder to disintermediate.
I think you have it backwards. Uber’s worst case isn’t every car having FSD — it’s one or two AV players controlling most of the supply and owning the consumer relationship.
If autonomous supply is fragmented, consumers won’t want eight ride-hailing apps. That makes the aggregation layer more valuable, not less.