Clayton Dean

Building @ZiplinesEdu · Principle @ Cabrillo Growth Studio • co-founder circa interactive (acquired)

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

AOC vient d'expliquer qu'on ne peut pas "gagner" un milliard de dollars. Que c'est mathématiquement impossible. Que tout milliardaire est forcément un voleur, un abuseur de lois du travail, un payeur sous-évalué.

Ce niveau d'ignorance économique de la part d'une élue qui légifère sur l'économie devrait nous faire hurler.

Reprenons depuis le début, parce qu'apparemment c'est nécessaire.

Un milliardaire n'est pas quelqu'un qui a un milliard de dollars en cash sur son compte. Un milliardaire est quelqu'un dont le marché évalue les actifs (principalement des parts d'entreprise) à un milliard ou plus.

Elon Musk n'a pas "pris" 800 milliards à quelqu'un. Il a créé Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Le marché évalue ces entreprises à plusieurs trillions cumulés. Il en détient une fraction. C'est ça, sa "fortune".

La question fondamentale qu'AOC ne se pose jamais : d'où vient la valeur ?

La valeur n'est pas un gâteau fixe qu'on se partage. La valeur est créée. Quand SpaceX divise par 10 le coût du lancement orbital, ce n'est pas du vol, c'est de la création pure. Avant Musk, lancer un kilo en orbite coûtait 50K$. Aujourd'hui 1.5K$.

Cette création de valeur est mesurable, vérifiable, et bénéficie à toute l'humanité. L'internet par satellite couvre des zones que les États ont été incapables de connecter en 50 ans. Les voitures électriques ont forcé toute l'industrie auto à se réinventer.

Maintenant, la question centrale qu'AOC évite soigneusement : qui devrait allouer les ressources dans une société ?

Parce que l'argent, fondamentalement, c'est ça. Un signal d'allocation. Décider où va le capital, le travail, l'énergie, le temps humain.

Trois options historiques :

L'État (bureaucrates élus ou nommés)

Les comités citoyens (démocratie directe)
Les entrepreneurs qui ont prouvé leur capacité d'allocation par leurs résultats
L'option 1 a été testée massivement au 20ème siècle. URSS, Chine maoïste, Venezuela, Cuba, Corée du Nord. Résultat : famines, pénuries, effondrement. Des dizaines de millions de morts. L'allocation étatique est un désastre empirique total.

L'option 2 n'a jamais existé à grande échelle pour des raisons mathématiques. Le calcul économique nécessaire pour allouer les ressources d'une économie moderne dépasse les capacités cognitives d'une assemblée. Hayek l'avait démontré dès 1945 (The Use of Knowledge in Society).

L'option 3, c'est le marché. Et le marché récompense ceux qui allouent bien. Ceux qui allouent mal font faillite, perdent leur capital, sortent du jeu. Les survivants sont par sélection darwinienne les meilleurs allocateurs disponibles.

Elon Musk est riche parce qu'il a prouvé, sur 25 ans, qu'il alloue mieux le capital que 99.9999% de l'humanité. PayPal. Tesla. SpaceX. Starlink. Chaque fois, il a pris du capital et l'a transformé en infrastructure civilisationnelle.

La vraie question n'est pas "pourquoi Musk a tant", c'est : "pourquoi n'a-t-il pas plus ?"

Sérieusement. Si on veut maximiser la création de valeur pour l'humanité, on devrait vouloir que les meilleurs allocateurs aient accès à plus de capital, pas moins.

Donner 100 milliards à AOC pour qu'elle les redistribue selon sa vision morale, c'est garantir leur destruction. Donner 100 milliards à Musk, c'est probablement obtenir des bases martiennes, de l'énergie quasi-gratuite, et une révolution robotique.

Le préjugé d'AOC, c'est que la richesse est un péché moral. C'est une vision théologique, pas économique. Elle traite le capital comme un stock à confisquer, pas comme un flux à orienter vers les usages les plus productifs.

Et c'est là que sa thèse devient grotesque : "vous payez les gens moins que ce qu'ils valent."

Définition de "ce qu'ils valent" selon AOC : ce qu'AOC pense qu'ils devraient toucher. Définition selon le marché : ce qu'un autre employeur est prêt à leur offrir.

Si Tesla payait ses ingénieurs en dessous de leur valeur, ces ingénieurs partiraient chez Google, Apple, Meta. Ils restent. Donc la rémunération est compétitive. Mécanisme de base que tout étudiant en L1 d'éco comprend.
Le pattern fondamental : AOC, et toute la classe politique qui pense comme elle, n'a jamais alloué une seule ressource productive de sa vie. Jamais embauché en assumant le risque salarial. Jamais investi son capital dans un projet incertain. Jamais créé une entreprise qui survit.

Et pourtant elle veut décider qui peut posséder quoi.

C'est l'équivalent de quelqu'un qui n'a jamais joué aux échecs voulant arbitrer un tournoi de grands maîtres en réécrivant les règles à mi-partie.

Ce qui est triste, c'est que cette vision a un coût massif. Chaque fois qu'on taxe les meilleurs allocateurs, on détourne du capital de ses usages productifs vers des usages politiques (subventions, clientélisme, projets vanity étatiques).

La France en sait quelque chose. 50 ans de redistribution, ISF, exit tax, taxe à 75%. Résultat : zéro géant tech, fuite des cerveaux, dette à 113% du PIB, croissance atone.

AOC veut nous vendre le même poison en plus grand format.

La conclusion est inconfortable mais nécessaire : nous avons besoin de plus de milliardaires, pas moins. Plus d'allocateurs prouvés. Plus de capital concentré entre les mains de ceux qui ont démontré qu'ils savent le faire fructifier pour l'humanité.

Et nous avons besoin de moins d'AOC. Moins de gens qui n'ont rien construit, qui n'ont rien risqué, qui n'ont rien créé, mais qui veulent décider à la place de ceux qui font.

Le mythe ce n'est pas "le mythe d'avoir mérité son milliard". Le mythe c'est qu'une députée de 36 ans qui n'a jamais géré un budget supérieur à son staff parlementaire ait la moindre légitimité à théoriser sur l'allocation du capital mondial.

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

This is idiotic. Let it burn. This is why the flying experience is worse than it was 30 years ago. Zero incentive to improve the model and always a bailout waiting.

[Polymarket @Polymarket]

JUST IN: The U.S. Government is projected to bailout Spirit Airlines.

55% chance.
https://t.co/2TxrHasln9

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

@planetdenken I was working with a well-known private university who hired McKinsey to help them with strategic planning for their online efforts. They paid over $1M for a 40 slide deck that concluded they should centralize their online operations. That was it.

[Chris Gordy @ChrisGordy]

It's super easy to watch the Masters this year:

Thu & Fri (all times CT)
6a-7:30a - Masters .com
7:30a-12p - Masters .com & Paramount+
12p-2p - Amazon Prime
2p-6:30p - ESPN

Sat & Sun
9a-1p - Masters .com & Paramount+
1p-6p - CBS

Just need a laptop, a TV & a few subscription services. It's that easy.

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

Most cold outreach right now is noise.

Not because sellers are lazy...because everyone automated at the same time, and now inboxes are full of "personalized" messages that feel identical.

A university exec I spoke to recently receives 10-15 pitches per week. How are you supposed to grab their attention?

What's working for me:

1. Cut the list in half. Fewer targets, more intentional.

2. Warm up before you reach out. Follow them. Comment genuinely. Do it for a month. When your name shows up in their inbox, it's a little less cold.

3. Write like a human. Short. Specific. Make it obvious this wasn't generated and blasted. (ex: when I follow up with an email after a LinkedIn message, I reference it — "I sent you a note on LinkedIn last week, wanted to follow up here." Two sentences. Connects the dots. Makes it obvious this wasn't blasted to 500 people)

4. Don't sell. Most of the people I work with aren't looking to be pitched right now — they're trying to figure out which direction to go in a world that's changing fast. A lot of that anxiety is AI-driven. Which path is sustainable? What do we build toward? If I can help them think through that, I'm useful. Useful people get a response.

Curious what's working for others to standout and cut through the noise?

[Rory O'Driscoll @rodriscoll]

AI has become the justification for every layoff. It's the perfect excuse card, but there is a lot of spin involved. Every layoff is some combo of the following five very different AI stories.

1. Nothing changed, we just realized we have too many people. We are going to blame AI, but we are bullshitting. This is the AI as an excuse; it was really sloppy hiring, and we are just blaming AI. (See Block)

2. Growth has gone away so now we have too many people. This may be because of AI if you are a SaaS company. All the customer love is now going to AI. But it's less AI as a productivity lift, and more about you just building a less ambitious growth company. (See Salesforce and most every SaaS company)

3. We spent our money on capex to build AI so now we can’t afford as many people. Management may say it’s about AI making us productive (4 below) but my gut is a lot of it is about Nvidia getting our money so now there is none for you. (See Meta and Oracle)

4 We are really using AI the way god intended us to. We don't need as many people. This is the ONLY version of the story that is actually about a productivity increase. It's real, it's happening, but I wonder if it is even the majority of the layoffs. (See some software engineering departments right now)

@jasonlk raised a fifth reason that doesn't get talked about enough: we just have the wrong people. Maybe we don't need 20 engineers who all know C++, but rather eight who have strong AI skills. This I think should be happening everywhere.

Every time a layoff announcement comes out, I try and mentally categorize per the above.

[Kyle Saunders @profgoose]

You can search for your school on the site "Mapping the Structural Divide" in US Higher Education: https://t.co/liKz3gi69H
(🧵 below this tweet:)

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

@Camp4 @p_millerd Same. I think it forces you to prioritize what’s most important.

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

After reading Anthropic’s recent report (linked below), I keep coming back to Jevons paradox and it gives me a little hope.

I’ve seen this play out first hand through a friend of mine who’s a radiologist. AI was supposed to wipe out jobs in his field. Instead, the tools improved and human judgment became more valuable. As a result, demand for these specialists is at an all time high in 2026.

If Jevon’s paradox holds in the AI age (up for debate), context, decision-making, and trust may (hopefully) matter even more.

The question is, how will this impact higher ed? How do we need to start reshaping degree programs to prepare new grads for work that is increasingly AI-assisted but still deeply human (and most importantly, in demand)?

https://t.co/rTn46BzPxw

[Wall Street Mav @WallStreetMav]

This Venezuelan NAILS it:

“I don’t know how this will all work out, but I’m asking everyone to have some faith. Don’t fill your head with, oh, the Americans only want our oil, the Americans only want wealth.

I ask those people, what do they think the Russians and Chinese wanted all this time? Our arepas recipe?”

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

@signulll This is why so many VC board members have zero idea of how to actually build a company.

[Ben Pasternak @pasternak]

VC is dying. If I were starting a company today, I wouldn’t raise any.

Founders don’t need it anymore. With AI, it’s possible to go far with little outside capital.

“$X raised” used to be the flex. Now it’s ARR and MRR. Two years ago, no one put these metrics in their bios — now they're hard to escape.

That said, people still need a spark to get going. Something to think about.

[Thrilla the Gorilla @ThrillaRilla369]

I now understand why my dad used to wake up at 4AM and just sit at the kitchen table for an hour

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

@KylePorterNS The fireballs brand is so cheeseball

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

@VickieforNYC What a piece of shit

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

I’ve been thinking a lot about a conversation I had with a university partner last week. They were candid...frustrated, even. They know change is needed. But the system makes it incredibly hard.

The challenge isn’t just financial. It’s cultural, structural, and deeply personal.

Faculty and staff are being asked to rethink how they work, what they value, and how they define success. That’s a heavy lift, and I really feel for them.

But here’s the thing: staying the same isn’t an option.

And despite everything, I’m still optimistic. Why? Because I’ve seen what happens when just a few people at an institution decide to try.

To pilot something new.
To partner differently.
To say yes, even when it’s uncomfortable.

No, it’s not easy. And yes, the next few years will be challenging. But there are leaders choosing action over inertia. And that’s where real progress begins.

[Ryan Hawk @RyanHawk12]

Be a Pro

Early in my career, an older mentor told me, "Be a pro." I nodded like I understood, but I didn’t know what he meant. As time has gone on, I’ve learned more about what it means to be a pro.

Being a pro is about recognizing that everything you do sends a signal about who you are. Show up early. Proofread your emails. Make your slides clean. Respond quickly. Be helpful without being asked. Be proactive. These seem trivial until you realize most people don't do them consistently. And consistency is where trust is built. The person who always shows up prepared becomes the person others want on their team. Small standards compound into big reputations. When you're sloppy, other people pay the price. Send an email with typos, and the reader has to decode what you meant. Show up late, and everyone else's time becomes less valuable. Run a disorganized meeting, and you've wasted collective human attention. Every time you make someone else's life worse, you're making a withdrawal from your reputation account. Every time you make their life better, you're making a deposit. People gravitate toward those who improve their lives, not those who create extra work.

Good lighting and audio for your Zoom calls aren't vanity. They're the basic tools of modern work. When you can't share your screen or your audio cuts out constantly, you're signaling that you haven't learned the fundamentals. It's like showing up to a construction site without knowing how to use your tools. The people who master these basics are showing respect for everyone else. The biggest myth about professionalism is that you have to choose between being fast and being good. The best professionals are both. They respond quickly because they've built systems to do it. They deliver quality because they've practiced enough to make quality their default. This is about being intentional.

The benefits of being a pro compound over time. The person known for running great meetings gets invited to more important meetings. The person who delivers clean work gets more interesting projects. The person who makes collaboration easy becomes indispensable. Better opportunities lead to better skills. Better skills lead to better opportunities. The gap between professionals and everyone else widens over time.

Being a pro is a choice about how you want to move through the world. You can see standards as constraints that limit your authenticity. Or you can see them as tools that amplify your impact. You can think details don't matter. You can also recognize that details often separate good from great. You can believe being casual makes you more relatable. Or you can understand that being reliable makes you more valuable. The older mentor who told me to "be a pro" understood something fundamental: professionalism isn't about impressing people. It's about creating the conditions for everyone to do their best work. In a world full of people who are just good enough, being great consistently is a superpower.

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

@teereximus @clairevo @karpathy @gammaapp Same boat. At best I get a decent outline, but the content is always super weak, at least for me

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

@FitFounder Part of me wonders if it’s worth doing all the work to learn now. Seems like we’re not far away from all of this being possible with a few prompts.

[Clayton Dean @claytdean]

@blakeaburge 100%. Arrival fallacy is real.