Tom

Husband, father, family man. Startup Founder/CTO. 20+ years of coding/leadership. Systematic trader. Head of Eng/Cyber @JungleRockRes.

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@DWDrummer_eth @_OptionsHouse_ @VolatilityQ get this man a prize. Winning meme of the day 🏆

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@DWDrummer_eth @watchitburn_LFG @_OptionsHouse_ 😂😂😂😂💀💀💀

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@VolatilityQ I gotchu fam. There will be sneak peeks.

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@LordStoppington Hey babe, take a look at this new study that came out… 🤣

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@LordStoppington @nikitabier Did you forget to mention Claude and include a photo of you with your mouth open?

[Ghost Capital @_OptionsHouse_]

Psalm 23

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

[Spaceballs The X Account @Grunt2A]

Now that Artemis II has launched we have 10 days to get everyone on Earth a Planet of the Apes costume so we can do something hilarious when the astronauts return 😁

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@VolatilityQ I'd go with the Macan, but Porsche is a good choice regardless of model

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@LordStoppington I would just settle for normal justice, I’ll take anything at this point. Evil running wild completely unchecked.

[Tom @cryptoth0]

I have been using this perspective with my son. Once he turned 13 it was like a switch flipped and he didn’t want anything to do with being treated as a child. N=1 datapoint, but rings true for me. He lights up whenever I give him more responsibilities.

[History With Jacob @HistoryWJacob]

The concept of "teenager" is a modern invention.

For most of human history, a boy of 13 was already a man, apprenticed in a trade or fighting in a war.

George Washington was a professional surveyor at 16.

Alexander Hamilton managed a trading company at 14.

In medieval Europe, noble boys could be pages at 7 and squires by 14.

In Rome, a boy put on the "toga of manhood" at 14.

The idea that an 18 year-old is "still figuring things out" would have been incomprehensible to our ancestors.

I believe this is why we think teenagers are so troubled. They are men and women stuck in a society that treats them as children. Of course they are going to "rebel".

We should give them more responsibility and expect much more of them.

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

I am one of the 750 CFOs who took the Duke survey.

I told the truth on the anonymous form. That is the only place I have told the truth this quarter.

The survey was conducted by Duke University in partnership with the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Richmond. It asked whether we planned AI-related job cuts in 2026 and how many. The results published this week in Fortune used the word "privately." CFOs admit privately. That word is doing all the work. Privately means on a form that does not have our name on it. Privately means in a room where the board cannot hear.

I checked a box. The box said yes.

My company is planning to eliminate 340 positions this year. The internal justification is "AI-driven operational efficiency." That phrase appears in the board deck I presented in January. It appears in the restructuring memo I signed in February. It will appear in the separation letters 340 people receive in April.

The phrase is not accurate.

We deployed AI tools across 4 departments last year. I have the productivity data. The data shows that AI reduced task completion time in 2 of the 4 departments. In the other 2, task completion time increased. Across all 4, net productivity change is approximately zero. Not approximately zero in a way that rounds to something. Zero. The gains offset the losses.

I presented this to our CEO in December. He said "it's early." He said "the trajectory is what matters."

Then he asked me to model headcount reductions as though the productivity gains were 15%.

I modeled them. The model says 340 positions.

15% is not the real number. Zero is the real number. But zero does not go in a board deck. Zero does not get presented to investors. Zero does not justify the $14 million in annual AI licensing costs that I also approved. 15% justifies all of these things. So 15% is the number we use.

This is not unusual. I speak to other CFOs. Not in surveys. At dinners, at conferences, at the thing after the conference where we say what we actually think. The number of CFOs who have told me their AI productivity gains are real, verified, showing up in revenue: I can count them on one hand. The number who have told me they are presenting AI-related headcount reductions to their boards anyway: I stopped counting.

The Duke survey found that 502,000 jobs will be cut this year because of AI. That is 9 times last year's number. Goldman Sachs published a note this month saying they cannot find a meaningful relationship between AI adoption and productivity at the economy-wide level. These 2 facts exist in the same economy at the same time. 500,000 people will lose their jobs because of a technology whose economic benefit Goldman Sachs cannot detect.

Nobody has asked me to reconcile this. Not the board. Not the investors. Not the analysts.

I'll tell you what they ask. They ask: "What's your AI strategy?" They ask: "How are you leveraging AI to optimize headcount?" They ask the question in a way that contains the answer. The answer is: fewer people. The justification is: AI. The evidence is: optional.

My CEO uses AI tools roughly 2 hours per week. I know this because I see the license utilization dashboard. He is in the bottom quartile of the company. The people he is eliminating use the tools more than he does. They were told to adopt. They adopted. They are being eliminated for adopting the thing they were told to adopt.

I could present this to the board. I could show them the utilization data, the productivity data, the Goldman note, the Duke survey. I could say: the math does not support the headcount reduction. I could say: we are firing 340 people based on a number I was asked to fabricate.

I could do this. It would be my last board meeting.

So I do what every CFO does. I present the 15%. I model the savings. I sign the memo. And when Duke sends an anonymous survey, I check the box that says yes.

The survey asked if we plan AI-related job cuts. It did not ask if AI is the reason.

AI is never the reason. AI is the word you put in the memo so the reason doesn't need one.

[Tom @cryptoth0]

This is quite possibly the most evil string of actions a government and associated systems has done to an innocent person.

[Wall Street Mav @WallStreetMav]

The attorney for Noelia Castillo Ramos says she was not allowed to cancel her euthanasia because “her organs had been committed to other patients.”

Spain imported this girls r*pists, let them go free, then contractually obligated her to be euthanized.

[Tom @cryptoth0]

This would have been an SNL skit by Norm McDonald 30 years ago. Leftist politicians are evil maniacs. They ruin every country and city where they gain power.

[Wall Street Mav @WallStreetMav]

The tragedy of Noelia’s story can’t be overstated.

After being gang r*ped by African illegal aliens that Spain still refuses to prosecute, the government recommended that she end her life.

As of this afternoon, Spain euthanized her.

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@LordStoppington Gm milord

[Tom @cryptoth0]

https://t.co/4ZJgdY3BAC

[The AI Robot Guy on X @Housebots]

>Be Noelia Castillo Ramos
>Your parents love you
>They fall on difficult financial times
>You are ripped away from them by the government
>Your grandmother and mom are crying and begging
>They bring 12 police officers to stop any resistance
>You are placed in a “teen shelter” full of muslim migrants
>You aren’t allowed to leave
>The staff treats you like you are worthless
>The muslim teens decide to gang r*pe you
>You think you will get help
>Nobody comes. Nobody listens.
>They rape you again, with even more people this time
>You try to report it
>The women in charge of the shelter are woke liberals
>They refuse to report it to avoid making muslim immigrants look bad
>They won’t do anything
>You try to be happy
>You can’t move on
>You jump from the 5th story of the building
>By the grace of God, you live
>You are injured, but you still have hope
>The state tells you about the option of euthanasia
>You pass it off at first
>The trauma keeps replaying in your brain
>Still, nobody is helping
>You feel hopeless
>Spain is falling
>You decide to do it because you feel worthless
>Your dad fights to keep you alive for years
>He loses in two different liberal courts
>You are scheduled for euthanasia
>The days pass
>You do an interview, which is really a desperate cry for help
>Still, nobody does
>The date gets closer
>They keep you isolated so you have no idea there is so much love and support is outside
>Your best friend desperately tries to get up to talk to you
>She is blocked by doctors who seem to take pleasure in the power they have
>The process begins
>You are alone and probably pretty scared
>You feel like you have no choice
>The sedative sets in
>The last thing you see is a cold, dark hospital room
>The toxin is administered
>Your lungs slowly stop working
>You die in your sleep
>Your abusers still face no consequences
>You become a monument to the failure of a state that was supposed to protect you

[Tom @cryptoth0]

@VolatilityQ Vanity Fair, the first name in real news you can trust 🤣

[Jason Fried @jasonfried]

A bespoke software revolution? I don't buy it.

It'll exist. It already exists. Small consultants and big consulting firms have made custom software for years. It almost always sucks. It’s bloated, confusing, and because the client pays, it’s built wrong in all the ways.

Who’s excited about bespoke software? Software makers! Of course they're excited about building bespoke software — that's what they do. X is full of them. Your feed is full of people who love making software talking about making software. Of course they’re excited about the revolution. Echo, echo, echo...

Most people don’t like computers. Nobody in tech wants to say that out loud. People tolerate computers. They use them because they have to. Given the choice, most would rather not think about them at all.

So when someone suggests that AI means everyone will build their own custom tools, ask who "everyone" is. The three-person accounting firm drowning in client paperwork? They want the paperwork gone, not a new system to maintain. The regional logistics company with 40 trucks? They want the routes optimized, not Joe spouting off about this new system he’s been messing around with. The law firm billing 70-hour weeks? They want leverage on their time, not a software project to design.

They don’t hate technology. But building and maintaining their own critical systems isn’t their wheelhouse, regardless of how much faster and easier it’s become. It's another job on top of the job.

Will these people use AI? Absolutely, for all sorts of things. Will some outliers go deep and build real custom systems? Sure, but they're almost always people who already had some pull toward software. The curiosity was already there. They were dabblers before.

Giving everyone access to software building tools doesn't mean everyone becomes a builder. A powerful excavator doesn't turn a homeowner into a contractor. Most people just want the hole dug by someone else. They don’t want the responsibility either.

[Tom @cryptoth0]

This man and others like him are doing God’s work. Open source is the great equalizer. Support it if you can.

[Sudo su @sudoingX]

this guy has 29 models on huggingface at page 2 ranking. no lab behind him. no sponsorship. $2,000 from his own pocket on GPU rentals. he compressed GLM-4.7 to run on a MacBook and quantized Nemotron Super the week it dropped. all public. all free.

nvidia is a trillion dollar company with hundreds of teams but they are not the ones quantizing models middle of the night and pushing them out before sunrise. if nvidia stopped tomorrow their employees stop working. people like @0xSero would not. that is the difference between a paycheck and a mission.

@NVIDIAAI you talk about making AI accessible. the people actually doing it are right here. 29 models deep burning their own compute with no ask except more hardware to keep going. you do not need to build another program. just look at who is already building for you. one GPU to this man would produce more public value than a hundred internal sprints.

i am not asking for charity. i am asking you to invest in someone who already proved it.

[Ricardo @Ric_RTP]

Jensen Huang just called out every CEO who’s been firing people “because of AI.”

Jim Cramer asked him why companies are laying people off if AI is supposed to make everyone MORE productive.

Jensen's answer:

"For companies with imagination, you will do more with more. For companies where the leadership is just out of ideas, they have nothing else to do. They have no reason to imagine greater than they are. When they have more capability, they don't do more."

Read that again.

The man who built the most important tech company on Earth just told you that if your CEO is using AI to cut headcount, it means one thing:

They have no imagination.

They have no vision for what comes next.

They got handed the most powerful tool in human history and their FIRST instinct was to fire people.

This is the CEO of NVIDIA. The company whose chips power every AI system on the planet.

If anyone on Earth has the right to say "AI replaces workers," it's Jensen Huang.

And he said the OPPOSITE.

He said every carpenter could become an architect. Every plumber could become an architect. AI elevates capability. It doesn't eliminate it.

But here's where it gets really interesting...

During the same interview, Jensen revealed something nobody's talking about:

He said AI startups like OpenAI and Anthropic are seeing their revenues increase by one to two billion dollars a WEEK. And he wishes these companies were public so the world could see what he sees.

One to two billion per week.

That's a $50 to $100 BILLION annualized run rate.

For companies that most people think are burning cash and making nothing.

The entire Wall Street narrative that "AI companies aren't profitable" might be completely wrong.

Jensen sees their numbers. He sees their compute orders. He sees their growth. And he's saying the revenue is real.

So if the money IS real, why are other companies firing people?

Because they're not building AI products. They're not creating new revenue streams. They're not using AI to expand into new markets.

They're using AI as an EXCUSE to cut costs because they ran out of ideas 3 years ago and need something to tell the board.

Jensen's company added $500 billion in new orders in 5 months. He expects $1 trillion in cumulative revenue through 2027 from just two product lines.

That number doesn't include the new chips, systems, or partnerships announced this week.

And he's not cutting people. He's hiring.

Because when you have imagination, more capability means MORE opportunity. Not less headcount.

Meanwhile Salesforce cut thousands. Meta cut thousands. Amazon cut thousands. All blaming "AI efficiency."

Jensen's response: You're out of imagination.

He also said something that stuck with me.

Cramer asked if he ever thought he'd build a $10 to $20 trillion company while waiting tables at Denny's.

His answer: "I was just trying to make it through the shift."

Biggest tip he ever got? Two, three dollars.

Now he's building tech that increased computing demand by one million times in two years.

He announced OpenClaw, which he says is as big as ChatGPT.

And he's got 21 months of new business that isn't even counted in the trillion dollar figure yet.

When asked how long he plans to keep working?

"I'm hoping to die on the job. And I'm not hoping to die anytime soon."

This is a man who believes every single thing he's building.

And his message to every CEO using AI to justify layoffs is simple...

You're not innovating. You're surrendering.

The technology wasn't built to shrink companies.

It was built to make them limitless.

If your leadership can't see that, the problem isn't AI.

It's THEM.