founder motivation tier list:
S: Napoleon complex | young kids | mandate of heaven
A: hot wife | American dominance
B:
C:
D:
F: "making {x} process more effortless with AI"
I don’t think people understand how lonely it is to build something no one else can see yet. You sit in a room with the future and everyone outside the room thinks you’re crazy. And then one day the data speaks and the room gets very crowded very fast.
@DanielleFong Funny. My first energy venture was a methane solid oxide fuel cell, my second one was a CO2 based energy storage system, now im convinced nothing can beat fuel cells
After you get married, you’re going to meet ‘better’ people than your spouse. You’re going to meet more good-looking people; kinder and more romantic people; more intelligent and funny people. You will meet people who have in abundance what your partner lacks. The mushy and romanticized idea that your partner will be everything to you, and will satisfy all your needs and wants is idolatry. Contentment in marriage is a virtue not often spoken about.
You must wake up every day appreciating everything your partner is to you, everything they have, their beauty and the things that made you marry them because if you focus on everything they don’t do well, you’ll always meet better people. Protect your heart! See their best part, and always remember that your commitment to marry is more of a duty than it is of mushy feelings. You have to stay committed even on the days you feel your spouse is no longer the best fit for you…
-Buchi
join us at MIT in 4 days! we got an insane line-up of speakers, including writer Ken Liu, who inspired the TV show Pantheon, Stephen Wolfram, @TOEwithCurt, & more tba.
experience demos from startups + projects pushing human potential throughout the day!
get tickets ↓
I think yesterday’s post sparked more debate than anything I have previously shared..it is probably worth a bit of clarification as I am a make nuance great again kind of guy. After this novel, I will take a break from longform for a bit.
If I have one overriding political position (and I hope we all share it) it is the competitiveness of the nation. This grew after I started my defense aerospace company in 2011--where our job was flying fighter jets as adversaries to help prepare and train US military pilots. I saw the pace of progress from potential adversaries, across multiple domains--and it is unsettling. We have a real geopolitical competitor, and competition is great..as long as we don't lose!
My post yesterday was not about one power source over another. I am not dying on a hill for solar, coal or nuclear (though I do very much support making nuclear great again..even in space). What matters is that we can afford to generate enough energy (we don't want to lose in power-hungry AI)--and most importantly is that we can take on big, bold endeavors again without taking decades and billions more than expected.
We don't have a world war or a cold war creating the urgency, but the risk to national security is still present. We need to return to the mindset that defined us during the Manhattan Project, the dawn of supersonic flight, the USS Nautilus, the Space Race and early supercomputers. Today’s equivalents are hypersonics, AI, quantum, fully reusable rockets, robotics and new nuclear--and we should be really concerned about falling behind.
The list of major projects that are 10+ years late and billions over budget keeps growing:
- A single Ford-class aircraft carrier
- The NextGen air traffic control program (started in 2003!)
- Ballistic missile sub and ICBM replacement programs
- The Artemis return-to-the-Moon program
- California high-speed rail
- The KC-46 tanker
- A single nuclear reactor at a power plant
- The original Hudson River tunnels were built between 1905–1910 for the equivalent of ~$3B today. The replacement will take 25 years and $15B for a single tunnel..and I would bet the over on costs.
Some blame regulatory burdens, bureaucracy, or grift--(and they are not wrong) but there are some companies literally financially incentivized to drag projects out for as long as possible! But there is also a cultural problem. I saw it during my NASA prep and in conversations across government--we lack extreme ownership, we take fewer risks and convince ourselves that bold endeavors just can’t be done--at least not on the timelines or costs we used to achieve.
I believe the President and his administration are trying to course correct in an imperfect system--he is setting ambitious goals for Mars, pushing to make nuclear great again, issuing executive orders to accelerate drone adoption, opening up supersonic corridors and empowering leaders to overhaul and unleash the scientific potential of our nation. But efforts like these are easily lost in a sea of polarizing headlines alongside job and budget cuts.
America has long led the world economically, scientifically, militarily--but that won’t continue by default. I am grateful for the companies and their investors trying to seize this moment--I’ll spare the names, but those I have met in commercial space, nuclear startups, automation and robotics, supersonic airliners, eVTOL aircraft and the players disrupting the defense primes are all helping move us in the right direction. Hopefully it happen fast enough, because we can just do big, bold things again.
Feynman on beauty of the flower:
I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.