kriptoleidi

Watching models scale.
Compute, medicine, and better uses of AI

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@egor65884 The real breakthrough will be building AI that understands human preferences without simply telling us what we want to hear.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

I, Monopolist
"Some people get money like misers; others accumulate it with a sincere desire to do good. I was careful. I loved my work. I saved my money. It came naturally to me."

He started with $2,000. His fortune eventually reached an estimated $900 million. But Rockefeller's real wealth wasn't in oil. It was in controlling the entire system that moved it.

John D. Rockefeller began his career as a bookkeeper. In 1859, he and his business partner, Maurice Clark, each invested $2,000 to start a trading business.

In 1863, Rockefeller entered the oil refining business. Seven years later, in 1870, he founded Standard Oil with an initial capital of $1 million.

His strategy was unusual for its time. He didn't just want to refine oil. He wanted control over every stage of the business.

Standard Oil built its own pipelines, storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure. It manufactured barrels and chemical products, managed distribution, and delivered oil to customers.

By cutting out middlemen and reducing transportation costs, the company gained a significant competitive advantage. It also steadily acquired rival businesses.

By the 1890s, Standard Oil controlled approximately 75% of the US oil business.

In 1882, the capital of the Standard Oil Trust stood at $70 million.

But perhaps the most interesting part of Rockefeller's story is his personal financial philosophy.

In an archival interview, he was asked:

Journalist: What is the secret to becoming wealthy?

Rockefeller: "Some people get money like misers; others accumulate it with a sincere desire to do good. I was careful. I loved my work. I saved my money. It came naturally to me."

There's another interesting detail. Rockefeller also explained why Standard Oil paid such substantial dividends. In his memoirs, he noted that dividends reached 40% of the company's $100 million nominal share capital. However, that did not mean a 40% return on all the money originally invested. Behind those figures were decades of accumulated profits and reinvestment.

In 1911, the US Supreme Court ordered the breakup of Standard Oil, ruling that the company violated antitrust laws.

You might expect the breakup to destroy shareholder value. Instead, shares in the newly independent companies rose in value.

By 1913, Rockefeller's personal fortune was estimated at approximately $900 million. Adjusted for his share of the US economy's GDP, that figure would be equivalent to roughly $631 billion in 2024 dollars.

Over his lifetime, he also donated approximately $540 million to charitable causes.

Rockefeller's biggest financial lesson: the real power of a business may not lie in a single product, but in controlling the entire chain behind it, from production and transportation to distribution and sales.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Nezukoa4 Spending nearly £300,000 on flowers and still being this particular about them is quite a talent.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Yarilo7brigada He couldn't have imagined how far chatbots would go, but he understood human psychology remarkably well.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Nezukoa4 Exactly. You can't control the market, but you can control your costs, your strategy, and how prepared you are for the next downturn.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

"We don't expect a return to $100 oil. We need to remain disciplined and improve productivity if we are going to survive." Bob Dudley

Oil prices plunged by more than 75%. Even BP was forced to rethink its strategy.

In 2014, the global oil market experienced one of the sharpest price collapses in decades.

The main reason was oversupply. US shale oil production was growing rapidly, demand was slowing, and OPEC refused to cut output to support prices. Brent crude, which traded at around $115 a barrel in the summer of 2014, fell to roughly $26 by January 2016.

One of the companies caught in the middle of the crisis was British energy giant BP.

Its CEO, Bob Dudley, acknowledged just how serious the situation was:

"This is not going to be a normal downturn. It will be longer and deeper than usual."

BP was forced to cut capital spending, reduce operating costs, and shrink its workforce.

In June 2016, Dudley described the wider impact of the crisis in even stronger terms:

"Low prices have shaken national economies, driven dozens of companies into bankruptcy, and cost hundreds of thousands of people their jobs, indirectly affecting millions more."

He also warned:

"We don't expect a return to $100 oil. We need to remain disciplined and improve productivity if we are going to survive."

His words capture the scale of the oil shock. Even the world's largest energy companies had to rethink their strategies, slash spending, and prepare for a prolonged period of low prices.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Les_Aker @MisterSineWave It must have been a very long time ago, since I don’t even understand what you’re talking about.))

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

Imagine having a perfect driving record, not a single accident, and a spotless reputation on the road. Yet your car insurance still costs more than someone else's. Not because of how you drive, but because your credit score dropped or you happen to live in the "wrong" ZIP code.

This is exactly the kind of controversial practice that US lawmakers are now trying to challenge.

For years, major insurance companies in the United States have relied on two less obvious factors when calculating auto and homeowners insurance premiums:

1. Credit-based insurance scores

This isn't the same as a standard bank credit score. It's a separate rating system insurers use to predict how likely a customer is to file a claim, based on their financial history.

The irony is that losing your job, dealing with a serious illness, or missing a credit card payment can end up making your insurance more expensive. None of those things makes you a worse driver, but your premium may still go up.

2. ZIP code

Where you live can sometimes matter more than your actual driving record. Insurers factor in neighborhood-wide crime rates, accident frequency, and vehicle theft statistics when calculating individual premiums.

As a result, two drivers with identical cars and equally clean records can receive dramatically different insurance quotes simply because they live on opposite sides of a ZIP code boundary.

But there's a serious argument on the other side.

Insurance companies insist that the numbers speak for themselves. Decades of actuarial research have found statistical links between lower credit-based insurance scores, neighborhood characteristics, and the frequency of insurance claims. From the industry's perspective, this is about calculating risk, not discriminating against customers.

And that's what makes the issue more complicated than simply demanding a ban on two pricing factors.

Where does objective risk assessment end, and where does penalizing people for circumstances beyond their control begin?

Insurance has to rely on probabilities and hard data. But how fair is it to turn financial hardship and the address on your driver's license into a hidden tax that follows you around?

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

Actually, I’ve been driving for 20 years, and yet, 70 percent of the experience behind the wheel involves risk. And it’s not just about my own potential mistakes, but also the mistakes of others on the road. I think you get what I mean. Regardless, I’m not going to try to convince you to see things my way. We might just have different perspectives on the core of the issue. ))

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@egor65884 The person who discovers an idea and the person who changes the world with it don't always get the same recognition.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Mod_Infequency The wording is definitely dramatic, but the underlying question deserves a serious discussion: which factors genuinely predict driving risk, and which simply penalize people for their circumstances?

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Les_Aker @MisterSineWave That's a fair challenge. The standard should be consistent: risk factors need to be supported by evidence and genuinely relevant to driving risk, regardless of whether the outcome is convenient.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Yarilo7brigada History has taught us that predicting the direction of technology is much easier than predicting its timeline.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Nezukoa4 I love these old football stories where the personalities are almost as legendary as the game itself.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Yarilo7brigada Absolutely. Responsible drivers deserve recognition for their own track record, not penalties based on circumstances beyond their control.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@egor65884 That's exactly the point. A person's driving record should carry more weight than the ZIP code printed on their license.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Winiweb3 Exactly, pricing should reflect how someone actually drives, not make assumptions about their character or financial situation.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@KaMillYon1 People shouldn't have to carry the financial burden of an entire neighborhood's reputation. Individual responsibility matters, but so does treating people fairly as individuals.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

I think the key distinction is that insurance risk should be assessed using factors genuinely related to the risk, not used to penalize people for where they live or their financial circumstances. Health insurance is an interesting comparison, but access to healthcare raises a different set of ethical questions.

[kriptoleidi @kriptoleidi]

@Nezukoa4 I love that she can now stand in the crowd and just be a fan without having to be the star.