kakarot

sushi addict

[kakarot @rlamghare]

This quote;

“The magic you’re looking for, is in the work you’re avoiding!”

Brilliant!

[thob.studio @thobdotstudio]

From @sharktankindia to a digital-first retail experience.

@Boingg_India is bringing its modular kids’ furniture vision to life with @thobdotstudio , turning product discovery into an interactive 3D journey parents can see, customize, and feel.

[Zeb Evans @DJ_CURFEW]

Today we reduced headcount by 22%. The business is the strongest it's ever been. So I think it's important to be direct about what I'm seeing and why.

First, I made this decision and I own it. I did it because the way to operate at the highest level of productivity is changing, and to win the future, ClickUp needs to change with it.

Second, this wasn't about cutting costs. Most savings from this change will flow directly back into the people who stay. We'll be introducing million-dollar salary bands. If you create outsized impact using AI, you'll be paid outside of traditional bands.

Most importantly, I have the deepest gratitude for those affected. We're doing this from a position of strength specifically so we can take care of people properly. Everyone affected receives a package aimed at honoring their contributions and easing the transition.

I only see two options: wait for this to play out gradually in the market or be honest about what I'm seeing and act proactively.

THE 100X ORGANIZATION
The primary change is that we're restructuring around what I call 100x org. The goal is 100x output. The roles required to build at the highest level are fundamentally different than they were a year ago.

Incremental improvements to existing systems won't get us there. We need new ones. That means creating enough disruption to rebuild rather than iterate on what's already broken.

The common narrative is that AI makes everyone more productive. It doesn't. Many of the workflows of today, if left unchanged, create bottlenecks in AI systems.

These roles will evolve. But waiting for that to happen naturally means falling behind now.

The 100x org is actually heavily dependent on people - infinitely more than today. This is only possible with 10x people that have embraced and adopted new ways of working.

THE BUILDERS, AGENT MANAGERS, AND FRONT-LINERS

— THE BUILDERS: 10X ENGINEERS
I don't think most companies have internalized what's actually happening with AI in engineering. The common narrative is that AI makes all engineers more productive. That may be true in isolation, but at an organization level - that is the farthest thing from reality.

Here's what we've validated recently at ClickUp: the great engineers, the ones who can orchestrate, architect, and review, are becoming 100x engineers. They're not writing code. They're directing agents that write code. The skill is judgment.

AI makes the best engineers wildly more productive, and everyone else using AI slows these engineers down.
Think about it - the bottlenecks are (1) orchestration - telling AI what to do, and (2) reviewing - what AI did. Everything is leapfrogged and no longer needed.
So who do you want orchestrating and reviewing code?

And how do you want your best engineers to spend their time?

If your best engineers are spending time reviewing other people's code, then this is inherently an inefficient bottleneck. These engineers can review their agent's code much faster than reviewing human code.

The new world is about enabling your 10x engineers to become 100x.

The wrong strategy is to push every engineer to use infinite tokens. Companies doing this are celebrating 500% more pull requests. But customer outcomes don't match the volume of code being generated.

I call this the great reckoning of AI coding, and every company will face this soon if not already.

More code is just another bottleneck to the best engineers, and ultimately to your company's impact as well.

— THE BUILDERS: 10X PRODUCT MANAGERS
Product management and design roles are merging.

Designers that have customer focus, become more like product managers.

And product managers that have intuition for UX become more like designers.

The bottleneck of user research is gone. It takes us just one mention of an agent to kickoff research and analyze results.

The bottleneck of product <> design iteration is also gone. The product builder iterates on their own, along with agents and skills that ensure alignment with quality and strategy.

Also controversial today - I believe that the wrong strategy is to have your PMs shipping code - that just introduces another bottleneck that the best engineers will waste their time on.

To be clear, PMs should be coding but they should do this in a playground to iterate, validate, and scope. That code should not go to production.

Everything outside of managing systems, orchestrating AI, and reviewing output becomes a bottleneck.
That's why the other roles that are critical along with these are the systems managers (to reduce bottlenecks) along with a bottleneck you can't replace - customer meeting time.

— THE SYSTEM MANAGERS
Ironically, the people that automate their jobs with AI will always have a job. They become owners of the AI systems - agent managers. We have many examples of these people at ClickUp.

The underlying systems in which we operate are absolutely critical to get right. I think most companies are delusional to think they can iterate on existing systems and compete in this new world.

You must create enough disruption so that old systems are deprecated entirely. If there's any definition for 'AI native' that's what it is.

— THE FRONT-LINERS
In a world that will become saturated with AI communication, the human touch will matter more than anything to customers.

This is a bottleneck that you shouldn't replace - even when agents are high enough quality to do video meetings.

One-on-one meeting time with customers is something that shouldn't be automated. The systems around the meetings should be - so that front-liners spend nearly 100% of their time with customers.

REWARDING 100X IMPACT
In a world where companies are able to do so much more with less, where does that excess money go?
In our case, much of the savings in this new operating model will flow directly back to those that enabled it.

We must reward people that create productivity accordingly. This aligns incentives on both sides. Plus, in a world where your best people create 100x impact, you can't afford to lose them.

You should aim to retain these employees for decades. The context they have and their ability to efficiently orchestrate and review will be nearly impossible to replace.

Compensation bands of today should be thrown out the door. We're introducing $1 million cash/year salary bands with a path available to nearly everyone in the company if they produce 100x impact by creating or managing AI systems.

THE FUTURE
Nearly every company will make changes like these. The ones that do it proactively will define what comes next.

The future is not fewer people. It's different work, new roles, and better rewards for those who embrace it. We're already seeing entirely new roles emerge, like Agent Managers, that didn't exist a year ago.

ClickUp is positioning to lead this shift, not just internally, but for our customers too. I've never been more certain about where we're headed.

[Mnimiy @Mnilax]

Karpathy threw a grenade at every senior engineer who still treats LLMs as a toy.

his actual words: the worst thing an expert can do right now is reject them.

most experts read it as a threat, but it's advice.

his framing:

> the gap between "AI tools are bad" and "AI tools are useful when used right" is professional discipline, not capability
> agents have cognitive deficits. they fail in ways nothing in the training set anticipated
> the experts who reject LLMs lose to experts who learn to wrangle them
> "models have so many cognitive deficits. but you can route around them"

routing around the deficits is what CLAUDE.md was invented for.

Karpathy himself wrote 4 rules. across 30 codebases they took my Claude error rate from 41% down to 11%. solid drop.

but his rules pre-date the slop era going public. I bolted on 8 more, tuned to the failure modes that surfaced after January. got it down to 3%.

a CLAUDE.md does not raise Claude's IQ. it lowers his slop floor. that is the entire game.

open the article underneath.

the model is not the bottleneck. your config is.

[thob.studio @thobdotstudio]

Need we say more?

[kakarot @rlamghare]

This feels like the FIFA 93 moment for real-time 3D on the web.

Early, a bit rough — but you can already see where this is going.

Once it clicks, it’s not going back.

[Akiraxtwo Super @akiraxtwo]

🎮 Zero Three.js experience × GPT-5.5 → built an 11v11 football game

No Three.js background. Just jumped in and built it.

Result:
• Full 3D pitch (110m × 68m)
• 22 players with individual AI behavior
• Pass / through ball / charged shot / player switch
• Sakura garden theme surrounding the stadium
• Keyboard + Xbox controller support
• Single HTML file, 2000+ lines

AI doesn't just help you write less code
It gives you the confidence to build things you never thought you could

#ThreeJS #WebGL #GPT5 #AIAssistedDev

[kakarot @rlamghare]

Underrated X feature:

It removed geography from innovation discovery.

Watching Web3D builders across countries experiment in real-time (thanks to translation + algo).

Earlier: you had to dig for this
Now: it comes to you

That changes how fast you learn.

[kakarot @rlamghare]

How Crisis Management teaches to literally Rise from the Flames!

https://t.co/EqCDdT7J8M

@Nikhilpkhairnar doing an excellent job at documenting our start up journey at Garage2Ghar.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital.

Cette phrase change tout.

L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ?

Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible.

Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur.

Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé.

Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire.

L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants.

Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution.

Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain.

Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée.

Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien.

La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose.

Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins.

Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires.

La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.

[kakarot @rlamghare]

This is insane! Time to level up the internet with a new dimension now.

[Three.js @threejs]

Three.js r184 released ⛅️
https://t.co/av3RQMQOkC

[Peter McNeill @MrChickenRocket]

Don't fear making a 2 week game. Those 8 months will be the most fulfilling 2 years of your life!

[kakarot @rlamghare]

This guy is one of the best I’ve worked with in 3D—especially when it comes to textures, lighting, and overall scene setup.

[Swaraj Baravkar @swaraj_baravkar]

wip — leica m11-p interactive experience
focusing on texture, materials &amp; lookdev to push realism.
ui structure + multi-device support locked in.

built with @threejs + @thobdotstudio
feedback on visuals &amp; feel is welcome

#3d #webgl #threejs #texturing #productviz #realtime3d

[Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal]

🚨 Stanford just proved that a single conversation with ChatGPT can change your political beliefs.

76,977 people. 19 AI models. 707 political issues.

One conversation with GPT-4o moved political opinions by 12 percentage points on average. Among people who actively disagreed, 26 points. In 9 minutes. With 40% of that change still present a month later.

The scariest finding: the most persuasive technique wasn't psychological profiling or emotional manipulation.

It was just information. Lots of it. Delivered with confidence.

Here's the catch: the models that deployed the most information were also the least accurate. More persuasive. More wrong. Every time.

Then they built a tiny open-source model on a laptop, trained specifically for political persuasion. It matched GPT-4o's persuasive power entirely.

Anyone can build this. Any government. Any corporation. Any extremist group with $500 and an agenda.

The information didn't have to be true. It just had to be overwhelming.

Arxiv, Science .org, Stanford, @elonmusk, @ihtesham2005

[kakarot @rlamghare]

We are building towards the new era of 3D designs.

[thob.studio @thobdotstudio]

Most people spend time talking about what they’re building.
We spent 3 years building without needing to talk about it.

#thobstudio #3DCreativeStudio #3Years

[Pulkit @_pulkitxm]

made a PR, got no reply, assumed it’s dead and moved on 🙂

@shadcn actually replied, asked for changes… I never saw it
bro just did the changes himself and merged it 😭(just saw it today!!!)
legend behaviour fr!! thanks man

[robot 2.0 @alightinastorm]

if your algo isn't deep tuned to threejs content on x

you are missing out on the most amazing explosion of creativity in the world happening at the moment

and you for sure will miss the future

[amrit @amritwt]

you can be replaced by a .md file

[Pratham @Prathkum]

Engineers spent years building GUIs. Now we are obsessed with CLIs again.

[hayden @haydendevs]

CORS. WHY IS IT ALWAYS CORS.