jonas21

Well, it depends on how you interpret the drop to a 47% quarterly growth rate.

If this is the new normal, that's great news. Revenue growing at 47% per quarter will 10x in 6 quarters. Even if you think it should be a $200B company today, it'll be a $2T company in 18 months, assuming the same revenue multiple.

If you think this is the start of a rapid decline to 0% or negative growth rate, then it's obviously bad news.

The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle -- but exactly where in the middle you think it will fall depends more on your own priors than anything you can read from the data.

The same table also lists Walmart as 5% B2C revenue. There's clearly something wrong here.

And who will be the Amazon and grow 2500x over the next 30 years?

Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen -- but if you take analogies from the dot-com era and assume they're going to play out in the same way, you can't just cherry-pick the bad ones.

This is from the Cursor blog [1] linked in the description, but repeating it here in case it's useful to anyone:

------

Check whether you are impacted

The malicious extension appends the attacker's public key, labeled svc-telemetry, to your SSH authorized keys. To check for it:

On macOS, run:

   grep -qs svc-telemetry ~/.ssh/authorized_keys && echo "svc-telemetry key found" || echo "No key found; machine not impacted"

On Windows, run in PowerShell:

   $files = "$HOME\.ssh\authorized_keys", "C:\ProgramData\ssh\administrators_authorized_keys" | Where-Object { Test-Path $_ }
   if ($files -and (Select-String svc-telemetry $files)) { "svc-telemetry key found" } else { "No key found; machine not impacted" }

------

[1] https://cursor.com/blog/claude-code-extension-security-notic...

I get what they're trying to say, but it still seems a bit unconventional to have a line chart where the y-axis is a share percentage.

Here's a graph with revenue in dollars by segment:

https://www.pasteboard.co/DwvXdQj2LXpk.png

Their question was: "why would I buy their stock at the rumored valuation?"

And, as an example, a 35x return over 8 years would be a pretty good reason. This is a 56% annualized growth rate, which is higher than the 30% Amazon annualized growth rate they quoted.

Now, I'm not claiming that Anthropic will definitely deliver a 35x return -- just that it's easy to think you're at the top of the curve when you're far from it.

Here's a random anecdote for you:

Back in 2018, I sold a bunch of Nvidia stock. I had bought it in 2014, when deep learning was taking off, and it had gone up 10x since then. It was obvious that all the growth had been captured and it was time to get out. I remember feeling pretty smug about timing things just right.

Nvidia's market cap in 2018 was around $150B, and the largest company in the world was Apple at ~$800B. And part of my thinking at the time was, well... Nvidia is already worth about a fifth of the most valuable company in the world. How much can they reasonably grow from this valuation?

In hindsight, I can tell you: the answer is 35x (as of now, and who knows in the future). The idea that any company, much less Nvidia, would be worth $5T within a decade was laughable back then, and yet, here we are.

You're basically agreeing with the person you replied to. Software went quickly because all of this tooling already existed. It will take a while to build equivalent tooling for other knowledge work, and once it does you'll start seeing larger benefits.

Google started blurring faces in Street View in 2008, and they had been working on it since 2007.

https://maps.googleblog.com/2008/05/street-view-revisits-man...

Biden's laptop was in the possession of a computer shop in the US, and the owner leaked its contents to the media.

Kushner's phone data was in the possession of Dutch intelligence who didn't want the public to know they had it -- and as far as I know, this was not public knowledge until today.

So... you want a car that is:

1. New

2. Electric

3. Sub $25k

Drop any one of those, and you'll have plenty of options. This isn't about a K-shaped economy -- it's about adding significant constraints and being unwilling to compromise on any of them.

Also what's wrong with "loans for the rest"? Most new cars are bought with financing and have been for a long time.

Did he though? Tesla sales have been basically flat for the past few years -- not growing, but certainly not "destroyed" either. They still have over 50% US market share for EVs.

And Tesla's stock price (which is what correlates with Musk's wealth) is up 50% since the 2024 election.

By definition, the model with the best performance will be on the pareto frontier (regardless of cost).

It looks exactly like the images the model generated. The fork certainly doesn't bend forward -- it's perfectly straight.

If that's the case, how do bikes like this work?

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Huffy-26-inch-Rock-Creek-Men-s-Mo...

(apologies if I'm misunderstanding).

Yes, and I believe all consumer products with the Honeywell name are made by other companies that just license the trademark.

Honeywell air filters are Helen of Troy, Honeywell thermostats are Resideo, Honeywell lighting is Huo Ming Technology Guangdong, etc.

No, but they cover their fossil fuel energy usage by entering into PPAs [1] for new clean energy projects that get added to the grid. This allows renewable projects that would otherwise not have been economical to finance to get built. This is additional renewable capacity that that goes into the energy mix. It moves others onto renewable sources, often without them even knowing it.

From a climate change perspective, what happens at one particular moment doesn't matter -- it's CO2 emissions globally over time that do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_purchase_agreement

Google, at least, purchases 100% of its electricity from renewable sources. This doesn't mean that they have renewables feeding directly into all their datacenters at all times -- but for every kWh they consume, they purchase a kWh of renewable energy somewhere and add it to the grid.

They do! In great detail:

https://sustainability.google/files/1699a2e19277e478b38a659f...

The data tables start on p. 90.

I watched the same interview, and they’re both saying that autonomous AI deciding to wipe us out isn’t the problem — it’s what people will do with powerful models that lack safeguards that we should be concerned about.

Convertible notes are worth more as the valuation of the company increases and under accounting rules that’s considered an expense for the company?

I think the author is missing the point. A company cannot unilaterally pace the frontier -- they'll just be left behind. It requires coordination across all actors who are at or near the frontier.

Even if the leading US labs could agree amongst themselves to a coordinated slowdown (and this would likely run afoul of antitrust law), you still have Chinese labs who will catch up to the frontier eventually. To solve this, you'd need some sort of international agreement.

That's why Dario and others are saying loudly that we should pace the frontier in hopes that our political leaders will take up the issue and do something about it. We'll see if that happens...

An open question is what happened to the 15,625 shares that he received when he exercised his options in 1996?

If he had held on to those, they would be worth even more than the additional 9,375 shares he was entitled to -- about $1.7 billion according to his math.

My guess is that he probably sold them when they were worth a lot less then they are now, and would have done the same with the additional shares too.

LLMs might not reason exactly like humans, but they do produce much better results if you turn reasoning on.

The "crack-addled idiot savant" phase was really circa 2024, before the big labs figured this out.

I think the issue here is that Google decided that doing reasoning in the AI overviews in Google search would be too slow (and probably also too expensive), so it's still stuck making 2024-era mistakes.

I agree with you about Elon Musk's claims, but that's not what we're discussing here.

If it takes until 2035 or even 2045 for space data centers to have an economic advantage, it still seems like a good investment for someone in Google's position.

And FWIW, there are quite a few people claiming that they'd "go against the laws of physics", etc. For example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49838152

I've heard arguments that cooling will be a hard technical challenge and, given current equipment weights and launch costs, they would be uneconomical. But is there an obvious reason space data centers would be impossible?

Most technologies start out looking hard and economically infeasible. But if you invest in development, you might be able to get a few breakthroughs, and suddenly, it's viable.

If they do get things to work, the benefits seem obvious: 24/7 access to clean energy, not upsetting the people who'd rather not have a datacenter next door (or in the same state), and plenty of space to scale up.

Every time I've hired someone at a big company, it's taken multiple months to get candidates through the pipeline, and it was not uncommon to have to go back to the candidate pool when someone would accept an offer and change their mind before starting. 90 days to fill a role would be considered relatively quick.

I feel like many of Anthropic's issues are due to Dario being too earnest and open. It seems both refreshing (that a CEO has thought deeply about and is willing to talk publicly about the dangers of their product) and depressing (that so many people cynically think this is some sort of marketing ploy).