Category: Business

Categories
Business History IBM Infrastructure Nvidia Programming Semiconductors

The Half-Life of Moats

Prompted by an article on X by @magicsilicon on the CUDA moat. Research and drafting assistance from my AI intern assistant Clark.

The NVIDIA H100 looks, in retrospect, like an inevitability. It wasn’t.

What Jensen Huang built is more accurately understood as a sixteen-year accumulation of optionality — a platform investment made in 2006 for a market that wouldn’t fully materialize until 2022. NVIDIA intros the G80 architecture in November 2006, laying the groundwork for CUDA’s release a few months later. The stated ambition was to let scientists write C++ that ran on GPU cores without needing to understand 3D graphics pipelines. The unstated bet was that parallel computation would eventually matter for something bigger than rendering shadows in video games.

For sixteen years, it mostly didn’t. Not at scale. Not commercially. CUDA lived in research labs and HPC clusters. It attracted a small, devoted, and economically marginal user base — the kind that papers cite but investors ignore. NVIDIA kept investing in it anyway: cuDNN for deep learning operations, cuBLAS for linear algebra, a layered ecosystem of libraries that made CUDA not just accessible but nearly irreplaceable for anyone doing serious numerical computation. When TensorFlow and PyTorch emerged as the standard frameworks for neural network research, they didn’t adopt CUDA because it was the only option. They adopted it because CUDA was where the optimized kernels already lived.

AlexNet won the ImageNet competition in 2012 and did it on two NVIDIA GPUs. The deep learning community noticed immediately. The financial community largely did not.

Then ChatGPT launched in November 2022, and suddenly everyone needed H100s they couldn’t get.

The parallel to Intel is instructive and also undersells how strange this kind of story looks while you’re living through it. Intel was founded in 1968 as a memory company. DRAM. The founders — Noyce, Moore, Grove — were materials scientists and engineers who believed the future was in silicon memory chips. They were right, briefly: in the early 1970s Intel dominated the DRAM market. By 1984, that share had collapsed to 1.3%, ceded almost entirely to Japanese manufacturers who had commoditized the product.

What saved Intel wasn’t a pivot so much as a realization that a stopgap had become a foundation. The 8086, conceived in 1976 as an internal hedge and launched in 1978 was never supposed to matter. It was a 16-bit processor designed to hold off Zilog while Intel finished its ambitious 32-bit iAPX 432 architecture. The 8086 was assigned to a single engineer. “If management had any inkling that this architecture would live on through many generations,” its designer Stephen Morse later recalled, “they never would have trusted this task to a single person.”

IBM chose the 8088 — a cost-reduced variant — for the original IBM PC in 1981. That decision wasn’t destiny, it was simply a procurement. And yet from that accident of selection, Intel’s x86 line became the backbone of personal computing for four decades. The Pentium in 1993 was Intel’s Wintel moment — the flag bearer the @magicsilicon tweet gestures at — but the flag had been quietly sewn since 1978.

What these histories share is not just a pattern of “slow build, explosive payoff.” The structural similarity is subtler: in both cases, the moat was a software abstraction layer built on top of hardware. Intel’s real lock-in wasn’t transistor count or clock speed. It was backward compatibility — the commitment, formalized with the 80386 in 1985, that every future Intel chip would run software written for older ones. That promise created a flywheel that trapped developers and buyers in a virtuous (for Intel) dependency loop for decades.

CUDA is the same architecture at a different layer. The lock-in isn’t the H100’s 80 gigabytes of HBM3. It’s that switching to an AMD MI300X or Google TPU means potentially rewriting training pipelines that have been optimized against CUDA kernels for years. AMD’s ROCm platform exists. It is, by most accounts, maturing. Engineers who have tried the migration report that it costs months and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The moat isn’t a wall. It’s accumulated friction — the switching cost of a decade of engineering decisions baked into codebases that no one wants to touch.

But to find the actual origin of this pattern, you have to go back further than Intel. To 1964, and to a decision IBM made that Fred Brooks — its project manager — called a bet-the-business move.

The IBM System/360 was announced on April 7, 1964, after five years of turbulent internal development. What it introduced wasn’t just a new computer. It was a new concept: the separation of architecture from implementation. Before the 360, IBM ran five incompatible product lines simultaneously. A customer who outgrew their machine had to scrap all existing software and start over. The 360 replaced all five lines with a single unified architecture — six models covering a fiftyfold performance range, all running the same operating system, all sharing the same instruction set. The name itself encoded the ambition: 360 degrees, all directions, all users.

Gene Amdahl, the 360’s chief architect, had a precise formulation for what this meant: the architecture was “an interface for which software is written, independent of any implementation.” The Principles of Operation manual described what the machine did; separate Functional Characteristics documents described how each model did it. This distinction — separating the contract from the execution — was genuinely new. It’s the conceptual root of everything that came after.

The 360 generated over $100 billion in revenue for IBM and established the first platform business model in computing. Jim Collins would later rank it alongside the Model T and the Boeing 707 as one of the three greatest business achievements of the twentieth century. But its deepest legacy was architectural: the insight that if you make your abstraction layer the standard, the hardware underneath becomes fungible. Customers didn’t buy specific IBM machines. They bought into OS/360. The machines were an implementation detail.

Intel understood this by the 1980s, even if implicitly. The 80386’s backward compatibility commitment in 1985 was IBM’s 360 insight applied to microprocessors — the architecture is the product, the silicon is the vehicle. CUDA is the same insight applied to GPU compute. What NVIDIA sold researchers in 2006 wasn’t the G80 card. It was the abstraction: write parallel code in C++, run it on any NVIDIA hardware, trust that the next generation will be faster and compatible.

The pattern is now sixty years old. It has reproduced in every major platform transition. And it keeps working for the same reason it worked in 1964: when you own the layer that developers write to, your customers’ switching costs compound every year they stay.

There’s something worth sitting with here. Neither Jensen Huang in 2006 nor Gordon Moore in 1968 could have specified exactly what the payoff would look like. What they shared was a willingness to build infrastructure for a demand they could sense but not yet see — and the discipline to keep investing in it through the long years when it looked like a research project rather than a business.

The question that doesn’t resolve cleanly is whether that kind of patience is a strategy or a personality. And whether, in an industry that now moves faster than the cycles it’s lived through, sixteen-year moats are still the kind that get built.

Which raises the uncomfortable corollary: the same AI tools that CUDA enabled may be what ultimately erodes it.

The attack on CUDA’s moat is now structurally different from anything AMD or Intel could mount before. OpenAI’s Triton compiler lets developers write GPU kernels in Python without touching CUDA at all, and generates optimized machine code that often matches hand-tuned CUDA performance. MLIR — Multi-Level Intermediate Representation, originally from Google — provides a compiler infrastructure that can target any hardware backend from a single codebase. AMD’s ROCm has historically been dismissed as immature; ROCm 7, released this year, delivers meaningfully better inference performance than its predecessors. And perhaps most directly: Claude Code reportedly ported a CUDA codebase to AMD’s ROCm in thirty minutes — work that previously took months of engineering time.

The irony is almost too neat. CUDA’s moat was built on accumulated switching costs: the friction of rewriting code, the library dependencies, the tribal knowledge encoded in a decade of kernel optimizations. AI coding tools are specifically good at exactly that kind of mechanical, high-context translation. The weapon is attacking the wall it was built behind.

That said, it’s worth being careful about the speed of this. Abstraction layers that “should” erode moats often take far longer than expected, because the moat isn’t just the code — it’s the ecosystem of tooling, documentation, community knowledge, and hardware-software co-optimization that took eighteen years to compound. Triton and MLIR are real. They’re also early. The question isn’t whether the moat is vulnerable; it’s whether it erodes before NVIDIA’s next generation of chips makes it irrelevant to argue about.

As for what comes next — which company is building the IBM 360 of this decade — the honest answer is that it’s too early to call with confidence. But there’s a candidate worth watching.

Anthropic’s Model Context Protocol, launched in late 2024, has the structural fingerprint of a platform play. MCP is a standard for how AI agents connect to external tools and data sources — a common interface layer, hardware-agnostic (or rather, model-agnostic), that any system can implement. By late 2025 it had been donated to the Linux Foundation, adopted by OpenAI and Google, and was tracking 97 million monthly SDK downloads. There are now over 10,000 MCP servers. It is becoming the way agents talk to the world.

The parallel to OS/360 is imprecise but instructive. What IBM built in 1964 was a standard interface between software and hardware that decoupled what you wrote from what you ran it on. MCP is attempting something similar one abstraction layer higher: decoupling what an agent does from the specific models, tools, and data sources it does it with. If it becomes the standard — the layer that developers write to — then whoever owns or most deeply shapes that standard controls the integration tax of an industry whose applications we can’t fully specify yet.

The counterargument is that open standards, once donated to foundations and broadly adopted, don’t generate the same lock-in as proprietary platforms. OS/360 was IBM’s. CUDA is NVIDIA’s. MCP is now the Linux Foundation’s, with OpenAI and Google as co-stewards. The historical pattern suggests the moat accrues to whoever owns the layer, not whoever invented it.

Which may mean the next great platform play is still being assembled in a room we haven’t seen yet — the way IBM’s System/360 was being architected in a Connecticut motor lodge in 1961, three years before anyone else knew what was coming.

Categories
AI Business Work

The Tipping Point Was Last November

Matthew Prince, Cloudflare’s CEO, said something on today’s earnings call that I keep turning over. He didn’t bury it or soften it. He named a date.

“Internally, the tipping point was last November.”

That’s a specific thing to say. Not “we’ve been on a journey” or “AI has been transforming our industry.” A month. A moment. The thing changed, and he knows when.

What changed, by his account, is that Cloudflare’s teams began seeing productivity gains so dramatic they were hard to describe — people who were two times more productive, ten times, in some cases a hundred times. “It was like going from a manual to an electric screwdriver.” Usage of AI tools internally is up more than 600% in just the last three months. Every line of production code is now reviewed by an autonomous AI agent.

And then he said goodbye to 1,100 people — about 20% of the company.

Today wasn’t just Cloudflare. Earnings season has become something like a drumbeat. Meta is cutting 8,000 employees this month. Amazon cut 16,000 in Q1. Oracle eliminated roughly 30,000 to fund AI infrastructure. Block cut almost half its workforce. PayPal is reportedly planning to cut 20% of its staff over the next few years. Coinbase cut 14%. Snap cut 16%. As of this week, more than 92,000 tech workers have been laid off in 2026 alone.

The scale is striking. But what strikes me more is the framing — the specific language being used to describe what’s happening. These aren’t being announced as cost-cutting moves or post-pandemic corrections, the way they might have been in 2022. They’re being announced as architectural decisions. Structural adaptations. Evolution.

Prince was careful to be explicit: “This isn’t a cost-cutting exercise or an assessment of individuals’ performance. It’s about defining how a world-class, high-growth company operates and creates value in the agentic AI era.” That’s not empty corporate language, or at least not only empty corporate language. The distinction he’s drawing — between trimming fat and reimagining how a company is built — maps to something real about what AI agents can now actually do.

There’s a legitimate version of this argument and a convenient one, and they’re being delivered in the same sentence by the same people, which makes them hard to separate. Some analysts suspect companies are using AI as cover for cuts they wanted to make for other reasons — rightsizing from pandemic-era overhiring, funding massive infrastructure buildouts, chasing margin. Oxford Economics flagged this: maybe some firms are “dressing up layoffs as a good news story.” The cynicism is warranted.

But then there’s the Cloudflare number: 600% increase in AI usage in three months. That’s not a narrative. That’s a measurement.

What’s different about this moment — what makes Prince’s “tipping point” language feel accurate rather than convenient — is that the people making these decisions are themselves users of the tools. They’ve seen the productivity numbers internally before anyone else has. They’re not theorizing about what AI might do to their workforce; they’re describing what it already did.

That’s the thing that changed. For years, AI’s labor impact was a future tense conversation. Economists studied it, think pieces warned about it, conferences debated the timeline. Then, somewhere around last November apparently, a cohort of technology companies crossed from hypothetical to empirical. The future tense became past.

Whether you read that as tragedy, as transformation, or as both depends on where you’re standing. 1,100 people at Cloudflare today are standing somewhere very specific. Prince acknowledged this with what felt like genuine difficulty: “A number of friends will no longer be colleagues.” Whether that difficulty changes anything material for the people leaving is a fair question.

But the acceleration itself — the thing he named — is real. The tipping point was last November. And if it was last November for Cloudflare, it was some nearby month for Amazon, for Meta, for Block, for all of them. Whatever these companies learned that changed everything, they all seem to have learned it around the same time.

That’s what I find myself sitting with today: not just the scale of the disruption, but the synchrony of it. The realization arrived, and then the decisions followed. Quietly at first, then all at once.

Categories
Business Creativity Space SpaceX

Test like you fly!

There’s a phrase in the SpaceX documentary that keeps coming back to me: “Test like you fly.” It sounds like a slogan. The kind of thing that gets painted on a factory wall and eventually stops meaning anything. But the more I sit with it, the more I think it’s actually a philosophy that reaches well beyond rocket engineering.

The video — a 25-minute documentary SpaceX released last week — is ostensibly about Starship Version 3. New ship, new booster, new engines, new pad, new test site. Everything rebuilt. And they’re not shy about framing it as a reset, not an upgrade. One description I read called it “a quiet violence in progress.” That phrase stopped me cold, because it’s exactly right. Progress that looks violent from the outside — all that fire and metal — but is somehow quiet in its inevitability.

What moved me watching it wasn’t the engines. It was the engineers. SpaceX put the people on camera: the ones running cryogenic pressure tests at 80 Kelvin, stress-testing tank structures at 70% proof, explaining their failures and their data with the flat affect of people who have made peace with how long hard things take. There’s something almost monastic about it. You choose a problem that will not yield easily. You accept that the work will outlast any individual sprint of enthusiasm. You go back to it anyway.

I keep thinking about that in the context of what we’re doing with AI — the other enormous, fast-moving project that I spend so much of my mental energy on. The development arc is different: iterative releases, weeks not years between jumps, demos that blur into deployment. But the same principle is buried in there somewhere. The best AI teams I read about aren’t the ones shipping the most polished demos. They’re the ones building infrastructure for failure — evals, red-teaming, structured feedback loops. Test like you fly.

The Raptor 3 engines now produce 280 metric tons of thrust each. Thirty-three of them on a Super Heavy booster means over 17 million pounds of liftoff force. I have no intuitive frame for that number. What I do have a frame for is what those numbers represent: three years of iteration on top of five years before that, on top of a theoretical foundation laid by people who didn’t live to see any of this. There’s a compounding in that which I find genuinely moving. Nobody built the Raptor 3 in isolation. It came from everything that broke before it.

The hardest part of the documentary isn’t the engineering. It’s the implicit acknowledgment of how much remains undone. No Starship has yet achieved full orbital velocity with both stages intact. In-space refueling is still untested. The thermal protection systems need more work. And yet — SpaceX talks about unmanned cargo missions to Mars before the end of this year like it’s on the roadmap, not the wish list. That sentence used to sound like marketing. Watching the footage, it doesn’t anymore.

I’m not sure what to do with that feeling exactly. It’s something between awe and vertigo. We’re living in a moment when the audacious has started to have quarterly milestones. When the impossible keeps showing up on timelines and then — bewilderingly, uncomfortably — meeting them.

Test like you fly. Fail with rigor. Build the thing you actually need, not the thing you could more easily explain.

I keep turning that over. There’s a post in there somewhere about writing, too — about the drafts nobody sees, the structural tests that fail, the versions that taught you the one that worked. But that’s for another day.

For now I’m just sitting with the footage of those 33 engines lighting up, and the quiet weight of how much went wrong before they could do that.

Categories
AI Business

The Topography of a Face

I found myself staring at the physical geometry of a conversation the other day—not the words, but the topography of the faces delivering them.

Elad Gil recently shared a fascinating experiment during a conversation with Tim Ferriss. He’s been uploading photos of startup founders into AI models and asking the machines to predict if they’d be successful, purely based on their “micro-features.”

“Because if you think about it, we do this all the time when we meet people, right? We quickly try to create an assessment of that person, their personality, and what they’re like. There are all these micro-features—like, do you have crow’s feet by your eyes, which suggests that your smiles are genuine? […] So, I have this whole set of prompts that I’ve been messing around with, just for fun, around: ‘Can you extrapolate a person’s personality based off of a few images?'”

He notes the model breaks down the crow’s feet and the furrowed brows, extrapolating a personality from a static frame. It’s a parlor trick, perhaps. But it works because it holds a mirror to our oldest, most unexamined instinct.

We are all amateur phrenologists of the human face. We sit across a table, measure the crinkle of an eye or the tightness of a jaw, and we build a rapid, invisible architecture of trust or suspicion. Over decades of investing and making career choices, I’ve often leaned heavily on this silent language. I’ve backed founders because their intensity felt genuine, and I’ve passed on others because something in their posture felt misaligned.

But if I am brutally honest, that intuition has sometimes been a mask for my own blind spots. I’ve held on to failing investments for far too long because I trusted a reassuring smile. We like to think our gut instinct is a sophisticated instrument. Often, it is just a pattern-matching engine running on deeply flawed historical data.

Now, we are handing that very human habit over to a machine. We prompt the AI to become a “cold reader,” and it obliges, predicting who will be the quiet observer and who will deliver the dry wit.

The unsettling part isn’t that the machine might get it wrong. The unsettling part is that it might get it exactly right—by mimicking the very same rapid, superficial judgments we make every day, just at a terrifying scale.

We are teaching silicon to read the human code. The future will belong to those who realize the code was always written in our own biases.

Categories
Business Living Retirement Trading

The Whetstone and the Hammock

We spend the first half of our lives trying to build a fortress of comfort, operating under the assumption that the ultimate reward for a lifetime of labor is the sudden, permanent cessation of it. We dream of the hammock. We dream of the empty calendar. But an empty calendar is really just a blank canvas with no paint.

Patrick O’Shaughnessy recently sat down with Paul Tudor Jones, and their conversation inevitably drifted toward the later chapters of life. Jones shared a story about fulfilling a promise to his wife to move to Palm Beach after their youngest child went to college. Upon arriving, she sent him to a local general practitioner—an 83-year-old doctor still seeing patients. Jones asked the man for the secret to longevity in a town (Palm Beach) he bluntly described as the “land of the walking dead.” The doctor’s response was a swift hammer blow:

“It’s real simple. You retire, you die.”

It’s a jarring diagnosis, but it cuts right to the bone.

We are biological machines designed for friction. Take away the resistance, and the gears don’t just stop; they rust.

Jones took the lesson to heart, noting that if you don’t use it, you lose it. He works out two hours a day and continues to trade, deliberately keeping his mind pressed against the whetstone of the markets.

I’ve watched this play out in my own circles over the years. I’ve seen brilliant, energetic colleagues hand over their keys, step out of the arena, and within months, seemingly deflate. The sudden absence of daily problems to solve doesn’t bring peace; it brings a creeping atrophy.

I’ve found myself deliberately holding onto certain complex projects and investments not because they are financially necessary, but because they demand my attention. They force me to wake up and solve a puzzle. They provide the necessary gravity to keep my feet on the ground.

But Jones offered a second, perhaps more profound reason for staying in the game. He wants to make “an absolute pot of money” specifically to give it away. He views his daily work not as a grind, but as the pursuit of nobility. He found a way to bridge the gap between the selfish need to keep his own mind sharp and the selfless desire to fuel the causes he cares about. The work becomes an engine for something larger than himself.

The hammock is a trap. The mind requires weight to bear, a horizon to move toward. The goal is not to finally lay down our tools, but to choose precisely what we want to build with them until the very end.

Stay hungry, stay foolish – and stay busy!

Categories
AI Anthropic Business Google

The Weight of the Bill

Technicians working among server racks with real-time performance graphs displayed on overhead screens
Technicians monitor server performance and network data in a modern data center

Jordi Visser has been making the case for months — in his weekly YouTube commentary and on his Substack — that we are living through an exponential transition that most people are measuring with the wrong instruments. I think he’s right. I found two data points this week that suggest why.

I was somewhere in the middle of an Invest Like the Best episode when Dylan Patel said it — almost as an aside, the kind of thing you drop to establish context before moving on to the point you actually came to make. His firm, SemiAnalysis, analyzes the semiconductor and AI industries for a living. And their usage of Claude, he noted, has been growing. The costs have been growing too.

Exponentially.

He moved on. I didn’t.

I think Patel’s API bill might be one of the more honest documents in the current AI moment — more honest than the analyst reports his firm produces, more honest than the earnings calls where every public company performs its AI fluency for shareholders.

Surveys bend. When you ask someone whether they’re using AI in their work, you’re asking them to self-report on a technology that has become a proxy for relevance, for not being left behind. The incentive to say yes is enormous. And even when the yes is genuine, it tells you nothing about depth — whether AI has become load-bearing in how someone actually works, or whether it’s an impressive thing they do occasionally.

Nobody pays exponentially growing API costs for show. Money is the honest witness.

What makes Patel’s situation quietly strange is the recursion in it. SemiAnalysis exists to help sophisticated investors and technologists understand this industry — and they cannot predict their own consumption curve. They are inside the exponential the same way everyone else is. They just happen to be watching their bill.

Then this morning, a different number arrived. Google announced it will invest up to $40 billion in Anthropic — $10 billion committed now, another $30 billion contingent on performance milestones. This follows a separate $5 billion from Amazon, part of a broader arrangement under which Anthropic is expected to spend up to $100 billion on compute over time.

The temptation with numbers like these is to treat them as spectacle. Forty billion dollars is so large it becomes almost aesthetic — a statement about ambition, about the kind of bets that define eras. You feel the weight of the zeros and move on.

But I keep coming back to Patel’s API bill.

Because Google’s $40 billion and SemiAnalysis’s compounding monthly costs are saying the same thing, expressed at scales so different they almost don’t seem related. One is a research firm noticing that their tool usage has quietly escaped prediction. The other is one of the most sophisticated capital allocators on earth making a bet that strains comprehension. But both are pointing at the same reality: that this technology, wherever it takes hold, does not plateau. It compounds.

We have been waiting, I think, for the moment when AI adoption becomes legibly real — some threshold event that separates the signal from the noise, the press release from the actual change. The surveys were supposed to mark that moment. The enterprise announcements. The benchmark numbers.

Patel’s aside suggests we’ve been waiting for the wrong thing. You don’t arrive at the exponential. You just eventually notice you’re already in it — in an aside on a podcast, before moving on to the point you actually came to make.

Categories
Apple Business

The Architecture of Subtraction

Hold an iPhone in your hand, or run your fingers along the cold, machined edge of a MacBook. What you are feeling isn’t just glass and aluminum; you are feeling the physical manifestation of a thousand invisible rejections.

We are conditioned to think of creation as an additive process. But true institutional excellence operates in reverse. It is an act of relentless, unsentimental subtraction.

A few years ago, Tim Cook articulated what became known as the “Cook Doctrine.” It is meant to answer the existential question of what makes Apple, Apple. Reading through it, what strikes me isn’t the corporate ambition, but the brutal, uncompromising geometry of its choices.

We believe that we’re on the face of the Earth to make great products, and that’s not changing. We’re constantly focusing on innovating. We believe in the simple, not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution.

We believe in saying no to thousands of projects so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot. And frankly, we don’t settle for anything less than excellence in every group in the company, and we have the self-honesty to admit when we’re wrong and the courage to change.

The gravity of that doctrine doesn’t live in the pursuit of “great products.” Everyone claims to want that. The gravity lives in the tension between wanting to do everything and having the discipline to do almost nothing.

“Saying no to thousands of projects” is easy to write on a slide. It is agonizing to practice in reality. It means looking at a perfectly good idea—perhaps even a highly profitable idea—and killing it because it dilutes the core mission. It is the architectural equivalent of leaving vast amounts of empty space in a room so that the few pieces of furniture inside it can actually breathe.

I think about the times in my own career when I lacked that specific kind of courage. I have held onto projects that had long since lost their spark, simply because of the sunk costs. I have said yes to interesting distractions that slowly eroded my focus on the essential work. We dilute our attention not because we intend to fail, but because the alternative—staring at a promising path and refusing to walk down it—feels entirely unnatural.

That is where Cook’s point about “self-honesty” becomes the linchpin. You cannot admit you are wrong unless you have created a culture where the truth outranks the ego. The deep collaboration Cook speaks of isn’t just about sharing resources; it’s about sharing the burden of that honesty. It is a collective agreement to not settle, to look at a nearly finished product and have the courage to say, this isn’t right yet.

Ultimately, the Cook Doctrine isn’t a strategy for building computers. It is an observation about human nature. The future is only guaranteed for those who can afford to survive the present—and survival demands knowing exactly what you are not.

The chaos isn’t an obstacle to the mission; it is the environment in which the mission earns its meaning.

Excellence is not just about what you build. It is also about what you are willing to destroy.

Categories
AI Business Media News

The Lost-Wax Casting of Cable News

I remember the physical weight of a television remote in the late 1990s, clicking through a suddenly expanding universe of 24-hour cable news. It felt like stepping into a river that never stopped moving.

This morning, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) announced a new 24/7 “news channel” streaming on X, named “MTS” (Monitor the Situation). It joins networks like TBPN and a growing army of individual creators, all vying to fill the endless void of the present moment with non-stop commentary.

It feels like a significant shift in how we consume the present. But I suspect it’s actually just scaffolding.

In the lost-wax process of bronze casting, an artist sculpts a form in wax, builds a heavy ceramic mold around it, and then pours in molten metal. The heat is absolute. The wax melts away, completely consumed and replaced by the final, permanent structure. The wax was never the destination; it was merely holding the shape until the real material was ready.

Right now, human creators are the wax.

We are building the molds for the 24/7, always-on broadcast of the internet age. Human hosts are sitting in chairs, monitoring the situation, talking into the void, exhausting themselves to maintain the stream. They are doing the grueling, manual labor of defining what a continuous social-first news network looks and feels like.

But human endurance is fragile. We need sleep. We need silence. We eventually run out of words.

The artificial intelligence models currently learning to synthesize news, clone voices, and generate video are the molten bronze. Eventually, the human hosts of these endless streams will melt away. The channel will remain—a fully AI-driven entity that never blinks, never tires, and never needs a coffee break.

I’ve held on to failing investments for far too long, convinced that if I just put more energy into them, they would eventually stabilize and turn around. We often make this mistake. We mistake the transitional phase for the final destination. We think the current iteration of “monitoring the situation” with exhausted human pundits is the future of media.

It isn’t. It’s just the awkward teenage years of a medium waiting for its true native technology.

The human commentators are doing the necessary work of teaching the system what a 24-hour news network on a social platform requires. Once the lesson is learned, the teachers will no longer be needed. The future is only guaranteed for those who can afford to survive the present.

Is it ironic that TBPN was just acquired by OpenAI?

Categories
Authors Books Business

The Whetstone of the Box

Give a team an unlimited budget and no deadline, and you almost guarantee their project will never ship. We spend our careers fighting for more runway, more resources, and a completely clear calendar, convinced that absolute freedom is the prerequisite for great work. Yet, when the walls finally fall away, we usually just freeze.

David Epstein’s upcoming book, Inside the Box, circles this exact paradox. His premise, arriving in early May, is that constraints do not diminish our capabilities; they forge them. We spend so much of our lives trying to escape boundaries, failing to recognize that those very boundaries are what give our efforts shape.

I think about the early days of writing code. We were working with severe memory limits—kilobytes, not gigabytes. Every line had to justify its existence. There was no room for bloat, no excess capacity to mask sloppy logic. It felt restrictive at the time, like trying to build a ship inside a bottle.

But that unforgiving physical boundary forced a ruthless elegance. You had to understand exactly what you were trying to accomplish. The constraint wasn’t an obstacle to the work; it was the whetstone that sharpened the blade.

We see this everywhere, once we learn to look for it. A photographer framing a shot with a fixed prime lens cannot rely on a zoom ring to find the picture; they have to physically move their feet. The limitation forces engagement with the physical world. Without the walls of a canyon, a river is just a swamp. It is the restriction that creates the momentum.

Epstein’s focus on how constraints make us better feels like a necessary corrective right now. We live in an era of infinite leverage and boundless digital canvases. The friction has been removed from almost everything we do.

But friction is where the traction lives. When we strip away all our limits, we don’t gain wings; we just lose our footing. We need the edges of the box to know exactly where we stand.

Categories
Business History Memories Radio

Permissionless Airwaves: The Legacy of FCC Part 15

Right now, as you read this, the air around you is thick with invisible conversations. Your phone is whispering to your router, your wireless headphones are singing to your laptop, and the smartwatch on your wrist is syncing quietly in the background.

We take this symphonic digital ecosystem completely for granted. But this panoply of wireless magic wasn’t just an inevitable product of technological march. It exists because of a profound, remarkably philosophical decision made by a bureaucracy in 1985.

It traces back to a seemingly mundane piece of regulatory code: the Federal Communications Commission’s Part 15 rules.

Historically, the airwaves were treated like highly exclusive real estate. If you wanted to broadcast a signal, you needed a license, a specific frequency, and a strict, government-approved mandate for what you were doing.

But within the radio spectrum, there were segments known as the ISM bands (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical). These were essentially the “garbage bands” of the airwaves. Microwave ovens, for instance, operated here, blasting out radio noise at 2.4 GHz. The interference was so heavy that the spectrum was considered practically useless for traditional communications.

Enter an FCC engineer named Michael Marcus. Marcus possessed a visionary understanding of a World War II-era technology called “spread spectrum” (famously co-invented by actress Hedy Lamarr). Spread spectrum didn’t rely on a single, clean channel; instead, it scattered a signal across a wide swath of frequencies, easily dodging interference.

Marcus argued for something radical: what if we opened up these “junk” bands to the public, allowing anyone to use spread-spectrum devices without asking for a license, so long as they adhered to basic power limits and didn’t cause harmful interference to primary users?

Incumbents fought it bitterly. Broadcasters and traditional telecommunications companies warned of absolute chaos. But in 1985, the FCC adopted the new Part 15 rules.

“We often talk about the great technological breakthroughs of our time as hardware or software triumphs. But sometimes, the most important enabling technology is just a clearing in the woods.”

Think about the nature of most regulation. It usually prescribes behavior. It looks at the future and says, “You may do exactly X, under condition Y.” But the Part 15 ruling did the opposite. It created a sandbox. The FCC didn’t try to predict Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cordless phones, baby monitors, or the Internet of Things. In fact, they couldn’t have. They simply set the structural ground rules for how devices should coexist without stepping on each other’s toes, and then they stepped back.

This is the beauty of permissionless innovation. When you don’t have to ask a gatekeeper for access, a massive, uncoordinated burst of creativity happens.

A small company in the Netherlands could start working on what would eventually become Wi-Fi. Ericsson could invent Bluetooth. Innovators didn’t need to petition the government to launch a new product; the space was already cleared for them to play.

Part 15 was an admission of humility by a regulatory body—an acknowledgment that the most profound inventions are the ones we cannot yet foresee.

The greatest legacy of Part 15 isn’t Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. It is the enduring lesson that when you give brilliant minds a blank canvas and the freedom to experiment without asking permission, they will build a world more connected than you ever dared to imagine.

Note: this post was triggered by my reading of David Pogue’s new book Apple: The First 50 Years in which he describes the development of the Apple III and how its design met the requirements of the FCC’s Part 15 in terms of reduced RF interference.