> I was discussing with a friend that my biggest concern with AI right now is not that it isn't capable of doing things... but that we switched from research/academic mode to full value extraction so fast that we are way out over our skis in terms of what is being promised, which, in the realm of exciting new field of academic research is pretty low-stakes all things considered... to being terrifying when we bet policy and economics on it.
That isn't overly prescient or anything... it feels like the alarm bells started a while ago... but wow the absolute "all in" of the bet is really starting to feel like there is no backup. With the cessation of EVs tax credits, the slowdown in infra spending, healthcare subsidies, etc, the portfolio of investment feels much less diverse...
Especially compared to China, which has bets in so many verticals, battery tech, EVs, solar, then of course all the AI/chips/fabs. That isn't to say I don't think there are huge risks for China... but geez does it feel like the setup for a big shift in economic power especially with change in US foreign policy.
That is a sharp observation and you are absolutely right to point it out! We are here not to consume, but to critically evaluate, not to skim, but to understand.
Would you like me to generate a chart that shows how humans have adopted AI-speak over time?
I hadn’t heard the word countersignaling before, but it matches something I had observed many years ago.
My closest groups of friends always make so much fun of each other. We make negative comments about the worst traits about each other, the things that we are most self-conscious about… yet every time my friends make fun of me for something I worry about, I actually feel better and more comfortable with myself.
When I thought about why, I realized it’s because of the hidden message behind the ridicule of my longtime friends; they are telling me, “we are keenly aware of the worst qualities about you, and we love you and want to spend time with you anyway.”
There is comfort in knowing you don’t have to hide your flaws to be accepted and loved.
Brilliant is building world-class interactive learning experiences that combine challenging problems, compelling narratives, and delightful visual storytelling.
We're hiring engineers and designers to help craft the next generation of interactive learning and change how the world learns.
Engineers at Brilliant think about both "building the right thing" AND "building the thing right" while pursuing high standards of excellence for ourselves, our product, and our codebase.
Our designers craft interaction patterns that make hard math, science, and computer science concepts feel approachable, delightful, and addictively learnable.
If you're energized by the prospect of doing the best work of your career and changing how the world learns alongside the most talented peers you've ever worked with, you can learn more and apply here: https://brilliant.org/careers.
I'm reminded of the famous story of (I think) the central beam in a building at Oxford. The story goes something like:
The central beam was beginning to fail and the Oxford administration knew they needed to replace it. When they went around for quotes, no one could replace the beam because it was 100 ft in length and sourced from an old growth tree. Such logs were simply unavailable to buy. To solve the issue, the staff begin to look at major renovations to the building's architecture.
Until the Oxford groundskeeper heard about the problem. "We have a replacement beam," he said.
The groundskeeper took the curious admins to the edge of the grounds. There stood two old growth trees, over 150 feet tall.
"But these must be over 200 years old! When were they planted?" the admins asked.
I have had this thought too, but not sure I would phrase it the same way. For context I'm an older father who had kids mid-40's and had a lot of time to try life the other way, and a lot of time to observe friends life paths beforehand.
The reality is that family, and especially kids, are just better and more rewarding than anything else. That's the part I think gets lost in the narrative. Needless to say there have to be exceptions to that, and maybe you or someone reading this is one of them.
But in general, that's the reality. I was kind of surprised by it, even though everyone had told me variations on this story for decades. I think it's a little bit impossible to understand just how wonderful it is to spend time with your own children, and help and watch them grow, until you start doing it.
I always thought I had no interest in kids. Turns out I just don't like other people's kids much. Still don't really, it's not like I'm going to go play with other kids for fun, or be a school teacher or coach or something. But that's not the same thing at all. If you don't have kids the reality is there's nothing in your life you can extrapolate from to actually understand what it feels like.
In addition to that, as you get older you realize that most intellectual interests and passions aren't going to ultimately be meaningful to anyone.
That's fine, it's not what they're for. But every year it gets a little more impossible to delude yourself into thinking that somehow you're going to transcend the relatively mundane reality you're actually in. Your train set, or collectible collection, or whatever it is, isn't going to have enduring value, to anyone. Again, that's fine.
Perspectives change. Sometimes it makes me sad, and I wish I could have the delusions of youth back, and think that I was so close to the big breakthrough where it would all click.
It's natural to miss all that. But being older is pretty great too.
Most of the 40+ intellectually driven people I know have family and kids.
Honestly, having kids seems to focus people and help them drive toward efficiency and priorities.
I think some people just slow down more than others when they age.
Alternatively, their priorities might simply be revealed by their preferences and energy allocation. Like the people who want to be very physically fit, but when it’s time to work out they can’t find the motivation.
Speaking of fitness, 40s is when lifestyle and health choices start to catch up to people. The cumulative impact of diet, sleep, exercise, and choices like alcohol consumption start to appear in the 40s or even 30s. There was a stark split among my friends in the 30s where those of us who stayed fit and had even moderately healthy diet, sleep, and lifestyle diverged from those who ate whatever they wanted, didn’t exercise, or even frequently drank alcohol. Claiming a lack of energy due to age (or blaming family, career, kids, etc) was the first major divergence.
30B-A3B works extremely well as a generalist chat model when you pair with scaffolding such as web search. It's fast (for me) using my workstation at home running a 5070 + 128GB of DDR4 3200 RAM @ ~28 tok/s. Love MoE models.
Sadly it falls short during real world coding usage, but fingers crossed that a similarly sized coder variant of Qwen 3 can fill in that gap for me.
This is my script for the Q4_K_XL version from unsloth at 45k context:
Game theory/Nash equilibrium/Prisoner's Dilemma, and the turkey's perspective in the problem of induction.
So far, for any given automation, each actor gets to cut their own costs to their benefit — and if they do this smarter than anyone else, they win the market for a bit.
Every day the turkey lives, they get a bit more evidence the farmer is an endless source of free food that only wants the best for them.
It's easy to fool oneself that the economics are eternal with reference to e.g. Jevons paradox.
Strongly recommend this blog post too which is a much more detailed and persuasive version of the same point. The author actually goes and builds a coding agent from zero: https://ampcode.com/how-to-build-an-agent
It is indeed astonishing how well a loop with an LLM that can call tools works for all kinds of tasks now. Yes, sometimes they go off the rails, there is the problem of getting that last 10% of reliability, etc. etc., but if you're not at least a little bit amazed then I urge you go to and hack together something like this yourself, which will take you about 30 minutes. It's possible to have a sense of wonder about these things without giving up your healthy skepticism of whether AI is actually going to be effective for this or that use case.
This "unreasonable effectiveness" of putting the LLM in a loop also accounts for the enormous proliferation of coding agents out there now: Claude Code, Windsurf, Cursor, Cline, Copilot, Aider, Codex... and a ton of also-rans; as one HN poster put it the other day, it seems like everyone and their mother is writing one. The reason is that there is no secret sauce and 95% of the magic is in the LLM itself and how it's been fine-tuned to do tool calls. One of the lead developers of Claude Code candidly admits this in a recent interview.[0] Of course, a ton of work goes into making these tools work well, but ultimately they all have the same simple core.
This is blatantly just increasing debt load. What does a business do if they need forever growth, but can’t increase their prices further without losing net revenue? Raise prices anyway and push people to finance it.
This is broadly not good for people. Financing things like your food or your rent (seriously - that’s a thing here) doesn’t help if they’re recurring. It’s not like people are gonna need to just finance one month’s rent payment and then they’re solvent and paying off the next 4 months normally plus installments. Really, what could structurally change in someone’s personal finances over a 6-8 week term? If you couldn’t afford a burrito or rent this week, what possible belief is there that next month you can afford that plus debt service.
The loans are just gonna stack and stack. Which will drive people into more debt, and more need for continued financing. This isn’t a multi billion dollar business because people just need a temporary boost once every year or two because their paycheck timing is off. It’s a flywheel money extraction machine.
Securitizing these debts doesn’t make them a good idea for the consumers. It makes it good for the industry so it can scale it up larger. Which means more people in more debt more of the time with “investors” extracting wealth from it.
Plus then there’s the whole systemic risk of people not paying back. They bake into the rates some percentage of defaults, and the larger the pool size the safer that gets. This systemically is a bet that no more than X% of loans will default at once. Basically shorting loan defaults.
Which is cute and all until any economic situation hits where a bunch more people suddenly can’t pay at the same time. In which case the whole thing unwinds brutally. And given that the play is to literally sell financial products that increase pressure on people’s ability to pay… this is probably super unwise. Combine that with any of the major structural economic issues we have ongoing and you’re poking a sleeping pressure cooker.
The only real questions are how much can be extracted before it explodes, and who is the ultimate bag holder at the end?
“If you thought 2008 was fun, well hold my beer…” - finance, probably
I've used both Cursor and Aider but I've always wanted something simple that I have full control on, if not just to understand how they work. So I made a minimal coding agent (with edit capability) that is fully functional using only seven tools: read, write, diff, browse, command, ask, and think.
I can just disable `ask` tool for example to have it easily go full autonomous on certain tasks.
I agree about the clickbait. As I come up on 50, however, I think there are a number of axes on which we can analyze aging.
Chronological age: there is no getting past getting older, you will age and it will be increasingly apparent with time.
Grooming and style: you can, nonetheless, choose to date yourself with your clothing and overall presentation, or not. This can be overdone and make you stand out “trying too hard” not to be old. But there’s a world of middle ground.
Physical: a mix of genetics, nutrition, exercise, access to medical care, self care, and luck. Some people slow down much more than others. Some people, like the author, simply choose to, having been relived of the expectation that younger folks be very busy.
Mentality: do you want to look at younger generations as an alien species, or do you want to deal with people as people and acknowledge that while we all have different backgrounds, new perspectives have their own value. I find I can still relate well to people of about any age. At some point mental decline may rob me of that, but I won’t stop while it’s in my control.
Interests: do you mostly enjoy media and activities particular to a time when you were younger, or do you have a penchant for novelty despite your age?
Interesting contrast with me - I never bothered with such questions, absolutely nobody from my peers did when growing up well into 20s. Eastern Europe raised way more normalized individuals (for their own purposes) than free world did who were not supposed to ask such questions (nobody stopped you from doing so, but you had to come with it on your own as inspiration was scarce).
Never projected any solid path, took every day as it went and just (rather well) recognized those crucial moments in life where choices are made that massively affect rest of the life. What to study, how hard to study, where to move (or not) after university, partners, if and which job to change, if and where to move further etc. But it was always just focus on now and maybe next step at most.
Anyway the path I ended up taking I wouldn't make up even in my wildest dreams. Surpassed expectations massively of all folks that knew me, be it peers or family. And overall it wasn't hard at all for me, but for others who would like to jump to last (most successful) moves it would be, since they didn't go through all those steps I did before.
Moved between 3 countries within Europe (nobody from my peers did that, max 1 and settle - nothing special on its own, but I came from very settle-asap environment). Increased my salary of Java dev cca 30-40x compared to first full time job with cca same role, ending up in maybe top 0.1% within Europe (I know, not SV, but still), while still just 100% employed (actually 90% now with 50 paid vacation days, what a deal). Living in more beautiful place than I imagined existed, in society I am proud to be part of that never ceases to amaze me (Switzerland). Backpacked the world in remote 3rd countries when most folks I know went for sunbathing at nearest beach. Picked up passions that nobody I knew back home did like climbing, alpinism, diving, ski touring, paragliding and so on.
Started very low, so far ended rather high. But it can all easily come crashing down like house of cards, well aware of that. Had a big paragliding accident last year, both legs broken, still some consequences. Good for yet another perspective alignment. Have properly wonderful small kids, thats main focus now. With kids, they take over life so effectively I don't have time nor even will for such questions. So focusing on now, and maybe next (small, not physical rather financial) move.
Am I person I used to be? Hell no I am completely different person, from core up to the rest, better, more resilient and tolerant, vastly more knowledgeable about people and world, yet always learning (ie this site is amazing for that, there is no topic not worthy learning)
This passage is from a book I read with my kids, in the "Mysterious Benedict Society" series. I like the way it describes how we become, in a sense, an accumulation of our selves, past and present. I also feel that way about some long-term friendships and other relationships.
> "And do you know what Nicholas said? I remember it plainly. He said that he doesn't believe that we become different people as we age. No, he says he believes we become _more_ people. We're still the kids we were, but we're also the people who've lived all the different ages since that time. A whole bunch of different people rolled up into one -- that's how Nicholas sees it. And I can't say that I disagree. How else to explain that sometimes I want to run and jump the way I used to -- but can't anymore -- yet at the same time enjoy sitting with a cup of coffee and a newspaper in a way you couldn't have paid me to do as a boy? Well, it's a wonder."
Here's another way this rings true. When I look at my wife, to whom I've been married for 17 years, I don't just see her as she is now. I see her as she has been ever since I've met her. I am married to a 44-year-old and a 24-year-old, and a woman of every age in between.
There is much to be said about the industry. Most game releases compete for significantly less than 20% of the net bookings each year. Others are black hole games (the multi-year/multi-decade lifespan games that attract players and hardly let go at all), accounting for about 30% of the annual net bookings. The top 20-30 franchises account for about 50%, and the 20,000 other games made annually account for about 20%. Of the 20%, the top 50 releases each year will take 19% of the bookings, with remaining 19k+ sharing the 1%.
Just like Facebook, the first-mover advantage has favored many now-established studios and franchises. They exploded game-development costs because they could, and funneled these costs into marketing and moat features indie developers could not build (such as huge open worlds, amazing sweaty character face wrinkle rendering tech, and SOTA systems). But many of these companies did not respect the player's wishes for well play-tested games with interesting stories and mechanics. Still, they captured the top 20-30 franchise part of the annual net bookings, and strongly compete in the top-50 game part. Some even built some black hole games (GTA Online, Rainbow Six: Siege, Fortnite). For a long time, they avoided much of the pressures felt strongly by smaller companies. They were "above" the 99% of games that have to compete for close to 1% of the revenues. Their marketing was so strong (plus, they strengthened it with access journalism) and features so moated, they could do no wrong.
However, over the last 5 years, things have changed. Many AAA industry legends have left their jobs at major studios to start small studios and create games as a form of interactive art, rather than to make publishers rich. Ultimately, in their view, the greed and blind following of what players would consume (trends) in large numbers led to a sterile industry that could no longer create art.
The growth engines got exhausted because players did not actually demand what they were offering, such as season passes, eSports corporate shooters, microtransactions, padded playtimes, user-generated content, and the other things. The new growth engines (AI, targeting kids, etc) are also what the players don't want very much. The industry understands it, and investors are starting to catch on after facing a decade of poor returns, too. The crucial point I am trying to make is that the industry spent a lot of money on these growth engines that the players didn't truly want, led by market metrics that genuinely showed they were consuming it. But now the gig is up, the writing is on the wall, and everyone inside and out of the industry sees it.
As a contrast, many Eastern companies (Nintendo is an especially prominent example) stuck to classic pricing models, did not inflate the cost of their games with their money for moat (most indie developers can make games to compete with Nintendo outside of the IP), and never used the growth engines used in the West. These companies, along with many people in them whom I know personally, are largely unaffected by the industry crisis. They were always making games their users wanted.
Finally, I have to say, the industry is split in two. 8/10 AAA companies are struggling because they cling to the growth engines (old and new) that the players don't want. About 2/10 game developers and publishers genuinely build games that people want, even in the West. And now that the pressure is up, some AAA executives from the 8/10ths are becoming acutely aware of this. Emphasis on "some". So, yes, the industry in some part was, is, and will continue to make games that players want. But the more interesting part for our discussion is the large part of it that wasn't, isn't, and perhaps won't be.
Of course, there's some probability I'm reading this wrong. I'm making my business bets in the industry based on it, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right.
And thanks for reading the report before engaging in the discussion. That is appreciated.
I envy the neurotypicals who can just form habits, 21 days or otherwise.
People are neurotypical rarely if ever understand what those with ADHD go through. The best description I've heard is that people with ADHD don't have habits: we have trauma.
The meaning of that is that neurotypicals have the capacity to simply go into a rom and do something. It almost passively happens. ADHD people do not. Even getting up in the morning involves 50 questions being mentally asked and answered. Do I need to take something to the bathroom? Did I run the dishwasher? Did I leave the heating on? Do I need to do laundry today? And I'm 5 seconds into my day.
A brain that seeks novelty quickly gets bored with reptition. The only way you form habits is by the trauma of the consequences of not having that habit.
B.J. Fogg makes this point in his book Tiny Habits. And his point *is* that you can form a habit in much less than 21 days, let alone 66.
This whole question revolves around the effort/reward ratio of a behavior. When people talk about ~21 days, they're talking about doing a hard thing until it's second nature and seems easy.
But there are other ways to make something seem easy, and there is another component in the ratio: reward. That is, even if effort stays the same, you can wire a habit by making the behavior more rewarding. (This is why people are able to get addicted to a substance after one dose -- because they can't forget the state they entered ... and it was so easy to get there.)
So the takeaway here is the you can wire habits by decreasing the amount of effort to do something that you think is good for you -- eg if you want to hydrate more, place a glass near the sink so you drink water when you get out of bed in the morning -- *and* by increasing the reward. The whole trick is getting the ratio right.
Cliche Silicon Valley example. I did an ice plunge, and it gave me a day long plunger's high. I didn't need to plunge for 21 days to get the habit. I started doing it 3 times a week after that, because I knew what I had to do to feel good.
This actually gets to something Huberman calls "duration-path-outcome". Getting clarity on what you have to do (path); how long it will take (duration); and what the payoff is (outcome), can do wonders for motivation. Confusion kills action (and for that matter, all deals, since habits are just deals we make with ourselves). If you can get clarity, reduce the effort, and increase the amount of reward and your confidence in it, I think you can get to new habits really quickly.
I suspect there're other factors to forming habits.
Forming a running habit is probably harder than say heroin.
I also recall from the "atomic habits" book, that you can chain habits together.
The idea was that if you already have a habit of getting out of bed in the morning, you could hydrate. Just say "as soon as I get out of bed, drink a glass of water" and it is easier to form the habit.
There’s a weird gap in the modern world when it comes to travel, which is traveling as a group / society. In the distant past it was very common for entire societies to be nomadic. You’d have both your friends and family + movement around the globe.
On the other hand, the solo traveler is a recent phenomenon largely enabled by 20th century technology and political developments.
I know there are programs which travel the world as a group, but they tend to be very ends-focused (“startup travelers”) etc.
So, the era of time when the Earth had open, undefined spaces (“smooth space” as defined by the philosopher Deleuze) seems to be basically over forever, barring an apocalyptic event. We might have to wait for new planets to see nomadic societies existing again.
I know that a quotation is not necessarily an endorsement, but this is a fantastically short-sighted idea.
> it becomes increasingly burdensome for the United States to finance the provision of reserve assets
How dare countries want pictures of dead Presidents so badly that... they're willing to send real goods to the United States for its consumption, with no expectation of reciprocation.
> and the defense umbrella
... and agree to a de-facto policy of minimal militarization, such that they could not pose a threat to America's global security interests, no matter what it decides those are.
A few hundred years ago, this would look like a tribute system. It's unfathomable that a nation in such a privileged position would decide it's tired of such a systematic set of advantages.
> as the manufacturing and tradeable sectors bear the brunt of the costs...
What's the saying, they've tried nothing and are all out of ideas? Industrial policy is a known and understood thing. The US has this in its defense sector even it doesn't want to admit it, and the CHIPS act was another attempt for the semiconductor industry.
This sort of policy is far more targeted and far less disruptive than blowing up international supply chains in hope of repatriating sweat-shop sneaker sewers and factories for five cent injection molded widgets.
Just because computers weren't around 40-50 years ago doesn't mean that computers won't be very handy to have around in a post-collapse world. Technology is very much path-dependent: the future does not look like the past, and incorporates everything that has happened up to that point. The world after the collapse of the Roman Empire did not look at all like the world before the Roman Republic, and incorporated many of the institutions and infrastructure left behind by the Roman Empire. It continued to use Roman coinage, for example, the Latin language, Roman roads, Roman provincial government, and so on.
The point of having computers is simply that they perform certain tasks orders of magnitude faster than humans. They're a tool, no more and no less. Before computers, a "calculator" was a person with paper and a slide rule, and you needed hundreds of them to do something like compute artillery trajectories, army logistics, machine tool curves, explosive lensing, sending rockets into space, etc. Managing to keep just one solar-powered calculator working for 10 years after a collapse frees up all those people to do things like farming. Keeping a solar-powered electric tractor working frees up all those farmers, and frees up the animals for eating.
IMHO this project is at least operating under the right principles, i.e. make the software work on scavenged parts, control your dependencies, be efficient with your computations, focus on things you can't do with humans.
> Code quantity is not correlated with value. In fact, it can be negatively correlated with value if it's buggy and laden with technical debt.
** "No Code" or Nihilist Software Engineering **
No code runs faster than no code.
No code has fewer bugs than no code.
No code uses less memory than no code.
No code is easier to understand than no code.
No code is the best way to have secure and reliable applications. Write nothing; deploy nowhere.
One of my most productive days was throwing away 1,000 lines of code. -- Ken Thompson
The cheapest, fastest, and most reliable components are those that aren’t there. -- Gordon Bell
Deleted code is debugged code. -- Jeff Sickel
Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight. -- Bill Gates
* Master Foo and the Ten Thousand Lines *
Master Foo once said to a visiting programmer: “There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”
The programmer, who was very proud of his mastery of C, said: “How can this be? C is the language in which the very kernel of Unix is implemented!”
Master Foo replied: “That is so. Nevertheless, there is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”
The programmer grew distressed. “But through the C language we experience the enlightenment of the Patriarch Ritchie! We become as one with the operating system and the machine, reaping matchless performance!”
Master Foo replied: “All that you say is true. But there is still more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”
The programmer scoffed at Master Foo and rose to depart. But Master Foo nodded to his student Nubi, who wrote a line of shell script on a nearby whiteboard, and said: “Master programmer, consider this pipeline. Implemented in pure C, would it not span ten thousand lines?”
The programmer muttered through his beard, contemplating what Nubi had written. Finally he agreed that it was so.
“And how many hours would you require to implement and debug that C program?” asked Nubi.
“Many,” admitted the visiting programmer. “But only a fool would spend the time to do that when so many more worthy tasks await him.”
“And who better understands the Unix-nature?” Master Foo asked. “Is it he who writes the ten thousand lines, or he who, perceiving the emptiness of the task, gains merit by not coding?”
Upon hearing this, the programmer was enlightened.
“Almost every software development organization has at least one developer who takes tactical programming to the extreme: a tactical tornado. The tactical tornado is a prolific programmer who pumps out code far faster than others but works in a totally tactical fashion. When it comes to implementing a quick feature, nobody gets it done faster than the tactical tornado. In some organizations, management treats tactical tornadoes as heroes. However, tactical tornadoes leave behind a wake of destruction. They are rarely considered heroes by the engineers who must work with their code in the future. Typically, other engineers must clean up the messes left behind by the tactical tornado, which makes it appear that those engineers (who are the real heroes) are making slower progress than the tactical tornado.” ― John Ousterhout, A Philosophy of Software Design
"Peter Turchin, one of the most interesting social scientists of our age, has infused the study of history with approaches and insights from other fields for more than a quarter century. End Times is the culmination of his work to understand what causes political communities to cohere and what causes them to fall apart, as applied to the current turmoil within the United States.
Back in 2010, when Nature magazine asked leading scientists to provide a ten-year forecast, Turchin used his models to predict that America was in a spiral of social disintegration that would lead to a breakdown in the political order circa 2020. The years since have proved his prediction more and more accurate, and End Times reveals why.
The lessons of world history are clear, Turchin argues: When the equilibrium between ruling elites and the majority tips too far in favor of elites, political instability is all but inevitable. As income inequality surges and prosperity flows disproportionately into the hands of the elites, the common people suffer, and society-wide efforts to become an elite grow ever more frenzied. He calls this process the wealth pump; it’s a world of the damned and the saved. And since the number of such positions remains relatively fixed, the overproduction of elites inevitably leads to frustrated elite aspirants, who harness popular resentment to turn against the established order. Turchin’s models show that when this state has been reached, societies become locked in a death spiral it's very hard to exit."
> I was discussing with a friend that my biggest concern with AI right now is not that it isn't capable of doing things... but that we switched from research/academic mode to full value extraction so fast that we are way out over our skis in terms of what is being promised, which, in the realm of exciting new field of academic research is pretty low-stakes all things considered... to being terrifying when we bet policy and economics on it.
That isn't overly prescient or anything... it feels like the alarm bells started a while ago... but wow the absolute "all in" of the bet is really starting to feel like there is no backup. With the cessation of EVs tax credits, the slowdown in infra spending, healthcare subsidies, etc, the portfolio of investment feels much less diverse...
Especially compared to China, which has bets in so many verticals, battery tech, EVs, solar, then of course all the AI/chips/fabs. That isn't to say I don't think there are huge risks for China... but geez does it feel like the setup for a big shift in economic power especially with change in US foreign policy.