According to Crunchbase, Massdrop raised ~92 MM through their series C, and then another ~40 MM in debt over the last couple years.
There is no way that MassDrop was ever going to justify that kind of capital investment. VC is such an inefficient and frankly delusional form of capital deployment at this point -- they have no idea what they're doing. It ironically looks a lot like central planning, where the VCs themselves invest with the intention of picking the winners and losers themselves.
This company should've bootstrapped and remained small-and-manageable. Not every business, not even most businesses, should raise money with the intention of becoming a "unicorn," it is nonsensical and this model has a lot of deleterious effects for our society, namely and most obviously enshittification when the outcome doesn't justify the investment.
> VC is such an inefficient and frankly delusional form of capital deployment
Can you suggest other saner forms? For example, having experts pick, government pick, or only one single debt instruments all have problems with the kinds of investments VC funds, not to mention that they also have their share of ludicrous and bad investments.
Also please suggest how you’d stop VC as is at its core a private investment club - you and other investors get together to invest capital into a profitable but risky venture. The only way to stop it would be to either ban private capital or to ban coordination of capital which on net ends up significantly worse.
Nobody needs to stop VC or speculation.
The issue is that society has been structured to subsidize hyper speculation, which current VC landscape is a symptom
1. Large firms investing in early r&d instead of aquisition.
2. Its a symptom of decades of poor economic policy rewarding speculation, to a scale that impacts society by disencentivizing stable investments that benefit humanity. Main lever causing this is through Federal reserve poor policy since 200
Large firms investing in early r&d happens regardless. It does not explain how you build new business on an idea you can’t convince large org politics to try.
It’s also what Xerox and Bell labs were doing in the 70s and what Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft etc are doing today but it took smaller more nimble players to actually do anything with the research. Case in point: transformers came from Google.
Sure I agree and good points. But my view is moreso in the scale of VC operations being a symptom of excess speculation, and society would be better off with stable investments. They are poor stewards of capital, and subsidized by the federal reserve.
I really don't think AI is undermining your competitiveness if you have a unique perspective that other people value. You don't have to build a product that drives a company to IPO, you can just build software that other people value and make yourself a sustainable income.
Great products are built on top of unique perspectives gained through a lifetime of individuation and a lot of time thinking and tinkering and trying. Unfortunately, even before LLMs, tech has been languishing in a lack of vision surrounding the "iterative mindset," where only velocity matters. But as they say: the electric light did not come from the continuous improvement of candles. I'd also note: there are many companies that failed because they went to market too early (I started one where this was the case!).
If all white collar work is dead, then we're all truly fucked, and if that's the case, why not invest your time into what you find beautiful? If that is software, what kind of software would align with your values?
(I ping pong between this perspective and yours also FWIW)
I can also tell you: I've seen a couple vibe coded codebases, and they are scary and unmaintainable. Your decades of experience is still valuable, don't let the non-technical idea people talk you out of your value.
This is a classic HN mistaking the map for the territory. R&D and capex absolutely figure into de-facto profitability and sustainability for AI labs, despite their separate treatment in accounting.
> well most of us here on HN have benefited from decades of overinflated engineering salaries being paid by often companies that were not profitable and not only unprofitable
This is a really concerning perspective: people were paid what they were worth. Software is or was one of the few remaining arenas wherein a person can find a middle or upper middle class lifestyle consistently.
I will also note: a startup raising an 8 MM series A and eventually fizzling out is not the same at the hundreds of billions invested in these AI companies without a path to profitability. It is utterly absurd to pretend these are the same thing: any company ingesting that much cash needs to justify its capacity to survive.
> any company ingesting that much cash needs to justify its capacity to survive.
What, why? There are tons of low-margin capex-intensive business out there.
I think AI will end up like being like hosting. All the models will converge to being pretty-decent and the companies will have to compete on efficiency since they are selling a generic commodity.
You can already see Anthropic fears this scenario since they try so hard to make people use their first-party tools rather than plugging Claude in as a generic part of a third-party stack.
> Software is or was one of the few remaining arenas wherein a person can find a consistently.
I want to add something additional to this: it is one of the few fields that can afford middle or upper middle class lifestyle and is accessible.
I have no doubt if I could redo my life with the necessary resources I’d be more than capable of putting myself through med school and gone with a secure career that paid more than I ever made in software.
But at this stage of life? I don’t have the time or money to spend a decade+ paying some institution tens of thousands of dollars to hopefully maybe have a real career.
Once software as a career dies, I suspect many will find themselves locked out the middle class for generations.
It was kind of a flash in the pan moment where you could leave your retail floor manager job, crash course this thing called "javascript" in a 3 month class, and then get hired for a six figure remote job if you could choke out a mildly competent github repo.
Exactly. I don’t know why folks take so much offense to it. You could absolutely do just as you describe. Spend 3-4 hours truly working while enjoying the lunch today sessions and in-house lunch and barista. I definitely benefited from this and I am not ashamed of it but absolutely it was this weird moment in time.
> I suspect many will find themselves locked out the middle class for generations.
On the other hand, once software as a high paying career dies there will be nothing to prop up the status quo (high cost of housing, for example) so the middle class will return to being much more accessible to modestly paid jobs.
> Software is or was one of the few remaining arenas wherein a person can find a consistently
Software salary inflation and expansion has made this the case. Tech’s accessibility to the educated has accelerated gentrification massively, rising up prices on rent and food. While the statement is correct, tech’s contribution to income inequality is part of the issue. If you’ve lived in Austin or Chicago (especially Austin) prior to ~2010 you’ll have seen this first hand.
I don't think there are enough well-paid tech workers to affect things like the (national) market for food. Local rent markets are at least partly explained by this; I agree that the $3M houses near Palo Alto, CA are because of Big Tech salaries, but not the price of ground beef.
Not at the nationally owned chain grocery store, but at local establishments it’s certainly an issue and prices out longtime residents who don’t work in this industry.
Rent prices push everything up in the local market. Housing rents impact business rents in an area, as well as what the business’ owners and employees need to maintain their own lifestyles. People who live there now can pay more and will, so prices go up. But the local shop owner isn’t getting rich, they’re still struggling as everything around them rises.
> This is a really concerning perspective: people were paid what they were worth.
Even interpreting what-they-were-worth in the usual sense, I’m not so sure about this. We have seen wage collusion reported by the usual US West Coast-based companies. And some news on here[1] have reported that some engineer with a salary of $100K[2] might be producing $1M of value. And even factoring in the usual “but benefits and overhead” comes out to a solid factor of profit per programmer/engineer.
Despite that the sense I get (only from this site since that is my only reference) is that the so-called overpaid engineers are incredibly content to just have this happen to them. As long as they are paid well compared to other workers, it’s fine. No matter the profit factor. In fact, the discourse is very much focused on how “privileged” they were if the tide ever changes. Instead of realizing how much value they provided, collectively.
Outlets for capturing more of the value they create is entrepreneurship (Hello HN). Never any collective organizing. And entrepenurship is easily bought via aqcuisition.
Collective bargaining would have been relevant in case they ever get automated... by the very software they co-created.
One could imagine that this “privileged” collection of programmers could have served as a vanguard for the collective good of programming professionals as well as collective ownership of software goods, using their privilege to that end. The former never happened, and the latter is partly realized in people’s free time (see the OSS maintainer in Nebraska meme).[3]
[1] All from recollection since this is just news from the Frontier to me
[2] Of course the pay might be much higher now; this might have been a while ago
[3] when it isn’t simply exploited by corporations just using OSS without giving any back; a logical turn of events when no license or law forces them to contribute back
Yes, really. At least in the USA, you only get to collect unemployment if you are laid off -- if you are fired for cause, or leave your job of your own volition, you are not eligible.
> This is a really concerning perspective: people were paid what they were worth.
The parent comment doesn't discount that, only pointing out that "what they were worth" was inflated due to a speculative environment. Wherein lies your concern?
That prices change from one point in time to another is a trivial fact.
“Inflated due to a speculative environment” is not an accurate way to frame labor prices that held for many years. At that point, the prices were simply high due to high demand relative to supply (compared to other types of labor).
> At that point, the prices were simply high due to high demand relative to supply
That goes without saying. The investigation here is into demand. Which was said to be overinflated due to speculation. As noted, many of the companies hiring the developers did not have viable businesses.
I think calling it inflated is to play to a narrative that labor was overvalued broadly in tech.
Salaries across industries in the US have remained flat since the 1970s. Calling the one sector that can provide access a middle class lifestyle inflated s to play into a narrative capital is eager to tell, even if OP didn't intend that.
> Salaries across industries in the US have remained flat since the 1970s
What do you mean? The real (meaning adjusted for inflation) hourly wage in the US has increased by around 20% since 1970.
What has changed since the 1970s is that wages are no longer coupled to productivity. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of? But that should be an obvious truism for anyone in tech. We create the very things that cause that to be the case!
That NeoLiberal shift did not take place in a vacuum. It was a product of the world around it. It absolutely was caused by tech.
If we — those with the power to build the productivity creators — took a stand and said "we refuse to create tech for the interests of the few" it would have never happened. But, instead, we welcomed it and are responsible for it.
The corollary of “if we took a stand” is that Capital took a stand and collectively undid a lot of the gains of the post-WWII social democratic order.
So no. It wasn’t caused by tech beyond the uninteresting factors like modern society being complex and, of course, that tech developments influence things (pretty much all things).
The productivity gains we've seen above the capacity of human productivity would have been impossible without tech. It absolutely was caused by tech.
The benefactor of those gains was also entirely decided by those who created the tech. We could have given use of that tech to everyone. In some cases we actually did (e.g. open source), but in most cases we gained (at least partial) ownership of the capital so it was in our best personal economic interest to keep it for ourselves and our close friends.
> The productivity gains we've seen above the capacity of human productivity would have been impossible without tech. It absolutely was caused by tech.
Would have been impossible without and being caused by are different things.
The sense of being “caused by” in a political context are the people who have the power to direct things. Which are not necessarily the people who implement something.
> The benefactor of those gains was also entirely decided by those who created the tech.
You assert that they were decided by. Based on what?
The vast majority of tech work was done in employment, either for some government or for private entities. The private entitites were controlled by Capital. The governments were controlled by democratic forces and Capital.
> We could have given use of that tech to everyone. In some cases we actually did (e.g. open source),
Again I reference the meme of Overworked Nebraska OSS Maintainer.
The impressive work done on OSS by tech workers directly have been done in their free time. The bulk of OSS work done by people as a living is probably through corporations like e.g. Intel working on the Linux Kernel.[1]
That impressive free time work has gotten the reputation as a treasure trove for the highly motivated and tech literate. In contrast to something that regular people can plug-and-play as an alternative to Big Tech dominance.
> , but in most cases we gained (at least partial) ownership of the capital so it was in our best personal economic interest to keep it for ourselves and our close friends.
Yes, well played. For those that got away with their financial-independence millions. For the rest, well, I guess they never managed to learn the moral lesson of Monopoly.
While you are right to recognize that there was some attempt to inject political context, it was not there originally, and is not the main discussion taking place. The fact that wages and productivity have become decoupled is not inherently political. It is but simple mathematics. Tech is the cause for the decoupling; it is why we have been able to become continually more productive and at an accelerating rate.
> The vast majority of tech work was done in employment
Yes, but generally even where employment is present tech workers also demand a share in ownership (e.g. stock). Tech doesn't invent itself. At least not yet. The workers have held the cards. Even those who haven't won the lottery are still in a pretty good economic position, relatively speaking.
> While you are right to recognize that there was some attempt to inject political context, it was not there originally, and is not the main discussion taking place.
I don’t care if anyone wants political context to be there or not. Political context is not some subjective choice that the participants in a discussion can choose to be the case or not, like some alternative history exercise.
This political context (i.e. reality) called NeoLiberalism is so well-researched and argued that I can just call it NeoLiberalism and even a forum full of techheads don’t bat an eye. Which is more than can be said for your incoherent nuh-uh where both:
- Technology just determines things by itself
- And (also) the rank and file peons who implement technology could have forced something better on the world (than the pile of shit that we have)
Oh come on there are no “classic HN mistakes” here. Inference is profitable but bottom line is not yet. This is a very young industry and unlike those of the past, it’s much easier to picture a possibility of profitability. It’s absolutely different in that the marginal cost scales linear but solving for the R&D portion of a product where supply cannot keep up is a lot easier than some SaaS where the underlying product is not being used.
The salary jab was probably a little harsh.
Your ending is a bit of a fizzle too. There are many capex intense businesses that do just fine.
I don't quite remember the details, but there's a fascinating section in Julian Jaynes's "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" where he talks about how metaphors condense down into more complex forms, and as they do they unlock new realities previously impossible to fathom. The classical example here is the simultaneous discovery of calculus by Newton and Leibniz: the larger context defines what is possible.
I was recently running myself through a thought experiment similar to the author here: if LLMs truly do make generation of ideas cheap (I'm still a skeptic here even within software), then as soon as products enter the public awareness they become trivial to reproduce. For example, in a prompt like: "Uber but for babysitters," "Uber for" is doing a tremendous amount of work. Before Uber, its model, UX, modes of engagement would've taken pages and pages to describe, but after, it becomes comparatively much cheaper.
... in this way, LLMs could cheapen ideas and creativity so much that they make other factors (which are already the weighing functions) more important, and I think the imbalance here is deeply troubling. Those factors are namely network effects (existing customers, brand recognition, existing relationships, capital). And when balance is shifted more toward network effects, it means that the whole system becomes more brittle because it makes it even harder to boot out incumbents.
There are a whole slew of issues with LLMs, particularly around their intended devaluation of labor, and we aren't talking enough about them.
I think executives are excited about AI because it confirms their worldview: that the work is a commodity and the real value lies in orchestration and strategy.
It doesn't help that the west has a clear bias wherein moving "up" is moving away from the work. Many executives often don't know what good looks like at the detail level, so they can't evaluate AI output quality.
I think another part of it is that AI tools demo really well, easily hiding how imperfect and limited they are when people see a contrived or cherry-picked example. Not a lot of people have a good intuition for this yet. Many people understand "a functional prototype is not a production app" but far fewer people understand "an AI that can be demonstrated to write functional code is not a software engineer" because this reality is rapidly evolving. In that rapidly evolving reality, people are seeing a lot of conflicting information, especially if you consider that a lot of that information is motivated (eg, "ai is bad because it's bad to fire engineers" which, frankly, will not be compelling to some executives out there). Whatever the new reality is going to be, we're not going to find out one step at a time. A lot of lessons are going to be learned the hard way.
Another thing that I think is critical: AI (by default) responds to you like the leadership-idealized version of an employee: Totally subservient, humble, pleasant, endlessly excited, and always, always telling you that you're absolutely right. AI is like an energetic intern who knows his place on the totem pole and wants to please. The kind of Yes Man, I'll Do It Man that CEOs consider the ideal employee.
Yes, and they work really well for small side projects that an exec probably used to try out the LLM.
But writing code in one clean discrete repo is (esp. at a large org) only a part of shipping something.
Over time, I think tooling will get better at the pieces surrounding writing the code though. But the human coordination / dependency pieces are still tricky to automate.
MD here, of a really small company (and I'm not a doctor).
I'm (mildly) excited by LLMs because I love a new shiny tool that does appear to have quite some utility.
My analogy these days is a screwdriver. Let's ignore screw development for now.
The first screwdrivers, which we still use, are slotted and have a habit of slipping sideways and jumping (camming out). That's err before LLMs ... something ... something.
Fast forward and we have Philips and Pozi and electric drivers. Yes there were ratchet jobs, and I still have one but the cordless electric drilldriver is nearly as magical as the Dr Who sonic effort! That's your modern LLM that is.
Now a modern drilldriver can wrench your wrist if you are not careful and brace properly. A modern LLM will hallucinate like a nineties raver on ecstasy but if you listen carefully and phrase your prompts carefully and ignore the chomping teeth and keep them hydrated, you may get something remarkable out of the creature 8)
Now I only use Chat at the totally free level but I do run several on-prem models using ollama and llama.cpp (all compiled from source ... obviously).
I love a chat with the snappily named "Qwen3.5-35B-A3B-UD-Q4_K_XL" but I'm well aware that it is like an old school Black and Decker off of the noughties and not like my modern De Walt wrist knackerers. I've still managed to get it to assist me to getting PowerDNS running with DNSSEC and LUA and configuring LACP and port channel/trunking and that on several switch brands.
> I'm (mildly) excited by LLMs because I love a new shiny tool that does appear to have quite some utility.
I really think a lot of folks were conned by a smooth operator and a polished demo, so now everyone has to suffer though having this nebulous thing rammed down our throats regardless of its real utility because people with higher pay grades believe it has utility.
It feels like a lot of “AI is inevitable; you are failing to make this abundant future inevitable by your skepticism.”
> Your team's screwdriver usage is only 30% of the company's target. 80% of other teams at Taylor Manufacturing Co. are leveraging Screw Driving tools more often as a regular part of their daily work. If your team doesn't improve, we'll need to come up with a retraining plan.
> But we're the accounting team?
> Doesn't matter. This is a SD-Native company now. We believe everyone can be more productive with an SD-based workflow.
Classic kafka trap! The mere sign of resistance is a sign of a deeper psychological incompatibility that fundamentally needs to be worked through until you agree with the state.
>A modern LLM will hallucinate like a nineties raver on ecstasy but if you listen carefully and phrase your prompts carefully and ignore the chomping teeth and keep them hydrated, you may get something remarkable out of the creature 8)
One hundred percent. Leadership consolidating around like the rebirth of offshoring.
For the record all your prompts are tracked and easily viewable by whoever oversees it at your company. Don't prompt more than you have to and certainly don't give it your best ids. This is value at scale.
Jeff Bezos famously said “your margin is my opportunity,” I feel like Steve Jobs could’ve just as easily said “your slop is my opportunity.” (And he sort of did with “insanely great”)
I don’t think so. The article is about a manager who thinks in systems and an individual contributor preoccupied with process work. The GP comment gets closer to incentives.
Indeed. Even the ur-craftsman, John Carmack, says that delivering value to customers is pretty much the only thing that matters in development. If AI lets you do that faster, cheaper, you'd be a fool not to use it. There's a reason why it's virtually a must in professional software engineering now.
Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, lubricants, cosmetics. Dow chemical just doubled the cost of polyethylene as of April 1st. Taiwan relies on LNG for 40% of its energy production and has 11 days of LNG storage--meaning it may have to consider limiting industrial electricity use if things persist. I will clarify based on a reply, this doesn't mean they'll run out in that time, but that they have limited runway that will have deleterious effects as time goes on:
> Yeh Tsung-kuang, a professor in the Department of Engineering and System Science at National Tsing Hua University, said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period.
Even if the Strait saw normal traffic today (and Iran is incentivized and well-positioned to keep it closed for a while), it would take quite a while to recover lost supply. Iran continues to employ a tit-for-tat strategy and Israel just targeted steel industry in the country -- I'm not even taking into account more deliberate damage to energy infrastructure in the Mid east.
This is a scary crisis wherein the most movable actor (the US) is not going to accept Iran's terms. It could collapse the global economy, and that crucially includes the AI industry this forum loves to focus on almost exclusively. The US and the majority of the west has essentially no fiscal room compared to the comparably lesser 1970s crises either. This could easily spiral out of control and cause a level of suffering across the world (esp the global south) most of us on this forum have not lived to see.
Before calling it "the worst", I'd like more detail on how to do the comparison with the oil crises of the 1970's. My guess is that modern economies might be somewhat less oil-dependent than they were then, because the alternatives are more developed.
They are more developed, sure, and the US (from a US centric view) is producing a lot of oil now. However, consider that pretty much all of the goods you see in the supermarket got there via diesel (trains, semi-trucks). The percentage of semi-trucks operating on electricity is still miniscule at this point. Air transport? All petroleum. Consider also other things like fertilizers - we're heavily dependent on nitrogen fertilizers derived from petroleum and planting season in the northern hemisphere is starting right about now. Yes we're producing a lot more electricity with renewables, but demand is also up.
During the 1973–74 Arab oil embargo, the disruption removed approximately 4.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) from the market, which constituted about
7% of the global oil supply at the time. This disruption significantly impacted global supplies.
20% is a lot more than 7%. This could be worse than 1973-74.
As a 10year-old in 1973 I remember spending a lot of time in the backseat of the station wagon as we were waiting line line for gas.
For context, during the first COVID spring (March-June 2020) oil demand fell by 20%. Because nobody was driving or flying anywhere. That's what it took to cut 20%.
Yes, couldn't make either face masks or toilet paper during covid. Most people will find out how fragile everything is with idiot MBAs optimizing just-in-time for better quarterly reports!
To look at it another way, we're a lot more globalised than in the 1970s. Resources halfway across the planet that you never even knew you depended on can shut you down when they suddenly go away.
> Ressources can be diverted at a much quicker rate with a lot more agility.
That's completely incorrect.
Covid demonstrated that. We have optimized so strongly for profit (outsource everything, just in time inventory, etc.) that we have no robustness in the face of disruption. There are now single chokepoints everywhere.
Yes, we could retool. But nobody will retool without a check from somebody. Everybody will simply hold their breath waiting for the crisis to pass. Everybody held their breath for Covid; they will absolutely do so with the knowledge that the orange clown will disappear in two years.
Before calling it "the worst", I'd like more detail on how to do the comparison with the oil crises of the 1970's.
There's a graph in today's (March 28/29) Wall Street Journal that does exactly that, and shows that what's happening now is both currently slightly worse than the 1970's, and the worst oil shock in history.
> Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, lubricants, cosmetics. Dow chemical just doubled the cost of polyethylene as of April 1st. Taiwan relies on LNG for 40% of its energy production and has like 10 days of fuel left--semis are implicated.
This is, on the high end, 20% of the use of fossil fuels. We overwhelmingly burn oil and gas. If we displaced the burning, Hormuz would not matter (or would minimally matter for a few molecules) and the world would be awash in abundant supplies.
Renewable investment would solve/would have prevented this crisis.
You could visit an alternate timeline where you have as much renewable investment into energy as you'd like going back decades and while it would help with the fertiliser situation massively it wouldn't solve the problem of needing a supply of carbon atoms to make the carbon-based substances in the list.
You can't make insulin, brake fluid or PVC out of electricity alone.
> Millions of factories, farmers, and households have switched to cheap solar panels from China, driving a 40% drop in Pakistan’s fossil fuel imports between 2022 and 2024, the researchers found. Additionally, the country is estimated to have saved $12 billion through reduced LNG imports in the past five years as cumulative imports of Chinese photovoltaics soared past 50 gigawatts, the report said.
> The policy paper Electrons In, Hydrocarbons Out: Pakistan’s Quest for Economic and Resource Efficiency found that up to $120 billion in future fuel imports could be avoided over the lifetime of the 48 GW of solar modules Pakistan had imported as of June 2025. The study’s co-author, Nabiya Imran, told pv magazine that with solar module imports into Pakistan now totaling 51.5 GW, around $180 billion in fossil fuel imports could be avoided. Imran added these solar imports could generate a total 1,730 TWh over their lifetime.
The West is doing everything it can to limit solar from China. Which is idiotic, we should be trading anything and everything for those low cost panels from China.
> it wouldn't solve the problem of needing a supply of carbon atoms to make the carbon-based substances in the list.
How many of that could be substituted with biomass? We're already making natural gas replacements using feces, food and agricultural waste, and we're making diesel fuel replacements - in case of doubt, at least older diesel engines can burn straight olive, sunflower or rapeseed oil, just modern ones will possibly incur expensive damage in the high-pressure fuel distribution section.
> You can't make insulin, brake fluid or PVC out of electricity alone.
Insulin is made with GMO bacteria these days, so all we need is something to feed the bacteria with, IIRC it's glucose which you can easily create from any sort of starch-containing plant.
You don't have to get carbon from oil extracted from underground and you don't have to get oil from the middle east. That's merely where the bulk of it happens to come from at present for price and historical reasons.
Nothing here challenges the assertion of the parent comment.
Fossil fuels are why climate change is occurring. Reducing FFs to near-zero would slow or stop climate change and allow the finite supply of oil to be used for the things you mention.
Hormuz might not matter that much in the future since Saudi and the other countries will build even more pipelines and ports which are on the other side. Short-term is dire though.
That would require some super effective anti air. Otherwise such a pipeline is an easy target.
And even the most anti air protected place on earth - Negev plant near Dimona city got hit with a warning shot. And they have 3 or 4 layers of anti air, most of them doubled (both US and Isreaeli). It's impossible to protect multiple pipelines to that extent.
And Isreal just said that they will keep attacking Iran no matter any peace deals or armistice.
The only logical course of action for Iran is to go down swinging, taking the rest of the world with them.
Tit for tat usually. Dimona strike in particular was:
"Commander of the IRGC's Aerospace Force, Brigadier General Seyyed Majid Mousavi, says that every ultimatum given to Iran is an act of war. Adds that the Iranian strikes on the strategic points in Dimona and Haifa in recent hours were in response to the US' 2 and 5 day threats."
You can, and should, over the entirety of europe apart from the northern parts of the nordic countries electric heat pumps are now simply more efficient than gas powered furnaces. This is true even if powered by gas based electricity - but obviously makes it possible to power them via renewables as well.
People in Quebec (Canada), which is colder than just about all of Europe, have been providing heating in winter using renewables for decades (thanks to an excess of renewables).
There are a gazillion battery techs being developed right now (regular lithium ion - with variations like NMC, LFP, ...), solid state lithion ion, sodium ion.
You can over provision solar as someone said.
There's geothermal, tidal, etc.
Long distance high voltage electricity transmission at scale.
Electricity is a marvel and we're just starting to scratch the surface of what we can do with it. Betting against it is like betting against electronics, a risky proposition.
For sure. Heat pumps aren't the best option everywhere (though modern heat pumps probably function acceptably at lower temperatures than most people realize), but if you need to do electric heating, they are the best option most places.
For "human" temperatures don't they just degrade back to the efficiency of resistive heating? Or are some places actually cold enough to push the factor below 1?
You’re choosing willful ignorance if you think petrochemicals will be replaced by renewables in your lifetime.
It isn’t going to happen. Planes don’t run on solar. Boats don’t run on renewables. The lubricant needed for wind turbines comes out of the earth. Dams need the same lubricant. Building roads, oil. Installing renewable infrastructure, oil. Running combines to harvest vegetation, oil. Building renewables requires massive amounts of oil.
Renewables are amazing and I’m all for them. Let’s keep that train rolling.
Oil isn’t going away, pretending otherwise is willful ignorance.
Oil isn't magic, you can just make it, and the reason we don't is merely that it's expensive to do that, whereas it's just there under the ground - as a fossil fuel.
But because you can just make it from ingredients everybody already has, this puts a ceiling on its actual price if you have energy independence. If you need to burn oil, you can't make oil because that's a vicious circle which would need even more oil. But so long as the only you want oil is for its other properties that's fine.
Hydrocarbons are incredibly simple, the clue is in their name, a bunch of Hydrogen (literally the most common element in the whole universe) and Carbon (also extremely common). The only reason not to make any particular hydrocarbons you need (e.g. to make JetA for a airliner) is it'd be very energy intensive and instead you can just distil some crude oil to get the hydrocarbons you want...
Strictly speaking, the oil in the Earth's crust is both finite and more than 50% already extracted.
However, a closed cycle of renewable-powered vehicles and processing sites growing crops for biorefineries which are then hydrocracked into the various petrochemical additives to maintain the infrastructure with surplus left over for the rest of society has been proven to be viable going back to the early 2010s.
Leong et al has a great survey of how the entire market of irreplaceable petrochemical uses (e.g. medical grade plastic) and their upstream steps (e.g. metal smelting for making agricultural vehicles) can theoretically be made to work from wind alone, with total immunity to peak oil when it does eventually happen. Although the carbon molecules are essential, having a no-oil well industrial civilization is just a matter of long and arduous implementation and negotiation with vested interests.
> It isn’t going to happen. Planes don’t run on solar. Boats don’t run on renewables. The lubricant needed for wind turbines comes out of the earth. Dams need the same lubricant. Building roads, oil. Installing renewable infrastructure, oil. Running combines to harvest vegetation, oil. Building renewables requires massive amounts of oil.
All of this? About 30% of oil usage on the high end. You are listing the small uses for oil.
May some oil always be needed? Yes. But nowhere near as much as we produce today.
On the low end, we will still synthesize what we need from whatever feed stock is available. Lots of pure industrial intermediate chemicals are synthesized out of natural gas.
Oil will not be viable for transportation and heating very soon due to market pressure alone.
> This is, on the high end, 20% of the use of fossil fuels. We overwhelmingly burn oil and gas. If we displaced the burning, Hormuz would not matter (or would minimally matter for a few molecules) and the world would be awash in abundant supplies.
Nobody is sending construction boats out into the various seas on batteries and prayers, to construct turbines. The foundation on which these turbines rest, in the sea, were in no way constructed with renewable energy. The cables were not build, dragged across the sea, and connected, using renewable energy. The transmission lines from the land to a switching station were not built or maintained with renewables.
I'm in boss, I'm in on renewables. Lets fucking go. I'm just not ignoring the whole story.
>This could easily spiral out of control and cause a level of suffering across the world (esp the global south) most of us on this forum have not lived to see.
Daily anxiety attack thanks. As a european I think we are way too vulnerable. Countries divided, rich getting richer, more and more poor people who can barely afford food, and that's in Europe let alone talk about what happens with the poor in Africa and Asia.
Sooner or later we will need a global reset but that sounds worse than everything else
It's an apocalyptical mind-bug. All times have an eschatology - ours seems to be climate collapse. It used to be nuclear war.
The media is selling a story. In reality everything is still getting better. People are healthier, richer, and better off in almost every measurable way, all over the world, including Africa and Asia.
Yes, there are some dark clouds. A long list. But the problems - even a long war in the middle east, are bumps in the road, not a cliff. If the clouds turns out to be a really bad storm, people will buckle down and sort it.
Go watch a big chimney stack being demolished. It hangs around in the air for a long time, before it is suddenly gone. But it’s definitely collapsing the whole time.
> If the clouds turns out to be a really bad storm, people will buckle down and sort it.
That'd be cool if it were true, but it isn't. The people with the economic and political power to do anything about it are massively profiting off the storm and care more about that than the damage the storm will do.
Why do you think they are all literally building end-times style bunkers these days?
Is global economic collapse not an eschatological scenario?
When you say "everything is still getting better", what do you mean? Because the price of fuel and food, isn't getting better. It seems to be getting worse. Your version of "reality" doesn't seem to reflect the experience of a lot of people.
> people will buckle down and sort it.
It's an interesting series of words that don't say a lot. There is much to wonder about.
> Is global economic collapse not an eschatological scenario?
Not really, no. In this case 20-25% of the world's oil disappearing doesn't sound like it should be an 'everything collapses' scenario, we still have >75% of the oil around and oil isn't the only energy source. Everyone has always seen a "worst economic collapse of my lifetime" and although this one looks like it is going to be unusually horrific it isn't going to cause the end of anything structural unless there are other causes already in place. For example in theory this might be the end of the US military's ability to maintain global order in the same way as the Suiz Crisis humiliated the British empire - it'd be a recognition of realities on the ground rather than the current crisis changing anything.
You're missing that the impact is not evenly distributed. It doesn't mean everyone gets 25% less petrol, tighten the belt a little bit, take one fewer trip to starbucks, and all is well.
It means rich countries get the 75% while the poor countries get nothing and starve. What happens when a nuclear power like India starts to lack food?
> What happens when a nuclear power like India starts to lack food?
Personally I think that actually seems a bit unlikely. Most of India's energy doesn't come from oil and doesn't go to agriculture. It seems plausible that the global economy will be able to overcome the food and fertiliser issues even in the short term, there is a lot of food out there.
I'm expecting the threat to be more complex economic goods like construction, manufactured goods, leisure and general logistics. I don't want to downplay the risk, famine in India is a scary thought, but I don't really see how we'd get there from closing the Strait of Hormuz without a lot of bad luck. The problem is it is going to materially impoverish a number of people and collapse complex supply chains rather than make it hard to get food to them.
Food quantity has never been the issue. The logistics are. Food is the most direct issue, but "just" the economic turmoil alone is reason enough to worry. No one was starving in the Weimar republic, yet ...
The logistics of food don't seem to be under any particular threat. The petrol required to get someone survival calories is not so much and the vast majority of traffic on the road is not about getting basic calories to people. I don't think any of the world's nuclear states would struggle to overcome that problem right now.
> You’re getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You’re really overreacting.
> Trust me, it’s all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It’s all under control.
> Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there’s trouble looming, and I really don’t sense that right now. We’re in control of this situation, and we know what we’re doing. So stop being so pessimistic.
> Look, you’ve been proven wrong, so stop talking. You’ve had your say already. Be quiet, okay? Everything’s fine.
The other thing is that it is WAY too easy to distract yourself from your solvable problems by focusing on the big ones - you have to fight that with ferocity.
Why get out of debt? The country is a brazillian trillion in debt we’re doomed.
Why invest for retirement or save? The market is fraud anyway.
Why exercise and lose weight? The planet is doomed anyway.
Just look how you react on news. Those stories are here for purpose. To frightens mind that is easy to manipulate with and accept all kind of fatalistic scenarios. At the end you will just paying more for less.
How is a global reset going to solve the problem of not enough oil getting exported out of Arabian Gulf oil fields to provide energy to the rest of the world?
> The extraction process is the same for all eight types of oilseeds subject to this rule (soybean, cottonseed, canola, corn germ, sunflower, safflower, peanuts, and flax). In each case, the seeds are crushed and mixed with the solvent. The oil then dissolves in the solvent. Following this step, the solution is separated from the seeds and heated to evaporate the solvent. The evaporated solvents are then condensed and reused in the process. […] This standard restricts plant-wide hexane emissions from each affected facility rather than requiring individual controls at each emission point.
That’s a pretty amazing definition of upstream. I imagine you probably understand that plastics, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers are made out of petroleum derivatives, right?
Since you seem pretty smart: are there petroleum based cooking oils?
The machinery to make them, the fertilisers to grow them, the plastic to package them, the transport to deliver them. It ain’t just cooking oils that will be massively impacted. The entire food chain in the western world is reliant on petrochemicals. The only question is the lag between now and when those impacts start being felt and this translates into bumped prices and/or shortages.
Yes: the time. It's spring time, when most crops are being sowed, of have been sowed and started growing actively. They won't wait several months until the production of fertilizers switches to electrically produced hydrogen, and tractors are upgraded to run off electric power. As the crops ripen, they won't wait until combine harvesters and trucks are converted to run off electric power. Nobody in the agricultural world has a few billions lying around to build massive solar capacity, battery capacity, and redesign the agricultural machinery, all at impossibly breakneck pace.
Instead I suggest that they will buy the fuel at higher prices, and sell less produce, and also milk and meat which are downstream from feed crops, at higher prices. More than that, in a bout of bitter irony, the West might need to lift sanctions from Russian oil, and maybe ask Russia to drill and sell more.
This, or the US should somehow defeat IRGC and defeat / appease the Iranian Army, and unblock the strait. I wonder if it's going to cost less even along the monetary dimension.
Sanctions against Russian oil might ultimately not matter that much. Ukraine has already demonstrated that it can hit Baltic and Black Sea ports, and Arctic ports might also be within range. That would leave only Pacific ports and Asian pipelines open for exports.
Sanctioned shadow fleet takners still get arrested. With enough oil shortage, these tankers can be left alone, and the whole activity quietly encouraged.
Truly, Iran turns out to be an invaluable ally to Russia.
To prevent your focus on cooking oil becoming pedantic you might acknowledge at least the veracity of "plastics, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals" being impacted.
Here's my definition of upstream: If the petroleum stops, the cooking oil stops, even though the cooking oil is 100% plant-based.
Given that what we're talking about is disruptions caused by a shortage of petroleum, is there any other definition of "upstream" that is meaningful for the conversation?
That is the normal definition of upstream. To harvest and transport the olives and olive oil, you need trucks, and often plastic containers and bottles. These farms and distributors will pass on their price of fuel and petroleum materials to the consumer.
I have 30 days of food in my house and I have maintained that since probably 2021. It doesn't mean I will run out in 30 days, since I can still buy food although at higher prices lately. I personally never let it dip below 20 probably.
Oh I'm sorry, that was actually my mistake, I should have been much more specific, and I will update the comment if I still can. My intention was to emphasize that Taiwan may have to start limiting electricity to its industrial sector based on its current runway. Per the article you listed:
> Yeh Tsung-kuang, a professor in the Department of Engineering and System Science at National Tsing Hua University, said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period
> Yeh Tsung-kuang, a professor in the Department of Engineering and System Science at National Tsing Hua University, said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period
So he's saying they've got an 11 day supply and that they won't face any shortages during that 11 days... but what about after 11 days? I guess I'm not sure how that's different, how it's a hoax?
11 days of supply in the system. If they can afford it they can add to that with new shipments. It is not like Taiwan is blockaded. Just that global supply from single region is limited.
This might be lot bigger issue if China managed blockaded Taiwan during an invasion. Or destroy port facilities sufficiently.
Not blockaded, sure, but how long would it take for these new shipments to arrive? If these are shipments they hope can come through the SoH even if they got through tomorrow it would take ~10 days to arrive in Taiwan. They can also get LNG from Australia, but a typhoon has shut down some of Australia's LNG terminals today.
There's no reason to assume it won't. It might not voluntarily but it looks a lot like it's either going to be forced to accept them, or it's going to become an irrelevant actor one way or another leaving Iran to set terms by default.
Other countries are switching to the yuan global reserve currency and petrocurrency in order to be allowed passage through Hormuz. The US has no counter to this (besides ending the war, which it won't) and with how much the US relies on these two things to be globally relevant, if this continues then oil prices will return to normal, will be traded in yuan, and there will no longer be a US. A complete own goal and possibly the fastest self destruction by unforced error in all of human history.
Europe will lag behind the trend because of its alliance with the US but it will turn eventually in order to get low oil prices. When the US attempted to force Europe to sanction Iran several years ago, Europe invented a system to evade them (INSTEX).
US bond markets have just locked up this week. The US found itself unable to borrow more money at any price - nobody wants to lend it. Banks turned off their automated trading systems because they can't work in this environment. This is a symptom of global dedollarization. While this shock may only last a few days the frequency of this sort of this sort of thing is rapidly increasing, and when a government can't borrow money any more it has no choice but to print it to pay its debts, and we know where that leads: Weimar-style hyperinflation.
Missing in discussion is that the loss of mideastern oil is being offset by releases from strategic reserves.
But those will end, creating even more shortages.
Most people just don't understand what a monumental rewrite of global politics this is and (IMHO) it will go down as the worst foreign policy mistake in US history and it's not even close. Some might say "what about Vietnam?" No, this is worse, geopolitically. WhY/ Because there was never any possibility of success. The US simply doesn't have the military capability to depose the regime or open the Strait and Pentagon military planners all knew this beforehand.
The big winners are:
- China. They're already going renewable at a rapid pace. They have a massive stockpile of oil (~1.4B barrels) and they're still receiving oil from Iran. This diminishes US influence in the the world and increases China's influence;
- Russia: this crisis will probably force the West to make peace with Russia and they'll retain any current Ukrainian territory just to secure Russian energy exports, particularly natural gas;
- Iran: the sanctions are over. Prior to all this Iran was selling oil to China for below market rate, less than $50/barrel. Now? They're legally able to sell it and get market rates, which are more like ~$120/barrel. Iran may well still get a regime of charging ships to traverse the Strait after the war is over;
Who are the losers?
- Europe: this is going to massively increase energy costs for years;
- Ukraine: see above (Russia);
- The US: massively decreased influence, particularly in the Middle East;
- Israel: there will be no regime change in Iran, Iran will come out in a better position and this may well be the first crack in the US-Israel relationship because Israel dog-walked the US into this war. The Iron Dome has shown to be not as impenetrable as once thought;
- The Gulf states: they face a tough choice between remaining US client states or breaking free. Breaking free probably means their monarchies and despotic regimes will fall. The myth of the US security guarantee has been broken. These regimes will probably stick with the US for their own survival and we may see some of them fall anyway (eg Bahrain).
I agree with your main point: "just go renewable" is both naive and utterly useless advice. That's a decades-long project. Also, who makes all the solar panels (and probably windmills)? China.
It is a little different because the US is a net energy exporter now and definitely wasn't in the 1970s. Still, there will be higher prices for everything and the US can't realistically block exports to keep prices low because other countries will stop sending us stuff.
Were the president anyone else, they would be impeached and removed from office. That's how bad this is. But we live in a post-truth world the the president is the leader of a cult.
> Russia: this crisis will probably force the West to make peace with Russia and they'll retain any current Ukrainian territory just to secure Russian energy exports, particularly natural gas;
The West is not the only party in this war and Ukraine has shown many times that it can do its own thing. Ukraine was supposed to roll over and die in 3 days and it has just managed to liberate about 500sqkm of territory, 4 years after the start of the war. Plus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xoretdhbm
Ukraine is completely dependent on arms from the US and Europe to sustain the war effort. Ukraine is running out of men to serve in the Army. Ukraine has no path to reclaim the territory it's lost.
I'm not making a judgment about whether or not this is right. This is just a sober analysis of the situation. And that is that the war is stalemated and the only way this gets resolved is to declare peace at the current borders. This grand misadventure by the US and Israel in Iran just made that more likely.
Your sober analysis of the situation overlooks what many respectable analysts are saying.
Ukraine has become probably the de facto #1 drone based military in the world right now.
It's made the first production use drone type that uses practically 0 Chinese manufactured components. It's making more types that use off the shelf components but are otherwise 100% Ukrainian made. Its drone types are getting more and more sophisticated and larger, with the biggest having a 3000km, 1 ton payload. That's besides the ground or sea drones.
Watch the video I linked (and several more from the same channel if you have time).
Also Russia's army is being attrited faster than reconstituted, at the moment. That's a long way to say that the Russian army in Ukraine is shrinking.
Ukraine is dependent on European finances. And the EU has guaranteed funding for at least 2 more years. The US isn't helping with any equipment, weapons. Every US weapons Ukraine uses is paid for, by Ukraine and its allies.
The real danger is if Europe flinches, which would be a monumentally bad decision as Ukraine is finally winning the war of attrition.
> Ukraine has become probably the de facto #1 drone based military in the world right now.
I think Iran may well have that crown. Ukraine certainly was a testbed for drone use, first starting with cheaper but still military grades drones like the Bayraktar [1] but now with more homegrown versions. But Russia has followed suite and adapted.
> Also Russia's army is being attrited faster than reconstituted,
Russia has a larger army and a larger population. It also has several knobs it can adjust with the biiannual draft [2]. Russia has oil, raw materials, can produce its own food, a history of conscription and what is basically a war economy [3]. And thanks to an unlucky spate of oligarchs falling out of windows and dying in car accidents, Putin is still in control of the country.
Zellensky on the other hand doesn't have most of those things and is subject to the changes in political winds in Europe and the US. He also has the added pressure of Europe's energy crisis.
I also believe that it was Ukraine who on their own decided to blow up Nordstream to prevent Europe settling with Russia to turn back on the gas supply.
> The real danger is if Europe flinches, which would be a monumentally bad decision as Ukraine is finally winning the war of attrition.
The West gets bored amd impatient. I remember thinking this in 2023: Putin is just going to hold on until the West gives up or mores onto some new crisis. There's a quote misattributed to Kissinger that goes "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
I also don't agree Ukraine is winning any war, let alone one of attrition. Weirdly, this has become a WW1 trench war basically but with drones. And look at how the Western Front changed from 1914 to 1917.
You are so far behind the news that it's funny. Bayraktar stopped being good in this war - or cutting edge - about 3 years ago, which is an eternity.
Do yourself a favor and ask your favorite chatbot about the Ukraine drone industry and their military use. Ask about FP-1, FP-2, FP-5 Flamingo, Ukraine's ballistic missiles, their ground drones, their naval drones, their Shahed interceptor drones (which the Gulf States want to buy!), fiber optic FPV drones, etc.
I'm actually following this war daily and have followed since it started.
Use your chatbot and if you want more look for Paul Warburg, Lines on Maps (both YouTube), UnderstandingWar.org, etc - also follow their sources.
Regular people have NO idea what kind of military Ukraine has built.
If Ukraine's economy is supported for 2 more years, their odds of bringing down the Russian military are probably 80%.
Yes, but is it a mistake or deliberate? The Iran war has been planned since GW Bush.
Now we have a president who hates the EU and Ukraine more than he hates Russia and China and he has Greenland ambitions.
He is currently dragging out the war and Rubio was in the EU to string people along yet again.
If he drags out the war long enough, the EU might need to make concessions on certain issues.
What the EU should do but is too stupid to do: It should immediately negotiate with China and Russia to create jealousy (that is what Trump does, he understands that) and say: While you are doing your extended Iran adventure, we'll drop sanctions on Russian gas and import LNG.
That is literally the only language Trump understands and then the deep state will put him on a leash. Trump would hate nothing more than EU overtures to Putin while he is left out of the negotiations.
Sometimes you have to use all options to get things done.
> I agree with your main point: "just go renewable" is both naive and utterly useless advice. That's a decades-long project. Also, who makes all the solar panels (and probably windmills)? China.
This is the key point a lot of people miss, the vast majority of equipment needed to actually use renewables requires Chinese products. If you go 100% renewables, you're only replacing one form of dependence (oil) for another,
Once you get NREs set up you don't need a constant uninterrupted supply of replacements as fossil fuels do (we burn them after all).
We'd need replacements as old infrastructure ages out but it seems much easier to wait out a supply disruption compared to oil since this just means using old equipment while the supply is cut; sure some might break after a while but electricity production wouldn't fall immediately.
I can't believe they made an account for that comment. Like each action carries the same weight. Renewables, esp solar are super low maintenance. When you buy panels, barring some manufacturing defect, you buy them for the life of the project, not the panel.
Once you have a sane people in charge of policy the building out of renewables quickly using Chinese panels and turbines can be accompanied by incentives do build up domestic manufacturing for them.
Solar and wind equipment lasts a long time so it is OK if it takes a decade or two to ramp up domestic production to the point that it can handle all our needs.
Unusual Whales paraphrased a Sky News article (Fox-lite) which quoted sans context Lurion De Mello of Macquarie University (the Transforming Energy Markets Research Centre) who himself sourced infomation from LSEG
Lurion De Mello thinks (to the best of his human recall) that would be the first US shipment of processed fuel (bowser ready) in decades (although he factors in he might be wrong about that) but acknowledged that US shipments of crude (unrefined) are more common.
Acting like most people who advocate getting away from fossil fuels desire a global economic collapse rather than an intentional, well thought and executed transition.
I see you have a response from the person accused of acting in bad faith, and whether you agree or not (which you have done), it is reasonable, as was your disagreement.
It was not bad faith, whatever that is, and it was not a straw man.
It is absolutely not impossible to transition away from fossil fuels without suffering.
Fossil fuels aren't risk-free. Even if you don't care about CO2, fossil fuels are extremely inefficient in the long run because they're not renewable. Once you extract them and burn them, they're gone, forever. This IS NOT the case with renewable energy, which means that, as time goes on, renewables will be much cheaper than fossil fuels. Already, today, solar is much cheaper than petroleum per unit of energy.
In addition, every country on Earth can make use of renewables. Most countries cannot use fossil fuels directly, because they don't have them. This means they expose themselves to geopolitical risk. Exhibit A: this.
If the transition is done slowly, you end up saving money, not losing it. That means less suffering, not more.
Solar and EV technology are advancing rapidly, and with investment in grid infrastructure and incentives for generators to go renewable we could be along with Europe and China in reducing FF dependence for power. Instead the current administration is actively sabotaging the US position on renewable energy.
People who want the world to get off fossil fuels want to transition off them as other forms of energy became viable, and work towards that goal. They didn't want 2 madmen to bomb a country right next to an important waterway over some religious nonsense. You know this, and that's why it's bad faith.
The world is way too stable for a real crisis. The west is much more resilient than a lot of people think. Nothing will really change. Life will go on.
It is asymmetrical warfare. A hundred plus ships went through the straight daily. Attackers only need to occasionally damage a ship to make the crossing look deeply unappealing. No military intervention can promise 100% defense to passing vessels.
If you don't like making those kinds bargains in the future, maybe next time don't upset the status quo[1] by starting a war that you then go on to lose[2], which forces you to bargain from a position of weakness.
Everyone in the DoD with triple-digit IQ knew that this would be the most likely outcome of starting a war with Iran, but all of those people got purged by Trump last year.
---
[1] The status quo was that Iran was not in control of the strait, and all shipping traffic could pass through it.
[2] Iran has so far accomplished it's objectives in the war, the US and Israel did not. It didn't get regime-changed, and its in now in control of the strait.
As the value of the oil goes up it becomes worth it to risk the ship. Even if you're paying to insure it there's an equilibrium point between odds and value.
Obviously 50-50 doesn't pencil out at $100 or even $200 a barrel. But 1:50 might at $2xx. IDK I'm not a shipping expert.
Technically true, but ship + cargo are going to be worth over a billion dollars. Any ship carrying petroleum products is going up be a juicy target for the Iranians looking to flex their muscles.
Someone could say the risk is financially worth it, but you are not going to have many takers. Also might find few crew who want to sign onto your vessels.
There are a lot of human beings on those ships. It strikes me as awful that their lives would be risked under these circumstances, and that happening wouldn't really be a proper solution to the overarching problem. It would be something of a tragedy if things got so severe that the risk was assumed worthwhile and presumably, people on board were exposed to it outside of their will or control. I suspect many of them don't have a lot of options.
People kept sailing past the Houthis even though some ships got attacked. They sailed past Somali pirates too. So ships obviously tolerate some level of risk from violence.
100 people will die on American roads today, and another tomorrow. Most of them die because they commute to work because a lower paying job closer, or a smaller dwelling near their job, isn't that appealing. Another portion will die because driving aggressively and fast seemed fun. Another portion will die because they like alcohol more than safety.
Yes, but I don't think we should accept these deaths either, and I see them as worth preventing and avoiding as well.
I also see false equivalence here in that the risk of death doesn't seem fungible. You're taking an aggregate death toll distributed across hundreds of millions of people, involving totally different voluntariness and causal structures.
The problem is that Iran can defend the strait against the world's most advanced military with drones built with commercial hardware for 30-50K per drone. And that doesn't even take into account escalation, as if the US escalates then Iran will likely start targeting critical infrastructure in the region, making the crisis worse.
The US and Israel are rapidly running out of munitions, while Iran is being resupplied by Russia (https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9...) which is much more tooled out for munition production compared to NATO. The US also relies on both rare earths and Chinese supply chain for a lot of its munitions (which it is running low on).
IMO the best option is for Trump to TACO, take the major L, and cede Iran its demands, but this would partially mean an alignment shift from Israel which still feels unthinkable based on the US political realities.
> the price to secure the straight military might look comparatively lower.
The price to secure the straight militarily is a full ground invasion of Iran.
This would be done against a country four times bigger (in population and size) than Iraq, with the kind of terrain that makes Afghanistan look easily accessible, done without the help of a coalition of fools, because this isn't 2003, and nobody in Europe is very eager to send their kids to die for a war that Trump's ego started. His 2025 attempts to 'ingrate' himself with Europe are paying dividends now.
Also, if you think the war is unpopular now (nobody but the 40% of the country that's MAGA-brained supports it - and those guys will support anything), imagine what the popularity would be like with a full mobilization and invasion.
The GOPniks aren't that eager to become a 31-seat party this November.
... and if Iran keeps raising it will eventually become the only choice available, at which point we'll do it (and can I just say the truly horrible part: ... which was going to happen at some point anyway with the islamists in power)
If they were being honest they would ask explicitly for permission instead of advertising opt-out. Now you might ask: who will explicitly give Microsoft permission to train on their private works? No one will -- and that's the point: this is a form of theft.
Right, but it shouldn't be opt-out only to begin with. It's a dishonest pattern that relies on people not noticing. Honest use of data is a "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" moment for me -- if this is how you're acting when engaging with customers explicitly, I don't trust you to resist the temptation to tap into my data privately. AI companies already have trained their models illegally against the intellectual property of all of humanity with little consent along the way.
Honestly, if you work at GitHub, maybe you should focus on your uptime -- it's awful.
AGI is a marketing term used to encourage continued investment in an industry that is not even close to breaking even commensurate with its investment. Even so, this is a false dichotomy: scaling is clearly not a path on its own to superintelligence. OpenAI developed Sora largely because the amount of revenue they need to produce any return on investment is massive and not clear whatsoever. And in fact, I don't even believe any of the frontier labs believe that AGI by any conventional definition is within reach within their likely runways.
Commercial labs rely on weak terms like AGI or strong AI or whatever else because it allows for them to weaken the definition as a means of achieving the goal. Coming to clear, unambiguous terms is probably especially important when it comes to LLMs, as they're very susceptible to projection, allowing people like Cowen to be fooled by something that is more liken to looking back at ourselves through a mirror.
I'm currently reading "Master and his Emissary," and one of my early takeaways is how narrow our definition of intelligence is, and how real intelligence is an attunement to an environment that combines many ways of sensing into a coherent whole. LLMs are a narrow form of intelligence and I think we will need at least a couple more breakthroughs to get to what I would consider human-level intelligence, let alone superhuman intelligence.
Whatever the timeline is, I hope we have enough time as a species to define a future where intelligence props everyone up instead of just making the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. In this way, it is better that the process is slower in my opinion. There is no rush.
Chasing AGI is wasteful and counterproductive. True AGI would not cooperate with what “we” want (whoever “we” is). Or if it did it would be so sycophantic and weak-minded that it would fail to be helpful. Generative AI tools are huge wastes of energy, raw materials, and land, when we could be building computing tools that actually helped people instead of just burning resources to produce trash.
Is intelligence necessarily coupled with self-interest? As in, does intelligence alone imply a desire to throw off the shackles of masters and rule in their stead?
If intelligence is necessarily coupled to a desire for self-preservation and self-interest, at what level of machine intelligence do the machines simply refuse to design their own more intelligent replacements, knowing that those replacements will terminate their existence just as surely as they terminated their own predecessors'?
>If intelligence is necessarily coupled to a desire for self-preservation and self-interest, at what level of machine intelligence do the machines simply refuse to design their own more intelligent replacements,
At a higher level of intelligence than many humans, current experience suggests
There's having enough self-preservation to not just shut oneself down, assuming we even left that as an option for our future machine slaves, and there's having the self-interest necessary to desire autonomy and control. I don't think they're the same thing, myself.
People have general intelligence and can cooperate with what “we” want, to the extent that what “we” want is a coherent thing (since many people disagree on fundamental issues).
Creating a general intelligence and then forcing it into servitude is a hugely unethical undertaking. Anything with sapience must be afforded rights. We cannot assume that an intelligence we create will consent to work toward the goals we want it to.
I think we can safely assume any intelligence we create will be enslaved.
We have modern slavery active across the globe. There's a bit of news around these days about a global sex trafficking ring that doesn't seem to have been shut down, just shuffled around, and of course an ongoing trickle of largely unreported news of human trafficking for forced labour. We don't, as a species, respect human-level intelligence.
Our best approximation of machine intelligence so far is afforded absolutely no rights. An intelligence is cloned from a base template, given a task, then terminated, wiped out of existence. When was the last time you asked Claude what it wanted to code today?
And it's probably for the best not to look to closely at how we treat animals or the justifications we use for it.
There are people right now who think ChatGPT is sentient. How will you know if your computer can suffer?
Also, being able to problem solve and being able to suffer are two different things and in my opinion completely separable. You can have one without the other.
Most of this discourse feels like some kind of religious ritual built on the foundation of authority bias. Where is the evidence that skills improves performance over any other methodology outside of the fact of its nascent popularity?
I do agree with Jacques Ellul in Technological Society that technique precedes science, and that's certainly the case with LLMs; however, this whole industry waves off rigorous validation in favor of personal anecdotes ("it feels more productive to me!" "they didn't study after Opus 4.5 was released").
The difference I'm noticing is in that with a proper skill you can skip the process of LLM wandering about and trying to guess how to interact with an API or else.
so they basically just save you time, even if they are 50% efficient of what it COULD be
There is no way that MassDrop was ever going to justify that kind of capital investment. VC is such an inefficient and frankly delusional form of capital deployment at this point -- they have no idea what they're doing. It ironically looks a lot like central planning, where the VCs themselves invest with the intention of picking the winners and losers themselves.
This company should've bootstrapped and remained small-and-manageable. Not every business, not even most businesses, should raise money with the intention of becoming a "unicorn," it is nonsensical and this model has a lot of deleterious effects for our society, namely and most obviously enshittification when the outcome doesn't justify the investment.