there are some people who have pure apathy, no depression like David. And there are other people who can be depressed, they can be sad, they can be hopeless about the future, but they don't necessarily lose motivation. They can have pure depression.
it was only about 15 years ago I started beginning to be aware that there may be a an important biology underlying motivation and when that biology goes wrong, it can lead to loss of motivation and even pathological apathy.
the other extreme is if we're serious about exploring the universe and going to the stars, we are going to have to adapt ourselves to that environment. We're not going to export Earth with us everywhere we go.
the models are going to in some cases, I think, provide a homogeneous take on what writing looks like. And you start to feel like, wait, what was my writing style, you know?
It will probably be economically shrewd to lose money on early robot models in anticipation that the data they gather will be worth more later in improving newer versions.
potentially one of the reasons why we lose lose cognitive function as we get older is because we stop giving our brain novel inputs or complex inputs that help maintain function, drive neuroplasticity. And I think one of the reasons that that happens is because adults hate being bad at things, right?
I think a lot of people, especially students, are unfortunately learning everything through LLMs. So a lot of that isn't really learning, they're just kind of cheating and they're just doing everything like that. And then they lose a lot of their skills
So, the deaths for the the land powers are measured in uh millions, whereas the maritime powers, it's a hundreds of thousands, still not a great number.
They vote with their clicks. You lose at least half your users every click. Every time you say click here, half people don't click. And you lose 80% when you say download this. At least that's probably 90 or more. 90% or more in the app store.
you've gone through so much to be here. You owe it to yourself to bet on your instinct. You owe it to yourself to lose because of yourself. It's your right to be wrong. You, as a founder, owe it to yourself to control your own destiny and take half the valuation if it's all of the control. And it means you have the right to do it your way.
You can build "the hard thing" in a good market, with every advantage, and still lose if what you ship doesn't give people enough reason to leave what they're already using.
I call it the force that no one controls but everyone obeys that tends to drag organizations down into mediocrity to the point that we lose control of them. Now, sometimes we lose control of them because we get fired.
Sure, some skilled sociopaths run amok. But most of those who are crudely, blatantly power-hungry in the long term lose it, or never gain it in the first place.
As we move from, you know, hey, [clears throat] these companies are selling tokens where they provide the entire uh reasoning chain and all that to uh selling automated, you know, white collar work, right? Automated software engineer, send them the request, they give you the result back and there's a bunch of thinking on the back end that they don't show you. The ability to distill out of American models into Chinese models will be harder.
And so, what's happening is everybody on average is setting that dial to about 50% and we're going to lose about half the engineers from big companies, which is scary.
basically transplant patients today surprisingly frequently miss organs that are on route to them because there's a timing problem. Um, so like you know, organs expire um very quickly after they become available from a donor.
The best book I read this year was also the last book I reviewed (and yes, I snuck the review under the wire for that reason): Bethany Jacobs's This Brutal Moon, the conclusion of the Kindom Trilogy that started with These Burning Stars. I thought the first two books of the series were interesting but flawed, but the conclusion blew me away and improved the entire trilogy in retrospect. Like all books I rate 10 out of 10, I'm sure a large part of my reaction is idiosyncratic, but two friends of mine also loved the conclusion so it's not just me.
The story is very intriguing. Humanity finds a dead body on the moon. The caveat? The body is 50,000 years old. The story starts slow, but then the pace becomes phenomenal. Highly recommended.
if you want to win in the game of software, you need to differentiate through design. Like that's again how you win or lose. Craft matters. And so we're no longer in this era of good enough is fine. It's like good enough is not enough.
When you lose a game now as opposed to surfacing your blunders and your like horrible stuff that you did, we flip it on its head. And so we show you your brilliant moves, your best moves. And we have coach say something encouraging. You know, losing just part of learning like keep it up, that type of thing. That change alone was pretty dramatic for us. It grew game reviews by 25%, subscriptions by 20%
like what we see is that over 75% of our new users, they classify themselves as like, I'm completely new to chess or I'm a beginner. And unfortunately, if you're new to chess and you're a beginner, you're not going to have that fun of a time playing live games. We see this in the data. It's like less than a third of those users actually win their first game. And when you lose a game, user retention is 10% worse than when you win a game.
And I would rather lose everything I have than yield to this pressure because, if you submit to this pressure and agree with something that is fundamentally wrong and violates rights of other people as well, you become broken inside, you become a shell of your former self on a deep biological and spiritual level.
But it will not be that easy, as easy as you're imagining because uh that you can lose your mind this way. If you you pull in something from the outside and build it into your into your inner thinking, uh, it could take over you. It could change you.
His officers didn't think so. High command said, “No, we're not going to attack the West; we're going to lose.” And Hitler was fanatic about it, he really wanted to attack it. They were planning a coup against him in November 1939 just to prevent him ordering the attack on the West, because it would have been a catastrophe for Germany.
In terms of things that are causing us to lose to China, tariffs are neither here nor there because, as we've discussed, we're not sensitive to cost on power. But the environmental regulations that are actively preventing us from deploying renewable energy in the United States, like this is the reason Texas is winning. Texas is out deploying California 10 to1.
But ultimately, there’s a certain point in the Second World War where the outcome is absolutely inevitable because the guys that lose can’t compete with the numbers that the guys are going to win.
We don’t think that the universe has had enough time to make them from stars that just merge. We know that two black holes can merge and make a bigger black hole and then those can merge and make a bigger black hole. We don’t think there’s been enough time for that.
But then I think that there’s a confusion that dead stars, these very, very massive stars that die, are synonymous with the phenomenon of black hole. And it’s really not the case. Black holes are more general and more fundamental than just the death state of a star.
It becomes impossible to imagine that life was not sparked somewhere else, in our Milky Way galaxy, and maybe even in our local neighborhood of the Milky Way galaxy, maybe within a few hundred light years of our solar system.
What he found is that the companies that struggled to grow almost always had less than 40% very disappointed. Whereas the companies that grew the fastest almost always had more than 40% very disappointed. And this question, this metric is way more predictive of success than something for example like net promoter score.
Milton Friedman, he also does tend to have friends who agree with him, yet he's always willing to debate his opponents, and he's willing to do so with a smile on his face. He's a happy warrior, and he actually will win a lot of debates simply by his emotional affect and his cheerfulness and his confidence, where Rand will lose debates because she gets so angry in the face of disagreement.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.