rob

Elon Musk says the AI boom will hit a WALL by the end of 2026. He says the whole industry is about to learn a hard lesson in hardware. Chip output is exploding, but electricity is nearly flat everywhere outside China. So the two lines cross this year. He says by the end of the year, we will be making more AI chips than we can actually turn on. Millions of them pile up with nowhere to plug in. In his words, the bottleneck for the next year is not chips, it is raw power. Whoever can turn on the most chips fastest wins the race. In the end, the AI race comes down to one thing: Raw electricity. — Elon Musk (.@elonmusk) on Dwarkesh Patel's (.@dwarkesh_sp) podcast

this might be my last normal tweet before biotech goes vertical i'm not a whistleblower. I don't work at Lilly, Novo or any of the big labs but there is a massive shift happening in human biology right now. it's sitting in press releases and almost nobody reads them the last 6 months alone: - a once-daily pill roughly doubled median survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer (13.2 vs 6.6 months) - a one-time gene editing infusion cut hereditary angioedema attacks 87%, and 62% of patients stayed attack-free and off all other prevention for 6 months - a one-time gene edit for cholesterol dropped LDL up to 62%, and it held for over a year - a personalized mrna vaccine beat keytruda alone in a 1,137 patient melanoma phase 3 - retatrutide hit ~28% weight loss in a phase 3 - an ai-designed drug entered phase 3 - a pill that regrows hair passed its second phase 3 - an immunotherapy that could let some rectal cancer patients skip surgery, chemo and radiation just got fda approved - a man lived 271 days off dialysis on a pig kidney - human cells were caught passing chromosome-sized chunks of DNA to their neighbors, and it changes how the neighbors behave we are on the verge of an era where the human body is a software problem and the update cycle gets shorter everyday stick around, it's going to get weird bio/acc

A retired NASA engineer who had worked on the Space Shuttle program for 25 years was hired by SpaceX at age 62. He described the first week as the most disorienting experience of his professional life. At NASA, a design change required 3 meetings, 2 committees, a review board, and 6 to 18 months of documentation. At SpaceX, his new supervisor said "if it works, build it. If it doesn't, change it by Friday." He sat at his desk after the first day and called his wife. He told her he felt like a man who had been swimming with ankle weights for 25 years and someone just cut them off. He could move. He could decide. He could build something in the morning and test it in the afternoon. The constraint that he had accepted as the nature of aerospace engineering turned out to be the nature of bureaucracy. Within 6 months he had contributed to more design iterations than he had completed in his last 5 years at NASA. Not because he was working harder. Because the time between having an idea and testing the idea collapsed from months to hours. The same brain. The same knowledge. A different operating system. He described a specific moment where he proposed a modification to a Raptor engine component. At NASA, the proposal would have entered a queue. At SpaceX, the modification was machined by the end of the day and tested by the following morning. He watched his idea become a physical object in 18 hours. At NASA, 18 hours would not have been enough to schedule the first meeting to discuss whether to schedule a meeting. He told an interviewer: "I didn't get smarter when I went to SpaceX. I got faster. The intelligence was always there. The system was in the way." The difference between SpaceX and NASA is not talent. NASA has extraordinary talent. The difference is the time between a thought and a test. SpaceX compresses it. NASA elongates it. The same engineer produces 10x more at SpaceX than at NASA because the bottleneck was never the engineer. It was the meetings about the meetings about the work.