Mr. Incognito

Gotta stop to get snacks…

End of an era. Here’s some of your greatest hits. RIP Spirit Airlines 🪦

Sweetwater 1 has been successfully energized – a key milestone in the development of the broader 2GW Sweetwater campus. @danroberts0101, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of $IREN commented: “Delivering Sweetwater 1 substation energization on schedule reflects our disciplined execution, the strength of our supply chain relationships and the efficiency of our vertically integrated development model. It is another example of our ability to design and construct large-scale infrastructure reliably and at speed to meet market demand.” Learn more: iren.gcs-web.com/static-files/d…

The burger is the cleanest example of why nutrition isn't addition. You can eat a head of lettuce, a tomato, half an onion, and a slice of cheese across three hours and your body handles them. Stack them inside two buns with a beef patty and eat the whole thing in three minutes, and your bloodstream sees something it cannot regulate. Glycemic load is the first problem. A white bun has a glycemic index around 75. Pure sugar is 100. Blood glucose spikes within 15 minutes, insulin floods in to clear it, and that insulin signal tells every fat cell in your body to open its doors. The 20g of fat from the patty and cheese gets escorted into storage. Eaten alone, that fat oxidizes for energy. Paired with a refined carb, it gets stored. Caloric density is the second. A Big Mac is 590 calories, 33g of fat, 1010mg of sodium. The lettuce, tomato, and onion contribute roughly 15 of those calories. The bun and cheese alone carry half the load. Your stomach registers volume, not calories, which is why you can finish 600 calories in three minutes and still order fries. Then the patty. Ground beef cooked at 350°F produces advanced glycation end products and heterocyclic amines. The same beef poached at 180°F has a fraction of these compounds. The "healthy ingredient" stays identical. The cooking method rewrites the chemistry. A plate with the same beef, cheese, vegetables, and a slice of bread on the side is roughly 450 calories. Takes 15 minutes to eat. Keeps you full for four hours. Same atoms. Different physics.

Virtually nobody is pricing in what's coming in AI. I wrote an essay series on the AGI strategic picture: from the trendlines in deep learning and counting the OOMs, to the international situation and The Project. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS: The Decade Ahead

🚨 Musk vs OpenAI's lawyer — the cross-examination exchanges William Savitt — Wachtell Lipton's lead defense lawyer, Supreme Court clerk, trained to break witnesses. Savitt opens with a misleading premise. Musk: "You're being misleading. What you're saying is false." Savitt tries again with a different loaded frame. Musk: "Your questions are not simple. They are designed to trick me." Savitt demands a yes or no answer to a complicated question. Musk: "If you ask a question where there is no possible simple answer, I must give a longer answer because any simple answer would be misleading the jury." Musk reaches for an analogy: "The classic answer to a yes or no question is not so simple. For example, if you ask the question 'will you stop beating your wife?'..." Judge Gonzalez Rogers cuts him off: "No, we're not gonna go there." The courtroom laughs. Savitt apologizes for the question. Musk: "I find it funny you saying it wasn't an unfair question since you're only asking unfair questions." Savitt: "I'm doing my best." Musk: "That is not true." OpenAI's lawyer came to break Musk. Musk wasn't having it.

$AMD shareholders after $MSFT $META said they can't stop buying @AMD chips and have much higher margin on Inference due to Superior TCO,TDP and $/M Tokens

Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital. Cette phrase change tout. L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ? Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible. Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur. Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé. Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire. L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants. Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution. Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain. Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée. Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien. La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose. Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins. Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires. La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.

Come again? This FBI and DOJ with our DHS partners drafted and executed every search warrant today. But go ahead and take credit for our work while we smoke out the fraud plaguing Minnesota under your governorship.

@KastleCapital If that’s the case, might have better luck in Florida 🤣

@Huntdaddy7 How are the ladies out there? Single and ready to mingle lol

One of many reason I will be leaving California in 2026

@KastleCapital Oh ya. God’s country they call it.

@Huntdaddy7 You in South Dakota Incognito??

Man who went viral for remaining in his seat as he ate food during the WH Correspondents' Dinner shooting says he didn't want his new tux on the dirty Hilton floor. He also said he is from New York, so he hears sirens and activity all the time. "I’m a New Yorker. We live with sirens and activity happening all the time," Michael Glantz, an agent at Creative Artists Agency, said. "I wasn’t scared. There are hundreds of Secret Service agents hurtling themselves over tables and chairs, and I wanted to watch." "First of all, I have a bad back. I couldn’t get on the floor, and if I did get on the floor, they’d have to bring in people to get me off the floor. And No. 2, I’m a hygiene freak. There was no freaking way I was getting in my new tux on the dirty Hilton floor. It was not happening."

The AI investment cycle is only accelerating: Global data center CapEx driven by AI is projected to reach $5.2 trillion by 2030, according to McKinsey. IT equipment would represent ~$3.3 trillion of that total, followed by data center infrastructure at ~$1.6 trillion and power generation at ~$300 billion. This assumes 125 incremental gigawatts of new AI data center capacity added between 2025 and 2030, requiring as much electricity as ~125 nuclear reactors to power. In an accelerated demand scenario, total CapEx could rise to $7.9 trillion, with 205 incremental gigawatts of capacity added. A constrained scenario would require $3.7 trillion, with 78 incremental gigawatts added. The investment is expected to be driven by mass adoption of generative AI, enterprise integration across industries, competition between mega-cap tech and other firms, and governments investing heavily in AI infrastructure. The AI buildout is set to reach unprecedented scale.

BAHAHAHAHAHA… the dumbest mayor in America just ran off: -21k high paying jobs. -A $6B development. -Millions of dollars in property taxes. -Millions in income tax. NYC is cooked, this is what socialism does… it runs cities into the ground.

This is wild. Cursor hit $2.7 billion ARR last month. The quarter that ended in January, their gross margin was NEGATIVE 23% ❗️ That means for every dollar of revenue, Cursor paid Anthropic and OpenAI $1.23 in API costs. At a $2 billion run rate, that's nearly $2.5 billion a year in cost of goods on software that can't raise prices without losing developers to free alternatives. This is the context for the deal Cursor signed with SpaceX on Tuesday. SpaceX announced it has the option to buy Cursor for $60 billion later this year, or pay $10 billion for "the work together" if it walks away. The day before, Cursor was on track to close a $2 billion round at a $50 billion valuation with Andreessen, Nvidia, and Thrive. They halted the raise to take Elon's deal instead. The math works for Cursor. A $2 billion primary raise buys maybe 18 months of runway against a cost structure where frontier model pricing is set by their two biggest competitors. $10 billion paid out over time from SpaceX is five times the capital with zero dilution, because it's structured as a collaboration fee. Cursor goes from raising at $50 billion to holding a $60 billion floor on the exit. The math works for Elon. SpaceX merged with xAI in February at a combined $1.25 trillion pre-IPO. xAI's models aren't catching Claude or GPT on coding. Cursor has the distribution to $2.7 billion of paying developer demand and no frontier model of their own. Colossus has a million H100-equivalents of compute that needs to be utilized to justify the capex. The deal plugs all three gaps. And then there's the constraint Cursor couldn't escape alone. Anthropic launched Claude Code. OpenAI launched Codex. Both labs compete with Cursor directly using the same models Cursor pays rate card for. Every quarter that continues, the labs learn more about the enterprise developer workflow Cursor built while Cursor compounds losses. The negative gross margin was a countdown. Composer is the exit from that countdown. Cursor shipped their proprietary model in November, added Kimi routing in December, and the margin flipped positive by March. The SpaceX deal provides the capital and the compute to turn Composer from a cost-optimization router into a frontier model trained on Colossus. The $10 billion "work together" fee is the number that actually matters. That's what Elon was willing to pay for the option. Which means he thinks the option is worth more than $10 billion, which means he thinks Cursor at $60 billion is cheap. A $2 billion Series E at $50 billion is venture capital pricing a software company. $10 billion from SpaceX at a $60 billion option is an operator pricing a distribution channel.

Portfolio Rebalancing, Position Sizing & Leverage in the Bull Cycle (April 24, 2026) I’ve received a flood of questions recently about portfolio rebalancing and position sizing after my daily updates. Let me address them clearly and directly. 1. How My Top Holdings Grew Organically I never planned or forced any stock to become my largest position. My top three holdings today grew organically because I bought them early with strong conviction and continued accumulating as their fundamentals and momentum proved me right. What started as solid positions have become core holdings through consistent outperformance — not by design, but by results. Success in investing doesn’t come from any indicators in the world. It comes from picking the right stocks with vision at the right time! 2. It’s Still Early — The AI Revolution Has Decades Ahead Some might feel they’ve missed the AI party, but I don’t think we’re late at all. For perspective: the Internet revolution that began in the mid-1990s delivered massive gains for over 15–20 years. The AI revolution, which truly accelerated around 2022–2023 with the breakthrough of large language models, is still in its infancy. There are five key layers of the AI revolution — infrastructure, models, applications, data, and monetization — and each layer still offers tremendous opportunities for those with the patience to play the long game. Volatility is definitely inevitable, but if you can stomach the swings, the rewards can be life-changing. 3. My Position Sizing Philosophy Most of my followers already know my approach: Bet big on big stocks. Bet small on small stocks. I allocate significantly to large-cap leaders because they possess proven multi-decade track records, powerful competitive moats, and they drive the direction of the entire market. Smaller and speculative stocks, I treat like lottery tickets. I participate with smaller sizing, fully aware that while a few may deliver explosive returns, most won’t. This balanced approach allows me to stay in the game during both good times and bad. 4. Using Margin & Leverage Responsibly Leverage remains one of the most misunderstood tools in investing. I do use margin selectively to accelerate compounding, even with a sizable portfolio. I have deployed it opportunistically in early 2023, April 2024, and April 2025 — but only when the market handed me 50%+ discounts on my highest-conviction names. I never use margin recklessly. Every single time, I ensure I have enough cash flow and liquidity to repay at least 90% of the borrowed amount. Strong cash flow management is the foundation that makes leverage safe and effective. Final Thought: Embrace the Drawdowns As a disciplined long-term investor, I’ve learned to appreciate meaningful drawdowns and bear markets. Real wealth is rarely built at all-time highs through FOMO. It is forged during periods of fear, when quality assets trade at attractive valuations. Stay patient. Stay disciplined. Focus on the long game.

Wall Street’s SaaSpocalypse (4.0 Now!) is the most expensive delusion of 2026. I didn't think I would have to write this out but given the current Stock drop on $NOW , it seems appropriate. Truthfully, I have never been in pure SaaS stocks besides $ADBE and $CRM for a short term years ago. Now, with the current re-rating from over 200$ per share to below 90$, this deserves my attention - and probably other investors too. The whole panic thesis still assumes generative AI lowers the barrier to entry so drastically low, that Fortune 500s will fire all their SaaS vendors and build custom software with prompt engineers. Let's actually audit $NOW (ServiceNow) to dismantle this mathematically and see if there is any merit to it. 1. Massive Enterprise Liability: LLMs are probabilistic engines. In mission-critical Tech, hallucinations can and will break systems. The more you have worked with AI, the more familiar this is to anyone reading this. Equipping an entry-level developer with AI does not magically forge a master architect. Nor does it neutralize the immense gravity of legacy enterprise code. A sprawling architecture so complex that even the senior engineers who built it are usually terrified to alter it. Unrestricted AI is a liability; governed AI can be a weapon. 2. Architectural Gravity: You don't rip out the operational nervous system of a global enterprise with a custom ChatGPT wrapper. ServiceNow’s moat isn't just code; it's decades worth of compliance, security, and integration logic. Rebuilding that foundation requires an army of top-tier engineers. This structural moat applies equally to giants like $MSFT and other Software stocks. The barrier to entry hasn't fallen; the complexity of orchestration has exponentially increased. 3. The Physics of Compute: AI tokens burn massive capital. If you have scaled API infrastructure yourself, you know that token consumption obliterates budgets instantly. Even worse so at enterprise scale. The foundational API providers (Anthropic, OpenAI) simply do not possess data center capacity to support this. Even now, Anthropic is already putting restrictions on newer Models because they simply cannot service everyone, despite saying otherwise. ServiceNow already commands this infrastructure on optimized hyperscaler rails. ServiceNow Chairman and CEO Bill McDermott's first sentences in the last earnings report were: "Since our founding, we’ve built our platform around the work customers need to accomplish. Today, they rely on ServiceNow to be their AI control tower for business reinvention." -> Enterprises demand an orchestration layer and $NOW is delivering. Despite this, algorithms just wiped 16% off the stock over noise. Look at the actual Q1 reality: • Remaining Performance Obligations (RPO) hit a staggering $27.7 Billion (+25% YoY). Enterprises aren't leaving; they are locking in for the next decade. • Now Assist AI customers spending >$1M surged 130% YoY. • The price collapsed to $86 at the time of writting. Against $4.17 Fwd 2026 EPS, the Forward P/E drops to 20.6x. • Against a 20%+ Forward EPS CAGR, the PEG compresses to a flawless 1 (assuming they can keep up their EPS growth). The workflow Software monopolies aren't dying. They are evolving into the ultimate AI toll-bridges. $NOW extracts the tax on the enterprise deployment of AI. Compute is physically so constrained by HBM memory (Check out my $SKHynix thesis), enterprises are forced to rely on highly efficient, centralized platforms like $NOW to orchestrate their workflows. Sooner or later, this negative Sentiment will pass - at least for $NOW. Are you buying the Dip? Data & Chart by @fiscal_ai

@KastleCapital Exited my year plus leap for 105% gain today before close.. so glad I did. Hate to hear it. SpaceX IPO coming up. Potential merger? Tesla investors needed reassurance and it sounds like that wasn’t delivered. I’ll need to circle back in the AM 🫡

@Huntdaddy7 It’s more like what he didn’t say….. Super unconfident No real robotaxi timelines Pushing back Optimus showings Low energy Awful call overall

It’s very clear to me that FSD and Optimus are far out from today….. if Tesla is struggling this much, it’s unlikely any other company will catch up anytime soon. It’s clear that selling covered calls on Tesla is the move for the next 1-2 years