Luke Keipper

@chamath I’d argue the subscriber group creates more than pressure. Their non-overlapping needs give you two distinct usage streams, and the fast iteration from smaller teams and individuals naturally feeds back into sharpening the core for more complex enterprise work.

LIFTOFF OF ARTEMIS II Carrying the hopes and dreams of millions as four of humanity’s bravest ride a great pillar of fire destined for the Moon, carrying the pride of nations. 📸 - @NASASpaceflight

Codex single handily keeping me sane the last few days with the way @AnthropicAI has been throttling usage.

90% of my timeline right now is Lunar mass drivers and Project Hail Mary. I'm so happy 😊

I am so grateful to be living in a time where some of the most important people on Earth are talking about mass drivers!

STOP BLACK PILLING Put the phone down. Go outside. Touch grass. Call your mom. Drink with your friends. Be merry knowing you live in the best time in human history to ever be alive. You just need to slow down and take a moment to appreciate it.

THE UNBRIDLED GREATNESS OF TRAINS WILL ENDURE FOR A MILLION YEARS

That’s not the point at all. When I say “underutilized,” I’m talking about genuinely blighted spots: abandoned factories, vacant lots collecting trash, or rundown industrial zones that drag down the area and contribute nothing to the community. In Tampa, for instance, places like the old cigar factories or derelict warehouses near downtown aren’t anyone’s “perfect neighborhood”—they’re eyesores that we’ve been complaining about for years that could be revitalized into mid-density housing like rowhomes or townhouses, adding value without touching established suburbs. As for “where does it stop?”—it’s not a slippery slope to endless high-rises if done right. Targeted, mid-density infill in zones already primed for redevelopment, not blanket upzoning of quiet SFH areas. Zoning can (and should) set guardrails—places cap heights or require community input to prevent overreach, focusing on sustainable growth rather than developer free-for-alls. But US zoning laws rarely accommodate for infill. And on sustainability? This is a sustainable solution compared to unchecked sprawl. In Florida, we’ve lost over 2 million acres of farmland and wetlands to low-density development since the ‘80s, jacking up flood risks and costing taxpayers billions in extended infrastructure (roads, sewers, power lines that sprawl costs 2-10x more per unit than infill). Ironically I think we agree on the core issue: It’s about choice, not compulsion. property owners decide if they want to redevelop, and markets respond to demand. Cities should decide their policy on infill, and if so then zoning laws shouldn’t restrict these developers. Thereby giving those who want to live in the city an option. If population growth keeps surging, sure, tough choices loom, but smart redevelopment now buys us time and balance. Why not build on what’s broken instead of breaking more ground?

What you call underutilized, others call their perfect neighborhoods. Where does it stop? How many SFH neighborhoods are to be replaced with townhomes? And then what? Are you going to use zoning to prevent them from being replaces by 5-over-1s? Because that's what's coming next. And then 20 stories. You say sustainable, but you arent proposing a sustainable solution.

America has a plethora of detached single-family homes in the suburbs and huge 5-over-1 apartment buildings. But we forgot how to build the middle – where middle and upper-middle class families thrived in our cities. That's what we're building, starting with Rowhomes.

You’re right—labeling any one lifestyle as “inherently better” misses the point in a country as big as the US. There’ll always be room for car-centric suburbs with big yards and highways, and plenty of people who love that setup. But not everyone does, and that’s okay. The goal shouldn’t be to force a shift, but to offer real choices that have been zoned out for decades. I’ve grown up in Florida, so I see the “pie of location” getting sliced thinner with population growth—it’s unsustainable long-term, no argument there. But what I’ve witnessed isn’t just more people; it’s the type of development. Endless low-density sprawl gobbles up land, leading to higher infrastructure costs that outstrip tax revenue, more traffic, pollution, and the total destruction of our citrus fields and wetlands. Turning orange groves into cookie-cutter suburbs hasn’t solved affordability; it’s just spread out the problems. Here’s where I push back on the pie being fixed: mid-density infill doesn’t require expanding it through endless sprawl; it creates more “slices” within the existing one by making smarter use of underutilized land in cities. For example, urban spots in places like Tampa—historic factories, industrial areas, low-density neighborhoods near downtown—sit underdeveloped or blighted while new suburbs keep sprawling out. A steady, sustainable increase in supply like this would be good for Floridians (if population growth slows, we agree on that); it eases pressure where demand is hottest. Population growth amps up demand, sure, but sprawl just displaces it outward, often leaving cities fiscally strained. I want to live somewhere less dense when I’m older, and I drive an F150 and love the open road too—cars aren’t the enemy. The point is choice: not everyone, at every stage in life, wants a single-family home in a quiet suburb. Mid-density gives alternatives like walkable spots with transit for those who do, reducing car dependency without mandating it. No massive cultural shift overnight—just filling gaps to ease the fight over that pie. Long story short- a large portion of the population wants to live in suburbs, yeah, but I’ve watched Florida quite literally run out of land to build these houses on. We need more long-term/sustainable options.

I wish we would stop this pretense that walkability/transit is inherently better and is what everyone aspires to. The post pandemic work-from-home gave us a glimpse of what people want: given the option, dear damn everyone will pick a single family house in a quiet neighborhood. This myth has several origins: The first one is social activists who are still mad about white urban flight. Second, pre-Tesla anti-oil movement that made cars the symbol of the fight against carbon. This is now obsolete for several reasons, but people don't want to let go of a fight made meaningless. The most recent origin is people who can't afford to live where they want to live, and imagine increasing the density will make their chosen location affordable. But they are fools: density/supply has *never* beaten demographics increase over the long term, because of the self-defeating nature of supply. So to answer your question, why not have both worlds? Because the pie of location doesn't get bigger, and more and more people want a slice. Demographic increase is the root of the problem, and as long as population increases, it will increase conflict over people fighting for location.

I get your point about prioritizing location, but I disagree that rowhomes or higher-density options inherently mean terrible quality of life. Well-designed mixed-use developments can actually enhance it. Cities like Amsterdam or Vienna have high density, top-tier quality of life rankings, walkability, less car dependency, more efficient land use and better transit. I don’t think the American Housing Corporation’s mission is to wipe out suburbs or low-density living. It’s about giving families more choices in desirable spots without forcing everyone into endless sprawl or high-rises. Why not have both worlds?

@Absurdum14 @americanhousing Ad hominem to avoid answering the question.

@memeticsisyphus While Israel technically “purchases” the equipment via FMS, the payment is covered by U.S. aid dollars rather than Israel’s independent national funds.  Therefore, the financial burden ultimately falls on American taxpayers, as this aid is sourced from U.S. federal budgets.

@rookisaacman @POTUS @tedcruz Your point on urgency is very important. So excited to see where you lead our country. Congratulations and Godspeed!

Well it is official now.. I want to again express my sincere appreciation to President Donald J. Trump @POTUS for nominating me to lead NASA, and to the United States Senate--and Chairman Cruz @tedcruz - for their diligence and fairness throughout the confirmation process. I am grateful to Secretary Duffy @SecDuffy for his leadership as Acting Administrator during this transition, and to my wife Monica, my family, my friend Senator Sheehy @TimSheehyMT and everyone who offered their support along the way. As I step into this role, I make these personal commitments: – Mission: I will champion the bold objectives of human space exploration, scientific discovery, and a thriving orbital economy that ensures America’s leadership in space. We will never again give up our capabilities to reach for the stars, and we will never settle for second place. – Integrity: I will serve responsibly, transparently, and without personal gain, covering every cost I am legally permitted to, and fully adhering to my ethics agreement. My loyalty is to my country, my President, and the space agency that has inspired me since I was a child. – Urgency: I will intensely focus the agency on achieving the near-impossible, the very reason NASA was established in the first place. We will eliminate the bureaucracy that impedes progress and empower the best and brightest to take ownership, move quickly, accept smart risks, and act with a relentless focus on mission success. – Inspiration: Every launch, every scientific breakthrough must inspire the next generation to dream bigger, to reach higher, and believe that anything is possible. In addition to my existing philanthropic efforts, I will donate my salary as Administrator to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center’s Space Camp to help prepare the pioneers of tomorrow. I am humbled by this opportunity, proud to serve, and ready to work alongside the most talented minds in America as we continue the greatest adventure in human history. Sincerely, Jared Isaacman NASA Administrator

@Breaking911 @grok summarize the address

🚨 WATCH LIVE: President Trump addresses the nation form the White House x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Whenever I hear @elonmusk talk about data centers in space, he is always talking about scaling. Space scales massively better than Earth. Consider: A permit for orbital locations for a mega constellation of 20,000 data centers requires 1 application and approval from the FCC. But 20,000 locations on Earth require: * 20,000 permits * 20,000 site surveys * 40,000 environmental studies * 60,000 local political hearings * 20,000 site development contracts * 20,000 construction sites * 20,000 power, phone, water, and sewage connections * 60,000 building inspector reports * 20,000 fire inspector approvals Etc Space scales massively better than Earth.

@elonmusk @SpaceX Last sentence is referring to data centers in space for anyone wondering!

NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!! 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 Florida State wins its 5th NCAA title with a 1-0 win over #1 Stanford!!!!

Blue origin has been doing great recently- I would just like to see them work at a faster pace. They have some of the best engineers on the planet but appear to spend much of their time focused on regulatory aspects and suing other companies. If America wants to accomplish their stated goals in space, delaying competition just makes things more difficult for all parties.

How can you seriously not love Blue Origin?

@nathans_codes_2 Yes

off topic but do americans really have to put their flags everywhere

If America had ~3 more SpaceX's and Tesla's we'd be on an undeterrable path towards reindustrializaiton There are candidates but we need to help them scale

I don't think people fully understand what's about to happen. Within the next 10 years, America is going to have such a dominant position in space that it will be basically impossible for any other country to catch up. We're going to have thousands of satellites providing internet, communications, GPS, weather data, military intelligence, all owned and operated by American companies. We're going to have American companies mining asteroids for rare earth minerals. We're going to have American companies building habitats on the Moon. We're going to have American companies establishing the first permanent settlement on Mars. And all of this is happening not because the government decided to do it, but because private entrepreneurs saw an opportunity and went for it.