IamSlick

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.

Falcon Heavy’s side boosters have landed on LZ-2 and LZ-40!

Raptor 3 is engineering black magic SpaceX’s Raptor is the FIRST full-flow staged combustion engine to ever fly - only the 3rd ever built (after the Soviet RD-270 and the 2000s US demo that never flew) → Both fuel-rich + oxidizer-rich preburners → 100% of propellant through the turbines before the main chamber → Auto-ignites from hot preburner gases (no Merlin igniter fluid) → Record 350 bar chamber pressure Raptor 3 goes even crazier: Everything internalized with regenerative cooling. No heat shields. No fire suppression system. Saves 10+ tons This is how Starship becomes rapidly reusable

The Supreme Court has handed Republicans in Texas a win by striking down lower a court block on the state's new congressional district map. Kagan, Sotomayor & Jackson dissented.

Scam Altman has a incredible track record for being a con artist I don't think anyone has a "former ally turned enemy" list this big with directly with people he worked with A massive new 18-month investigation dropped, revealing the full list of people who worked directly with Sam Altman and now openly say they don’t trust him - they call him a liar, manipulator, scam artist, and worse These are his co-founders, board members, top executives, and biggest partners. Not random haters: • Elon Musk (OpenAI co-founder) ➝ Betrayed the original nonprofit, open & safe AI mission and turned it into a closed profit machine What he says: Calls him "Scam Altman" and “Sam Altman lies as easily as he breathes” • Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI co-founder & former Chief Scientist) Why: Discovered Sam repeatedly lied about safety protocols and bypassed board oversight. What he says/did: Compiled 70+ pages of memos, Slack messages, and evidence proving Sam’s lies → helped fire him. Said he didn’t think “Sam is the guy who should have his finger on the button for AGI” • Dario Amodei (former OpenAI President, now Anthropic CEO) Why: Left because of Sam’s leadership and broken safety promises What he says: “The problem with OpenAI is Sam himself.” Called the company under Sam "mendacious” (full of lies) and compared it to Big Tobacco knowingly selling something dangerous. Accused him of a clear “pattern of behavior” • Helen Toner (former OpenAI Board Member) Why: Sam made it impossible for the board to do its job through constant deception What she says: He was “outright lying to the board” and created a “toxic atmosphere” of psychological pressure • Tasha McCauley (former OpenAI Board Member) Why: Complete loss of trust after years of the same behavior What she says: Senior leaders reported Sam cultivated a “toxic culture of lying” • Jan Leike (former Superalignment co-lead) Why: Sam deprioritized real safety work for shiny products What he says: Resigned publicly saying he “lost confidence” in OpenAI leadership and that the company was “losing its way” on alignment • Mira Murati (former CTO - one of Sam’s closest longtime collaborators) Why: Lost all confidence in his leadership as they approached AGI What she says: Told insiders “I don’t feel comfortable about Sam leading us to AGI” and said his playbook is to say whatever he needs to get what he wants, and if that fails, destroy your credibility • Microsoft executives (including major tensions with CEO Satya Nadella) Why: Felt constantly misled on deals and partnerships What they say: A senior exec warned he could be remembered as a “Bernie Madoff or Sam Bankman-Fried-level scammer” • Paul Graham (Y Combinator co-founder - Sam was YC President) Why: Long pattern of deception during his time running YC What he says: Privately told YC colleagues, “Sam had been lying to us all the time" • Loopt board & early employees (Sam’s first startup) Why: History of chaotic and deceptive behavior What they did: Employees went to the board twice trying to get him fired over lack of honesty and shady behavior These are his co-founders, board members, closest executives, and major partners who actually worked with him all say the exact same things - chronic lying, manipulation, broken trust, toxic culture, scam & deception

David Sacks: Nonprofits need to manufacture problems in America to stay in business David Sacks: “Here's the systemic problem with nonprofits and NGOs. Let me just contrast it with business. In business, you set up a company, the company has to make revenue, it has to make profits. And if it doesn't, it's going to go out of business, right? Because it'll lose money. So there's a feedback mechanism from the market. With an NGO, nonprofit, what have you, they raise money. They don't sell things. They fundraise from donors in order to engage in an activity, but what happens over time is the actual activities may stop mattering, and all that really matters is they're able to keep fundraising, right? Because they're just trying to figure out a justification to keep going back to donors to get more and more money out of them. That's what perpetuates the organization.” Chamath: “ Why wouldn't the Southern Poverty Law Center focus on southern poverty? Which is an issue that actually still exists in some shape or form. Why do you call it one thing, focus on racism, and then all of a sudden whip up fake racism?” Sacks: “I do think that at one time in this country, civil rights was a noble cause, a very legitimate cause. We had the legacy of segregation and Jim Crow, and there were groups that were set up to basically change that, and they succeeded. But again, no one in an NGO or a nonprofit ever declares victory. When Obama got elected in 2008, regardless of whether you liked Obama or not, or agreed with his politics, I thought that at that point, most people could see that this was not a racist country. Whatever else you could say, the fact that the highest office in the land was not denied to anybody showed that this country was not holding people back based on their skin color. And instead of just basically packing up shop and saying, ‘Okay, we've achieved our goal,’ the goalposts all got moved. Remember, that's when the whole anti-racism thing started, was around Obama's second term. If they just said at that time, ‘You know what, we're going to move the goalposts from equality of opportunity to equality of results. We're going to basically make everyone equal at the finish line,’ which is to say, identity socialism. People would've said, ‘Eh, no, we're not on board for that.’ So instead, they created this whole new terminology to justify it. And it's taken us years to unpack that and realize what's really going on.”