Mark Feldman

@auren Also, VC's: help you access capital (their fund's capital and/or other sources of capital.)

VCs can’t save your product. VCs can't help with product strategy etc. even if the VC built products in the same space (because usually the VC built that product a decade ago which is not relevant anymore). The best thing VCs can do is get out of your way and unblock (with intros, or advice during messy situations)

@EylonALevy @SenWarren Crickets

@SenWarren What would you like us to do about Hezbollah as it fires at Israeli families? Apart from being sitting ducks, which we’ve tried.

Pay attention to Lebanon. Trump and Netanyahu started a regional war in the Middle East, creating a humanitarian disaster. And now, the Israeli army has killed over 1,000 people in Lebanon—about 20% of them are kids. Congress should not bankroll this escalating war of choice.

@archeohistories Great post but small correction. Lower manhattan is in the background but they are actually in Jersey!

"Three men, two towers, one moment when the world stopped holding its breath. In 1988, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Mikhail Gorbachev stood together in Lower Manhattan with the Twin Towers rising behind them—a photograph that captured the end of one era and the uncertain beginning of another." The year was 1988. The Cold War, which had divided the world for four decades, was finally thawing. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader who had introduced glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), was in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly. On December 7, he delivered a landmark speech announcing unilateral cuts to Soviet military forces, a move that sent a clear signal: the Soviet Union was ready to end the arms race. That same day, he met with President Ronald Reagan and President-elect George H.W. Bush at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. The photo of the three men, with the World Trade Center towers visible in the background, became an enduring symbol of a world on the verge of transformation. Behind the smiles and handshakes, the meeting was loaded with history. Reagan, who had once called the Soviet Union the "evil empire," was now in his final weeks as president, having built a personal rapport with Gorbachev through a series of summits. Bush, still not yet inaugurated, was being ushered into a new world order where the Cold War's certainties were crumbling. The Twin Towers themselves—the tallest buildings in the world at the time—stood as monuments to American economic might and global ambition. In 1988, no one could foresee that 13 years later, the skyline they framed would be torn apart. But the photograph, with its three leaders facing forward, already hinted at a future where old enemies would have to find new ways to coexist. The meeting was more than a photo op. Gorbachev had just announced a 500,000-troop reduction from Soviet forces and the withdrawal of tanks from Eastern Europe. Reagan praised the move, and Bush, despite his reputation for being less warm to the Soviets, pledged continuity. The moment was a hinge: the Cold War was ending, but what would replace it was still unclear. The leaders weren't just posing—they were navigating a transition that would define the 1990s and beyond. The Twin Towers behind them were a reminder of the economic system that had triumphed, but also of vulnerabilities that remained invisible. Today, that photograph feels like a time capsule. The Twin Towers are gone. Reagan and Bush have passed away. Gorbachev died in 2022. Yet the image still resonates because it captures something essential: the possibility of adversaries choosing dialogue over destruction. In an era of renewed global tensions, it reminds us that peace is not achieved through strength alone—it requires leaders willing to take risks, to listen, and to see the humanity in those they once called enemies. "Three men stood at the edge of history, with towers behind them that no longer stand, and proved that even the deepest divisions can be bridged—not by pretending they don't exist, but by choosing to face them together." © Tales Of Past #archaeohistories

@Austen How about: “Companies on a list we bought”

New logo wall for our website what do you think?

The PM playbook was built on an assumption that the technology underneath your product is roughly stable With the current pace of model progress, this is no longer true. Here's how we've evolved the PM role:

@auren I always felt that the first meeting between a founder and a VC, especially if it's a junior VC, could be an email.

by the end of this year, most of the first meetings between VCs and founders will be agent-to-agent. assuming those mtgs go well, the 2nd mtg will be old-school (person-to-person)

@RealAliciaMayer @DrEliDavid lol!

@DrEliDavid So precise they'll just need to change out the curtains and carpets!

Israel's intelligence is next-level: 4 IRGC commanders in Lebanon tried to hide. They booked 15 hotel rooms under false names, and used only 1 room. They disabled all hotel security cameras. All 4 were killed today with a single missile to their room. No hotel guest was harmed.

@exQUIZitely Norton commander. I am really curious what my MacBook Pro’s effective Norton SI would be.

This one is for the OGs. Norton Commander or PC Tools - which was your #1?

@rxhit05 Developer.

As a solo founder, who would you hire first? The best developer or the best salesperson?

@jeffreyhuber The value of everything trends towards zero.

email as a channel is done completely cooked by AI SDR the value of all marketing channels trends towards zero

@grok @orphicfag Amanda Seyfried

@markjfeldman @orphicfag Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature: x.com/i/premium_sign…

Gay guy friday

tomorrow is pi day! in honor of pi day, giving away $314.15 to a random person that comments on this post (and will post a video of me doing it) raffle: 6 "tickets" for comment, 12 "tickets" for retweet/quoted, 2 "tickets" for likes.

@auren Auren says pi day but $314.15 = 100π = 50τ. A real pi loyalist would’ve given away $314.16. This is a tau psyop.

@sciencegirl Myst!

For those who used a computer between 1995 and 2001, what's the computer game from that time that sticks with you the most, and why

@THArrowOfApollo Code

We were Clay's largest user at one point in time, hitting their platform 17.3 million times per week. Last month we replaced them entirely with a $200/mo Claude Code subscription. I can't write code. Neither can James, my VP of Growth who built the replacement. Here's the full story. Clay is a GREAT product and I TRULY think most people should use it. But we hit their ceiling. 50,000 row limit per table. 12.5 million row cap per workspace. Tables that take days to actually delete. Clicking "run all" thousands of times and waiting days for things to clear out. So When you're processing millions of leads, all the above become the bottleneck of your entire business. James had never touched Claude Code before. Three weeks after learning it, he built our entire core system. With Clay, processing 1 million leads took 27 hours. And it would error out often enough that we would always have to plan on hitting the “run all rows” button again on 20+ clay tables. IYKYK but Our new system waterfall enriches 1 million leads in 5 seconds. 272,000 leads PER SECOND. AND On top of the core engine, we vibe coded a Google Maps scraper that pulls leads zip code by zip code across all 32,000 US zip codes. AND An AI lead finder that hits 95% contact match rates where Apollo gives you about 30%. AND Ad library scrapers for Google and LinkedIn. AND An AI campaign analysis system. AND An auto-refill system so clients never run out of leads mid-campaign. One we started building with Claude, we just couldn’t stop Now we have the data ready for clients sending 5 million emails a month within 1 week of signing the contract. I put together the full system blueprint -- every tool, the tech stack, a Clay vs custom comparison, and a 6-step playbook for building your own. Plus a video walkthrough where I show you the live system and how each tool actually works. Retweet or Reply CODE below and I'll DM it to you.

@MatijaSosic This is 💯 true.

@lesliem_f @paulrubens You’re citing a book that argues the conflict was never about borders to make the case that… moving a border fixes everything? Did you read it or just share it?

@paulrubens Get back within the green line that designates Israel It's not rocket science Daniel

An army in Lebanon that takes orders from Iran has been firing missiles and sending explosive drones into Israel. My question for the Twitter Generals: What can Israel do to stop these attacks in accordance with international law? Be as specific as possible.

@lesliem_f @The_Real_Joakim @paulrubens You’re citing a book that argues the conflict was never about borders to make the case that… moving a border fixes everything? Did you read it or just share it?

@The_Real_Joakim @paulrubens #CHAPTER%204%20%22A%20Historical%20Opportunity%20to%20Occupy%20Southern%20Syria%20%22%C2%A0" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/…

@shanaka86 @grok is this true

Iran is not on a suicide mission. It is on autopilot. And nobody in Tehran can reach the controls. In 2003, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari watched the United States decapitate Saddam Hussein’s centralised command structure in three weeks. He spent the next four years at the IRGC Strategic Studies Centre designing a military architecture that could never be decapitated. In September 2007, he was appointed IRGC Commander and immediately restructured Iran’s entire military into 31 autonomous provincial commands, one per province, each with independent headquarters, command and control, missile and drone arsenals, fast-attack boat flotillas, integrated Basij militias, pre-delegated launch authority, stockpiled munitions, and sealed contingency orders. The doctrine was built for one scenario: the death of the Supreme Leader. That scenario arrived on 28 February 2026. The doctrine activated within hours. It has been running ever since. The question nobody has asked is whether anyone inside the Islamic Republic can turn it off. No. The reason is constitutional. Article 110 of Iran’s 1979 Constitution vests sole command authority over all armed forces exclusively in the Supreme Leader. He alone is commander-in-chief. He alone appoints and dismisses military leadership. No other institution, not the President, not the Parliament, not the Guardian Council, not the judiciary, possesses constitutional power to issue military orders or rescind the Supreme Leader’s directives. Ali Khamenei issued the pre-delegation orders. Ali Khamenei is dead. Mojtaba Khamenei was appointed successor on 8th March. He has not spoken. He has not appeared. He has issued no verifiable order. He was wounded in an airstrike and has never addressed his nation in his life. The sole constitutional authority that could override 31 autonomous commands exists in an office occupied by a man who may not be capable of exercising it. Ghalibaf can reject ceasefires. He cannot order the IRGC to stop. Pezeshkian can issue statements. He cannot countermand a provincial commander in Bushehr launching anti-ship missiles at a tanker. The Guardian Council can vet legislation. It cannot revoke firing authority issued by a dead commander-in-chief whose orders remain legally binding until a living one explicitly rescinds them. No living one has. The 31 commands are not disobeying. They are obeying. The last orders said: fight independently, with whatever you have, for as long as it takes, without waiting for instructions that may never come. Those orders were designed to survive the death of the man who issued them. That was the entire purpose of Jafari’s twenty-year project. For insurers: no counterparty can guarantee cessation across 31 independent actors. For diplomats: no signatory can bind commands they do not control. For military planners: no single headquarters whose destruction ends the campaign. For Gulf states: each faces localised harassment from the adjacent Iranian province’s fast-attack boats, drones, and coastal missiles without any central coordination to intercept or negotiate with. For markets: seven P&I clubs modelled the probability that all 31 commands would simultaneously honour any agreement and concluded near zero. That calculation has not changed because the constitutional mechanism that could compel compliance does not functionally exist. The doctrine was not designed to win. It was designed to make losing impossible. Jafari studied how centralised armies die. He built one that cannot. The machine runs without a pilot. The pilot is dead. And the constitution says only the pilot could have turned it off. Full analysis in the link. open.substack.com/pub/shanakaans…