oops

@quxiaoyin Stop with the slop

VCs told me they don't fund founders over 30. I was annoyed. Then I thought about it. They're half right. If you were a great VP at Google managing 200 people — that doesn't transfer to managing 200 AI agents. Your status, your meetings, your authority structure? Irrelevant. Old experience in the AI era can be a cage. Not a credential. But I don't believe the cage can't be broken. The key: default to assuming everything you know is wrong. Then rebuild from first principles. What actually survives? For me: running cross-functional teams translates to managing diverse AI agents. That transfers. Everything else — politics, managing up, career ladders — leave it behind.

@vkhosla My brutally honest opinion about this whole story is that the more you explain the worse it gets

I am often wrong but always give honest opinions. Some find this harsh but hypocritical politeness hurts founders. Brutal honesty gives them a chance to evaluate it and accept or reject. the opinion. Great founders elect for honesty. It is not fun to offer brutal honesty

@brycent You’re so sharp man

If SpaceX is renting GPUs instead of using them to train Grok, wouldn’t that be more of a sign that SpaceX doesn’t believe Grok is good enough?

@tthom2193 @hthieblot 😂😂 so unnecessary

@hthieblot “How can I brag about selling my company for $100M?” “I’ve got the perfect idea…”

You just sold your company for $ 100M. What’s the FIRST thing you buy?

@martinmbauer I think you’re struggling with the concept of humor

People struggling with the fact that in physics ‘retarded’ is used in its original meaning

@ShaoxiongYao Isn’t the simulation fidelity the whole issue? How is appending another layer of simulation going to help? If you could reason comprehensively in the simulation world why didn’t you have an optimal policy attached to that state in the first place?

Excited to share our CVPR work: SIMPACT: Simulation-Enabled Action Planning using Vision-Language Models, 11:45 PM – 1:45 PM at ExHall F 611 simpact-bot.github.io How can we make VLMs plan robotic manipulation actions with grounded physical reasoning?

@CKCapitalxx This stock is just absurdly volatile it can go to $60 or it can go to $180. Who knows? It’s mostly vibes until revenue gets flowing

At what price does $ASTS become attractive again? Blue Origin was a big hit in the gut but thesis is still in tact.

@ProfBuehlerMIT You really didn’t need that extremely overhyped and partially bogus tweet to go along with your paper. It’s a good paper but it’s really not all that you’re saying in the tweet. I don’t think the bots commenting really read the paper.

We've made a breakthrough in self-evolving AI scientists moving from "search" to "principled discovery": Scientific discovery requires that the search space itself changes, and an AI scientist must perceive this shift without intervention. We built an AI that achieves this for the first time with the ability to discover the scientific vocabulary it reasons in. Evidence, tools, artifacts, verifiers, failures & claims become typed provenance. We show three distinct modalities: 1) retrieval, adding known objects; 2) search, exploring a fixed schema; and critically: 3) discovery, a verified regime transition. We solve the open-endedness evaluation problem by lifting agentic workflows into a typed copresheaf and proving, via a Kan obstruction, that true discovery is not unbounded generation but a verifiable schema expansion: old evidence is transported by Left Kan extension, and genuine novelty is mathematically quantified by the pointwise residual beyond the transported image - separating discovery from mere search and making novelty objective and measurable rather than a subjective judgment or benchmark delta. Our AI scientist is built in a way that does not pre-conceive the approach it chooses; instead, we endow the system with formal power to adapt, evolve, and reason from first principles. Case studies include: 1⃣Builder/Breaker model that discovers mode-conditioned compliance in proteins; 2⃣CategoryScienceClaw that finds anisotropic fiber-network stiffness rules. Great work in collaboration with my graduate student @fwang108_ @MITdeptofBE F.Y. Wang & M.J. Buehler, Self-Revising Discovery Systems for Science: A Categorical Framework for Agentic Artificial Intelligence, arXiv:2606.01444, 2026

@dee_bosa Omg what a brave contrarian perspective

SpaceX/xAI is a better compute reseller than it is an AI lab

@JasonBotterill Sad little deca millionaires

Anthropic employees are fucking depressed

@GaryMarcus @AndrewYang But why tax something that’s going to undoubtedly fail soon? I’m hearing from experts AI demise is imminent

THIS. I fully agree with @andrewyang, especially since GenAi leverages IP from a huge range of humans that were not adequately compensated.

@exec_sum Literally bearish about market every time he opens his mouth but in this particular case he has never seen a more undervalued asset lol

Jamie Dimon will personally pitch JPMorgan's high-net-worth clients on SpaceX's IPO Dimon will host a 'live interactive discussion' today, simulcast from JPM's HQ, for over 2,500 clients across 90 locations and 26 states He will be joined by JPM's asset and wealth management CEO Mary Callahan Erdoes and SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell and CFO Bret Johnsen Bank of America is also hosting a similar client event for over 5,00 clients with co-president Jim De Mar

@BujokMr All of this by the guy who truly loves humanity and does not care about money lol

Do you guys not see what is clearly going to happen

@ASTS_SpaceMob Stfu ffs

Meanwhile SpaceX is IPO’ing at $1.75T and $ASTS is only worth $43bn

@CitronResearch Narrator: “It was, in fact, over!”

Today I was found guilty. Amongst other things, for recommending Tesla, Nvidia and Meta back in 2018. Not once did anyone say I lied. The government’s own agent admitted it on the stand. There were no false statements. So now a truthful opinion that ends up making money is illegal. Is this America? We disagree with the jury and this does not stop here. We will keep fighting for free, honest speech and opportunity, the backbone of this country. This is not over.

@theinformation Of course the test showed that companies should pay more to Palo Alto Networks lol

Palo Alto Networks used Anthropic’s Mythos to find more than two dozen critical vulnerabilities in about three weeks. The test also showed companies may need much bigger AI security budgets. Read more: thein.fo/4vra47r

@mvcinvesting So you basically didn’t add much all the way up so you can have a pretty average cost? The stock at $20 was an insanely risky investment, then it was a no brainer at $80 and you sat on your hands while closely monitoring this asset?

$NBIS is officially a 10x from my average cost of $25.67. Not my first ten-bagger, but definitely the one that has had the biggest impact on my life. Position sizing matters. Congrats to every bull who saw the opportunity early and had the conviction to stick with it.

@8teAPi 😂

People keep saying the rules are being bent for Elon. This is not true. The rules are being bent to protect investors. In standard finance theory (Modern Portfolio Theory + CAPM), the passive investor aims to hold the market portfolio — a highly diversified basket of all investable assets weighted by market capitalization. This portfolio sits at the optimal point on the efficient frontier: it offers the highest expected return per unit of risk (highest Sharpe ratio) among all possible portfolios of risky assets. Because of this: - Any deviation from it (concentrated bets, stock picking, sector tilts) either increases risk for the same expected return or lowers expected return for the same risk. - In an efficient market, you cannot systematically beat the market portfolio on a risk-adjusted basis without taking more risk or having genuine informational advantage (which is assumed rare or nonexistent for most participants). This is why broad index funds (S&P 500, total world stock) are considered “unbeatable” for the average investor over long periods. As always theory differs from practice in many ways. Many investors failed to get into Bitcoin until much later. This meant that a passive index investor who also owned some BTC outperformed on a risk return basis. Large asset classes being held out, dislodges passive investors from the efficient frontier. This is why university endowments do so well, as they often have exposure to unusual assets for retail, including farmland and forests. it’s actually a huge problem for the indexes and everyone else if SpaceX isn’t in the index. Everyone knows it’s going to be and mechanically the index funds can’t hold it until it’s in the index, creates this massive loss which is captured by speculators. 25% of the market is owned by index funds, so 25% of dollars would go to the most sophisticated investors. the problem is that the arbitragers capture the spread when the market is inefficient. You’re forcing all the passive investors, less sophisticated 401k and pensioners, into inefficiency because they cannot hold the market basket of assets for months. Yes this is what normally happens prior to index inclusion, but normally the impact is basis points as new entrants start at the smallest end of the index, and then grow into the top over time. The indexes rebalance gradually as the company grows, buying more and more over a long period of time. Apple was added to the S&P500 in 1982. Market cap around $500 mil when the index market cap was $1 trillion. It started out with a weighting of 0.05% of the index, ie 5 parts of every 10,000. At peak in 2023, it was 7.6%, 760 parts of 10,000. It took 41 years of index rebalancing to increase its weightage 152x. SpaceX at $1.75 out $69T market cap would be 2.5% of the index, 250 dollars of every 10,000 dollars, 50x more when it gets added. This creates the opportunity for all the sophisticated participants to front run the less sophisticated ones. How ? Well if i know on X date, the value of Index = Index + SpaceX, then when if the Index is lower than Index + SpaceX, I can buy the Index and sell Index + SpaceX, and vice versa. The longer SpaceX remains out of the index the, the more opportunities arise for discrepancies that need to be arbitraged, and the more passive and retail investor pockets I get to pick. When you insert a company at the top end of the index, you force massive buying regardless of whether the inclusion is days after or months. The longer you have a certain pricing event the worse the losses are. And you can bet your bottom dollar Vanguard and Blackrock would have complained loudly if the early index inclusion was going to harm their investors. This is the best possible solution to this issue.

@TouchlineX Yes while playing arguably the ugliest football imaginable in the history of the game. Only if there were trophies for corner kick queens.

🚨🗣️ 𝗡𝗘𝗪: Arteta: "We didn't lose a single game in this Champions League season."

@yash1_ @adcock_brett Embodied Fundraising

@adcock_brett What are the current problems you are solving in the direction of general robotics?

Today, we're announcing the completion of a $100 million employee tender at Figure To solve general robotics, we need the best engineers on the planet and as a private company I'm glad to be providing liquidity along our journey