flaw

Every boomer memoir is like "I screwed around doing drugs until I was 29, then I walked in with no experience and a firm handshake and got the job. Within 6 months I was a manager" and now its not like that so what happened?

For the cited theorems, I’ve had my agents do a full inventory of conventions used in each, to avoid incidents like OpenAI withdrawing three manuscripts due to a convention-mismatch sign error. It would be unprecedented for a faulty manuscript to survive this level of scrutiny.

TikTok also scores how attractive you are, guesses your age/gender, and calculates your mood with some of these on-device models. I pulled them out of the app, so you can try it directly here: ayoships.com/tools/tiktok-fa… I ported them from ByteNN so they run in your browser. My tests showed significant negative bias against darker skin and older faces.

What a joke man 😞

TIL that the anecdote about the pottery students who made a million crappy pieces becoming good, is a fucking lie lesswrong.com/posts/LrAqM4bG…

In Budget 2026, we’re backing the Canadian artists who tell our stories. That means if you’re a Canadian artist, you won’t pay tax on up to $45,000 of income derived from your creative work.

whew nytimes.com/2026/11/05/techn…

THERES NO WAY LMAO.

Eric Schmidt on the controversial hiring rules that built Google, and the beloved "glue people" he says you don't need at all: Schmidt admits the early rules were unpopular, even inside the company. "One of the rules is that we didn't want to hire your friends, which always was upsetting. We also didn't want to hire anybody from what were considered to be lesser universities. And so we also wanted to hire people who had very high GPAs." That meant saying no to people who, by most measures, deserved a yes: "So the constant problem was that somebody was a good employee, had someone they had worked with, who was very loyal, very hard working, who was not from a great university, did not have a very good GPA and we would not hire them." He concedes the policy has since been softened. But he doesn't apologise for it: "So that was controversial and we've relaxed that a little bit now. But the fact of the matter is it got us to where we were today because it produced these high IQ generalists from prestigious universities." Then there was the second rule, built on a lesson Schmidt learned before Google, at Novell. He calls them "glue people": "The glue people are incredibly nice people who sit at interstitial boundaries between groups and they assist in activity. They are glue and they're very, very loyal and people love them and you don't need them at all." The problem wasn't that they were bad people. It was that they cost speed: "At Novell, I kept trying to get rid of these glue people because they were getting in the way because they slowed everything down." And once inside, they were almost impossible to remove: "And every time I'd get rid of in one group, they'd show up in another group and they'd transfer and get rehired and all that." When @ericschmidt raised this with Larry and Sergey, Larry's answer was to stop glue people before they ever got in: "And Larry said, yeah, let's just review all the hiring." "So guess what? From that moment on, we reviewed every offer packet. Literally everyone." The review was strict enough that even Schmidt's own preferred candidates got caught: "And anybody who smelled or looked like a glue person, plus the people that Larry and Sergey thought had backgrounds that I liked that they didn't, would all be flagged. And so anybody who sort of met the original profile, they'd go right through."

Who actually gets rich if Anthropic lists at $2 trillion? The S-1 filed on Monday lets us answer from the filing itself. The reported target is $1.5T to $2T, listing the week of November 16. The filing implies about 16.9B fully diluted shares. So $2T works out to roughly $118 a share. The cap table at $2T: - $199B for the 7 controlling co-founders, about 10% - $28B for Ben Mann, if his stake matches theirs - $100B for the Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, 5% - $331B in employee options and RSUs, about 17% , That pool covers about 5,300 employees, an average of $62M each. - But when you joined matters enormously. The S-1 shows how much equity was granted each year, and at what price. [ Headcount went from about 300 to 500 in late 2023, to 940 at end 2024, to 5,300 now. Match the two, and here is roughly how many people made what at $2T: - $110M to $400M each: ~300 to 500 people hired by 2023 - $200M to $300M each: ~440 to 640 hired in 2024 - $70M to $95M each: ~1,360 hired in 2025 - $10M to $20M each: ~3,000 hired in 2026 So about 940 people hired by the end of 2024 average nine figures. Everyone hired since averages eight figures. The 2024 class is the surprise. That year Anthropic granted 1.28B options at $1.30 a share. At $118, that one year of grants is worth about $133B. Then there is the tender. In April, holders could sell at $25.91 a share. Investors lined up $6B, but only $4.7B sold. Weeks later, Series H priced at $58.90 a share. At $2T, the people who held would be up 4.6x. And Dario and Daniela Amodei were among the sellers. The 7 founders have pledged 80% of their equity to charity. That is about $159B at $2T. But the S-1 says the pledges are not legally binding.

I'm doing the battlecode this year and am currently top 1% on the leaderboard. This very much feels like playing centaur chess with opus as the horse. I'm still adding a lot of value but I get the feeling this won't be the case for much longer. Soon competitions like this will just be pay to win compute sinks and lose their signalling value.