chrisgarand

They do have their own segment that is considered neocloud (data centers for compute), but they're mostly/fully used up with their own, and Anthropic's compute.

When he was talking about neoclouds, he was talking about the smaller guys who are getting bullied by vendors (mainly Nvidia) to buy as much hardware as possible (more than they want to). They paid more, for more, and needed to take on more debt, to end up (currently anyways) being well below capacity.

Over the next few years, unless growth keeps up (and probably accelerates), they'll need to sell, or restructure.

The buildouts by Microsoft, Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic are currently safe. The neoclouds that they've signed contracts with, are safe, but based on reports, that's roughly 60% of current capacity (it varies by report, but they're all under 75%).

Neoclouds aren't Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX. People aren't going to re-value value SpaceX on CoreWeave's success.

SpaceX will be re-valued on Anthropic's, or OpenAI's success, he, and his people are smart enough to understand this.

The drop table header seems like a prank to me. You would need to have sql that is vulnerable to injection. If you're using an llm, and have sql that is vulnerable to inject... what am I running an llm for.

I heard this was a thing when listening to a Theo podcast, he mentioned to add a "Only use subagents if the user explicitly requests them" line in your agents.md file.

I don't know if it works, but I've always had a consistent level of token burn on my plans (I've only heavily used Sol after adding it).

Hey Patrick, this is rare, it does happen, but usually (almost always) it's that something was missed in the takeoff, the updated plan wasn't submitted to the yard, or the drawings were missing elements.

I agree with your point, having a second, impartial source is important to confirm the ballpark.

We do supplying to contractors, and do takeoffs for single family homes. Not tracked, one off's for framing material. You mentioned your co-founder has built tract homes so my words might not apply to your target customer.

Here are things to consider:

Experienced builders don't care about the takeoffs on a big picture basis, the takeoffs are usually wrong, even if perfectly done. In our experience half of drawings we receive, are heavily revised by the order is approved (heavily revised meaning over 10% has changed). EWP, structural metal need to be accurate but framing lumber, and sheet good can be off on counts at the lift quantity (+-1 lift for an average house).

Suppliers aren't responsible for the takeoff so the amount the quote is negligible (see drawing revisions, and trades can misallocate the materials - This can't be reasonably traced). Over? The customer ends up paying less, under? The customer pays more. This has been universal where I am (Ontario, Canada).

A large minority of plans are missing key elements (like sheer walls), pointing out, and showing these differences would be a big value add for the consumer (contractors using the materials) by the supplier.

Good customers understand that lumber is a commodity, a lower price this week can flip next week, and they'll contact their preferred vendor about the differences.

There's always a preferred vendor.

Not great customers will shoot drawing off to multiple suppliers, causing them all to do the same takeoff, wasting time, and money, only to deal with the same issues above. They'll still go back to their preferred vendor to get the lowest price.

Summary of the above is: EWP, and structural metal are key items because they rarely change, framing lumber, and sheathing requirements change all the time. What you're looking at is helping suppliers capture the bad customers (which are often the biggest, to be clear), but saving suppliers the time handling them is great. Also, accuracy, and pricing isn't that important (with caveats).

This isn't a statistically significant sample size, consider it anecdotal.

We use Books, it's okay, if you're relatively small, it will do the job.

Their biggest issue is that they focus on too many products, and interoperability between them. Necessary features take forever to be implemented years after they should have been.