npilk

There are certainly cheaper options than $15 per 1000 emails - I think Amazon's SES is more like $0.10 - $0.20 per 1000.

So at the moment they claim to be making an operating profit if you exclude:

- Stock-based compensation expenses

- Non-cash charitable contribution expenses

Both seem fairly reasonable to exclude (although it depends how much of the stock compensation is for executives... you can't necessarily pay people with stock forever).

FMost of the loss is non-operating losses, and it all seems to be weird accounting recognition of changes in value of their stock, SAFEs, etc. - just "paper" losses.

So the financial picture looks a lot better than I would have guessed - I suppose because they aren't the ones investing all this capex.

That's sort of a paper loss though. E.g. they made an agreement to give X% of stock for something, and now the stock has gone up a ton, so that X% of stock is worth a lot more than when they made the agreement. For accounting reasons this gets parsed as a loss. But they're still "paying" that same X% of stock, so it's not cash out the door.

Maybe not great, but a good problem to have if it means your stock is skyrocketing.

For context I believe $72B of that is a weird accounting loss because their stock has gone up so much in value and they owed some people some stock. So it's not cash out the door.

Care to link what you ordered?

Are you talking specifically about 'kill all humans', as in complete extinction? Or have you not seen a plausible mechanism for any sort of large-scale catastrophe?

Thanks! I think the fox is steadying the log as the raccoon hoists it. Agree the badger is sort of hammering the air, haha. The art was AI-generated but with some manual editing in Affinity, so hopefully it's not too sloppy.

Just finished Mansfield Park. Sort of a strange way to end the book, though I enjoyed it overall and was pretty well sucked in from the “play” onward.

FTFY: As seen by one Polish guy's LLM.

The visual design is beautiful and the maps are illuminating for some of the points. But a good number of the map elements feel pretty superfluous, in a 'data for data's sake' kind of way.

Overall I think this would be more impactful if it were ~50% shorter or if there were more navigation - this is a ton of content to scroll through one panel at a time.

There seems to be a mistake in the cost comparison between 2025 and 2026. The 2025 chart axis is the cost to run the entire "intelligence index", and the 2026 version is a weighted average cost per task.

I don't disagree with the thesis here, I just don't think costs are coming down quite that quickly.

If it helps, he's saying those two reasons are the evidence that the highlands were completely cut off, not that those are the cause of the highlands being cut off. As opposed to an alternate history where there was significant trade or interaction between the highlands and coastal peoples.

> The reasons why I believe that ... the highlands were functionally cut off is ...