“openai should pay its taxes” is a coherent position “openai should pay its taxes, then personally build our housing and run our schools because city hall didn’t” is not but that’s the argument being by the sf gate in this article the funniest part is that if openai actually did it, the backlash would be immediate build 1000 apartments in the mission? gentrification start a school? billionaires shouldn’t control education fund a hospital? keep tech out of healthcare we don’t even have to speculate. we’ve run this experiment already zuck gave $100m to newark schools and got attacked for billionaire influence over public education he and priscilla chan gave $75m to sf general, the largest private gift in its history. a few years later, people were protesting to get his name off the hospital ray dalio put $100m toward helping connecticut’s poorest students. the public-private partnership collapsed amid fights over transparency and private influence so what exactly is the acceptable option here? pay taxes? apparently not enough directly solve the problem? unacceptable corporate influence give the government even more money? that’s just taxes again if sf takes hundreds of millions from openai and still can’t deliver housing or education, the obvious question is what happened to the hundreds of millions not why openai hasn’t started running schools and building apartments itself

today @hyperspell’s ARR passed what my parents have been able to save for retirement after more than 40 years of work one day this will feel like a tiny milestone but today it means a lot to me i grew up in a small rural town of 2,000 people. my first job was as a cashier at an Arby’s inside a thruway rest stop the world i work in now is very different from the one i grew up in. sometimes the numbers still don’t feel real my parents always found a way to give us opportunities, even when it meant giving something up themselves now it’s my turn to take care of them

one of the strangest things about moving from new york to sf was realizing how often extremely important things happen here in settings that don't feel important at all i lived in new york for four years. i sometimes spent entire days moving icons around in powerpoint, but i was doing it in a skyscraper with great views, surrounded by attractive people in patagonia vests. afterward i'd walk onto a packed street and go to a beautiful restaurant even when the work itself was mundane, everything around it told you it mattered sf is almost the opposite the blue bottle in south park feels like a normal coffee shop. it is also a place where an absurd amount of capital gets allocated sand hill road is one of the most powerful financial centers in the world and looks like a collection of dentist offices you'll meet someone dressed like they just rolled out of bed who can't make eye contact and discover later that they control billions of dollars or have built a product you use every day i've been to parties where almost everyone had raised millions of dollars or built products used by millions of people. in another city, each person would have seemed like a big deal. in sf, they were just standing around a cramped apartment at a "party" that honestly wasn't even that good i used to live in a closet in a slightly dilapidated hacker house with creaky floors and old furniture. people who lived there went on to create companies worth tens of billions of dollars new york puts a lot of effort into making importance visible. sf often seems actively uninterested in doing that some of this is probably because sf is more focused on creation than consumption. some of it is the personality of builders, who often care much more about the thing they're making than the room they're making it in but i think the lack of polish also lowers the barrier to entry. you don't need to look important before doing something important here new york makes ordinary work feel important sf makes important work feel ordinary

chamath is the last person who should be making this claim but he’s wrong on the substance too in 1991, the LA Times warned that “the basic character and culture of Silicon Valley” was being permanently altered and its entrepreneurial ethos was “slipping away.” that was 10 years before chamath even arrived in silicon valley in 2001 people love to romanticize the past. every generation remembers the weirdos and idealists and forgets the careerists, mercenaries and people who just wanted to get rich in 60s, fairchild engineers were leaving to start competitors and make fortunes on equity in the 70s, gates was arguing that hobbyists needed to pay for software and jobs stopped woz from giving his designs away for free so he could sell them even paul graham has openly said he started viaweb because he wanted to get rich silicon valley has always been a messy mix of idealism, ambition, ego and money. that tension isn’t new and it hasn’t ‘ruined it’. it’s part of the reason it works the magic was never that everyone had pure motives. the magic is that ppl with wildly different motives can show up, compete, build, and create things that impact the world the oldest silicon valley tradition might be believing its best days are behind it

this is one of those things that sounds obviously true until you look at the history. in 1991, the LA Times warned that “the basic character and culture of Silicon Valley” was being permanently altered and that its entrepreneurial ethos was “slipping away.” that was 10 years before chamath arrived in silicon valley in 2001 people love to romanticize the past. every generation remembers the weirdos and idealists and forgets the careerists, mercenaries and people who just wanted to get rich. by the 60s, fairchild engineers were already leaving to start competitors and make fortunes on equity. in the 70s, gates was arguing that hobbyists needed to pay for software while woz was giving away his designs and jobs was figuring out how to sell them. even paul graham has openly said he started viaweb because he wanted to get rich. that’s fine silicon valley has always been a messy mix of idealism, ambition, ego and money. that tension isn’t new and it hasn’t ‘ruined it’. it’s part of the reason it works the magic was never that everyone had pure motives. the magic of this place is that people with wildly different motives can show up, compete, build, and create things that impact the world the oldest silicon valley tradition might be believing its best days are behind it

"the most tapped in VC 💀" or known as Lyra Capital ( is officially backing founders w capital, talent and an unfair network. Started 28 days ago - we've cut 16 checks. Fund I - backed by @WorkwithLyra, deploying Fund II - 2027 Know cracked friends? Tag them.

selling to enterprises is actually much easier than selling to startups enterprises have more money, more time, and more headcount to devote to making a new product successful. you also get the wow factor of bringing them new technology startups are harder. using too many external tools can threaten their builder identity. they want to be the ones building the magic, not buying it enterprise leaders love feeling like they’re part of the startup journey startups are already on the journey enterprise sales have way more activation energy: security, legal, procurement, compliance but once you get through all that, the contracts are bigger, longer, and much stickier startups are quick sales and quick churn enterprises are slower sales, but much more durable once you’re in