- Tweets 809
- Following 162
- Followers 111
- Likes 11,400
Trinity retweeted
The internet is 99% garbage. But if you know where to look, it’s an absolute goldmine.
Here are 50 legendary websites that feel illegal to know and will save you thousands of hours👇
1. zoom.earth — Watch the world via live satellite imagery
2. flightradar24.com — See every plane currently in the sky
3. marinetraffic.com — Track all ships at sea in real time
4. windy.com — Live map of winds and storms
5. lightningmaps.org — Watch lightning strikes hitting Earth in real time
6. earthquake.usgs.gov — Live list of recent earthquakes
7. submarinecablemap.com — Ocean cables carrying the internet
8. globalforestwatch.org — Watch forests disappear from space
9. worldometers.info — The world's statistics, second by second
10. internetlivestats.com — Current number of tweets and searches being posted
11. thetruesize.com — Compare the true sizes of countries
12. oldmapsonline.org — Maps from centuries ago
13. davidrumsey.com — Archive of 150,000 historical maps
14. openstreetmap.org — World map drawn by volunteers
15. window-swap.com — Look out the window of a random person around the world
16. virtualvacation.us — Virtual walks through cities
17. mapcrunch.com — Teleport to a random spot on Earth
18. atlasobscura.com — Catalog of the world's strangest places
19. neal.fun — Interactive knowledge experiences
20. htwins.net/scale2 — Scale journey from atom to universe
21. eyes.nasa.gov — Explore the solar system in 3D
22. stellarium-web.org — Real sky map in your browser
23. apod.nasa.gov — NASA's astronomy picture of the day
24. images.nasa.gov — NASA's entire visual archive, free
25. pudding.cool — Visual articles told through data
26. ourworldindata.org — The state of the world with real data
27. gapminder.org — What we mistakenly think we know about the world
28. informationisbeautiful.net — Visualizing complex data
29. data.worldbank.org — World Bank's open data
30. data.tuik.gov.tr — Turkey's official statistics database
31. archive.org — Archive of millions of books, films, and software
32. gutenberg.org — 70,000 free books whose copyrights have expired
33. openlibrary.org — Record of every book in the world
34. loc.gov — U.S. Library of Congress digital archive
35. europeana.eu — Europe's cultural heritage archive
36. dp.la — America's digital library collection
37. artsandculture.google.com — Tour museums from home
38. rijksmuseum.nl — Download artworks in high resolution
39. wikiart.org — Archive of 250,000 artworks
40. publicdomainreview.org — Forgotten visual treasures of history
41. openculture.com — Free archive of culture and education
42. metmuseum.org — Met Museum's open collection
43. musicmap.info — Family tree of music genres
44. radiooooo.com — Pick a country and decade to listen to that era
45. listen.hatnote.com — Turn Wikipedia edits into audio
46. wikipedia.org — Random knowledge well
47. timeanddate.com — Time, sunrises, and sky events
48. sciencedaily.com — Live stream of science news
49. arxiv.org — Free preprints of scientific papers
50. observablehq.com — Visualize data with live code
Save this. You’ll definitely need some of these later. 🔖
Follow @justinbrave21 for more useful websites, AI tools & tech resources.
57
455
1,286
82,624
Trinity retweeted
AI security is still early and may not be stressed until some point in 2027.
"We are still on the very early part of the lower part of the bell curve with AI security. I don’t think we are long before we turn that corner though. But this is also dependent on the vendor. Fortinet is starting to put AI security solutions like prompt injection detection and AI proxy gateways in their products, and Palo Alto is trying to sell products for that like Prisma AIRs. I’d expect this obviously to be a very focused part of the 2027 go-to-market motion as it continues to become a more important part of the discussion within sales cycles. However, AI security technology is still going to be adopted at the largest companies first as the price is high and they can afford, but the more important reason for this is that these solutions are still largely untested and you will find more of the problems upfront."
We need to be secure!
$PANW $FTNT $CRWD
5
4
31
5,309
Trinity retweeted
$AEHR dumping on the $TER competition news looks like a massive overreaction to me.
Yes, Teradyne is entering high-power AI burn-in with Titan HP. Competition is real.
But people are acting like Teradyne just displaced Aehr overnight.
Meanwhile, $AEHR literally announced TODAY another ~$6M follow-on order from its lead hyperscaler for its next-gen AI processor — another generation moving onto Sonoma, with production expected to ramp in 2027.
And this isn’t just about having a machine that can technically perform burn-in.
Chroma is already a serious incumbent in this market. Aehr has been winning against existing alternatives because Sonoma was purpose-built for high-power production burn-in, while traditional ATE platforms were designed around a different test architecture.
Teradyne still has to qualify, prove reliability at scale, prove the economics and actually take production sockets.
Competition ≠ displacement.
Until I see $TER actually taking programs away from Aehr or Chroma, I’m treating this selloff as narrative first, fundamentals second.
Made with AI
2
3
17
4,757
Trinity retweeted
我存储和光都有，但我还是喜欢光，就算再怎么样，市场还是波动的，上涨下跌的幅度都很大，这意味着机会和套利空间
而目前的存储，感觉像一潭死水， $MU 一个财报一点动静都没有不说，然后每日涨跌区间很小。
$AEHR 虽然跌了今天，但起码有空间深度出来了，有资金的看着下跌后股价便宜自然就会来买入，今天成交量是昨天的俩倍就看得出来，你说卖盘多也好，但你有人卖必然有人买对吧？ 这个筹码转换蛮好的
$SKHY 也很不错
感觉存储还是会慢慢变成震荡上行，不再有往日那种刺激了
还是看好光和存 DYODD
10/06 收盘复盘一下参考点位的情况：
25 只股票里11个股票收在区间内，12 个股票收在上沿之上 ，收在下沿之下的是俩个，然后在盘中触及上沿 14 只，上一个交易日只有 7 只，翻了一倍。这是近期预测比较的一天，
上沿被显著穿破的股票包括了：
VST 上沿 148.4，收 160.5，+8.2%
FN 上沿 472.4，收 489.2，+3.5%
MRVL 上沿 279.4，收 287.0，+2.7%
AAOI 上沿 126.7，收 130.2，+2.7%
NBIS 上沿 245.6，收 249.9，+1.7%
AMD 上沿 640.2，收 649.4，+1.4%
VST 这个 +8.2% 是全场最大的一笔，而我们在137就一直在埋伏，160我们卖出了20%。开盘还在区间里，盘中一路推到上沿之上 8%，他是属于止盈窗口是实打实开出来的。
另外 CRDO、ORCL、FPS、DELL、LITE、太阳诱电 也收在上沿之上，幅度都在 1% 以内，属于刚刚踩过线。
跌破下沿的两只：
AEHR 下沿 101.18，收 92.14，−8.9%。这家公司业务方面，ter貌似做了个老化测试平台有所影响，但我认为影响不到估值部分，这个是全场唯一的大幅破位和新竞争对手的消息对得上，当天最高还到过 107.93，是开在区间里、盘中被砸穿的，不是跳空低开。
SKHY 下沿 191.7，收 182.56，−4.8%。这只最近一直在新高附近横着，这天第一次明确走弱，原因是解禁
区间内最健康的：RKLB 收在 95，几乎顶在上沿、 $BE 71、村田 70、COHR 66。
当天跑输的：MU、INTC、SNDK、AXTI，都收在区间偏下20–26。
你可以看出来今天光链和电力集体向上破位，存储和 Intel 原地踏步， $AEHR 单独出事，这差不多是今天的总结了
另外要注意突破新高的： dell amd 和lite
别杠杆和融资，杠杆融资的不建议按照我的点位来。
DYODD
13
2
45
13,769
In 50 years, history books may say Elon Musk won a war most people didn’t even know was being fought.
It began with an idea developed nearly a century ago by Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist imprisoned by Mussolini in 1926.
Gramsci wanted to know why communist revolution succeeded in Russia but failed across the West.
His answer was culture.
In Western societies, power wasn’t held only by governments, armies, and police. It was embedded in schools, universities, newspapers, publishing, the arts, and courts—the institutions that determine what society considers normal and “common sense.”
So you don’t begin by taking the government. You take the institutions that shape the culture. Eventually, politics follows.
Decades later, Rudi Dutschke gave the strategy its famous name: “the long march through the institutions.”
It explains a puzzle we’ve lived with for years.
Why are artists, actors, teachers, journalists, academics, and much of the cultural establishment overwhelmingly on the left? How could countries repeatedly elect governments on the right while their cultural institutions continued speaking largely with one voice?
We were told: “Educated people are just more liberal.”
I think the explanation is simpler. Gramsci wrote the recipe, and over decades it worked. Control the grants, jobs, reviews, prizes, publications, and invitations, and you influence what becomes “the culture.”
Something similar happened globally.
Across Latin America, countries repeatedly elected socialist or radical-left governments—even amid economic collapse, crime, corruption, and political chaos.
Venezuela. Bolivia. Nicaragua. The Kirchners’ Argentina. Petro’s Colombia.
My conviction: Poverty wasn’t merely a failure of the system. It became an electorate. Surrounding it was an ecosystem of NGOs, “independent” media, and civil-society organizations supported in significant part by Western money.
Then, in early 2025, something changed.
Elon Musk and DOGE opened up USAID’s books. An agency that had distributed tens of billions of dollars annually was dramatically dismantled, with most programs cut and its remaining functions absorbed into the State Department.
The faucet was turned off.
Look at what happened next.
Bolivia: MAS loses power after nearly twenty years.
Ecuador: Noboa reelected.
Honduras: The right retakes power.
Chile: Kast elected.
Argentina: Milei wins the midterms by a landslide.
And now Brazil.
Jair Bolsonaro is ineligible and sentenced to 27 years in prison. Lula, at 80, was running for a fourth term in a country the left believed it still controlled.
Instead, Flávio Bolsonaro finished first in the opening round, with more than 47% against Lula’s nearly 45%.
Latin America’s largest country is now one runoff away from flipping.
Coincidence? I don’t think so.
When the funding dries up, the narrative loses its megaphones.
One major stronghold remains: Europe.
Brussels funds networks of NGOs. Major foundations such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations fund others. Supranational institutions increasingly shape rules and norms far removed from ordinary voters.
It’s perhaps the last great fortress of cultural hegemony.
And it’s beginning to crack.
Gramsci was right about one essential thing: Culture precedes politics.
But that works both ways.
When an artificial culture loses the institutions and money sustaining it, whatever exists underneath can rise back to the surface.
What comes next, I believe, could be a renaissance—a culture that again celebrates beauty, ambition, science, achievement, and the civilization that produced them.
And perhaps history will trace part of that change back to a remarkably simple act:
Someone decided to look at the accounts.
It required someone rich enough not to depend on the system, crazy enough to challenge it, and free enough to withstand the hatred that followed.
Thanks, Elon.
Dans 50 ans, les livres d'histoire diront qu'Elon Musk a gagné une guerre que personne ne savait qu'on était en train de perdre.
Une guerre commencée il y a 100 ans, dans une cellule de prison italienne.
En 1926, Mussolini fait arrêter un intellectuel sarde de 35 ans. Au procès, le procureur aurait dit : « Nous devons empêcher ce cerveau de fonctionner pendant vingt ans. »
Il s'appelait Antonio Gramsci.
Son cerveau n'a jamais cessé de fonctionner. En prison, il a rempli des milliers de pages qui sont devenues l'un des textes politiques les plus influents du XXe siècle. Je pense qu'on est en train de vivre le moment où sa théorie s'effondre.
Laissez-moi vous expliquer.
Gramsci se posait une question simple. Pourquoi la révolution communiste a-t-elle réussi en Russie mais échoué partout en Occident ?
Sa réponse : en Occident, le pouvoir ne tient pas seulement par l'État, la police et l'armée. Il tient par la culture. Par ce que les gens trouvent normal, évident, « de bon sens ». Il appelle ça l'hégémonie culturelle.
Donc, pour prendre le pouvoir, il ne faut pas d'abord prendre le palais. Il faut d'abord prendre les esprits. Les écoles. Les universités. Les journaux. Le théâtre. L'édition. Les tribunaux. C'est la « guerre de position » : une conquête lente, institution par institution. Quand la culture a basculé, la politique suit toute seule.
Quarante ans plus tard, l'activiste allemand Rudi Dutschke en fera un slogan : la longue marche à travers les institutions.
Pendant des décennies, on a vécu avec une énigme que personne n'arrivait vraiment à expliquer.
Pourquoi presque tous les artistes sont-ils de gauche ? Les acteurs, les chanteurs, les profs, les journalistes, une bonne partie de la magistrature. Pourquoi un pays pouvait voter à droite élection après élection et voir quand même sa culture parler d'une seule voix ?
On nous répondait : « c'est parce que les gens éduqués sont de gauche. »
Je crois que la réponse est plus simple. Gramsci avait écrit la recette, et elle a été appliquée. Quand tu contrôles qui obtient la subvention, le poste, la bonne critique, le prix, l'invitation sur le plateau, tu contrôles ce qui devient « la culture ».
La même énigme existait à l'échelle du monde.
Pourquoi tant de pays en développement, notamment en Amérique latine, revotaient-ils encore et encore pour des gouvernements socialistes ou de gauche radicale ? Venezuela, Bolivie, Nicaragua, l'Argentine des Kirchner, la Colombie de Petro. L'économie s'effondrait, les cartels prospéraient, le chaos s'installait. Et pourtant le même vote revenait.
Ma conviction : la pauvreté n'était pas un accident du système. C'était un électorat. Et autour, il y avait tout un écosystème d'ONG, de médias « indépendants » et de programmes de « société civile », financé en grande partie par l'argent occidental.
Puis, début 2025, il s'est passé quelque chose que personne n'avait jamais osé faire.
Elon et DOGE ont ouvert les livres de USAID. Une agence quasi intouchable depuis 1961, des dizaines de milliards de dollars par an. La grande majorité des programmes ont été coupés, et l'agence a été absorbée par le Département d'État.
Le robinet a été fermé.
Et regardez ce qui s'est passé depuis.
Bolivie : le MAS perd le pouvoir après presque vingt ans. Équateur : Noboa réélu. Honduras : la droite reprend le pays. Chili : Kast élu. Argentine : Milei remporte largement les élections de mi-mandat.
Et il y a deux jours, le Brésil.
Jair Bolsonaro est inéligible, condamné à 27 ans de prison. La gauche pensait avoir refermé le chapitre. Lula, 80 ans, briguait un quatrième mandat face à un pays qu'on disait acquis.
Dimanche, son fils Flávio est arrivé en tête du premier tour. Plus de 47 % contre près de 45 % pour Lula. Lula lui-même a reconnu un résultat « inattendu ».
Le plus grand pays d'Amérique latine est à un second tour de basculer.
Le plus grand virage à droite du continent depuis des décennies.
Coïncidence ? Je ne crois pas. Quand le financement disparaît, le récit perd ses haut-parleurs.
Il reste un dernier vrai bastion. L'Europe.
Bruxelles finance ses propres réseaux d'ONG, avec une opacité que même la Cour des comptes européenne a pointée. Les grandes fondations comme l'Open Society de Soros. Les entités supranationales qui produisent de la norme sans jamais passer devant un électeur.
C'est la dernière forteresse de l'hégémonie culturelle. Et elle commence à se fissurer.
Je suis convaincu que tout ça va s'effondrer, et plus vite qu'on ne le pense.
Gramsci avait raison sur un point essentiel : la culture précède la politique. Mais il avait oublié que ça marche dans les deux sens. Quand une culture artificielle perd ses perfusions, ce qu'il y a de vrai en dessous remonte à la surface.
Ce qui vient après, je crois que c'est une renaissance. Une culture qui recommence à aimer la beauté, l'ambition, la science, la civilisation qui l'a fait naître.
Et dans les livres d'histoire, on se souviendra que tout a commencé quand un homme a décidé de regarder les comptes.
Il fallait quelqu'un d'assez riche pour ne dépendre de personne, d'assez fou pour s'y attaquer et d'assez libre pour encaisser la haine qui allait suivre.
Merci Elon.
1
66
Trinity retweeted
USAID was less than 1% of the federal budget.
Look at how much fraud & waste has been found in this one tiny piece of the budget.
Now imagine how bad the rest of it is.
9
52
449
12,888
Trinity retweeted
A Yale scientist proved you can move almost anyone to "yes" in under 7 minutes by doing the opposite of convincing.
Here are 7 questions that do it:
57
333
2,523
685,313
Had Grok analyze roughly a year of @Sandeman52’s feed to reconstruct his portfolio from his own posts. Other investors might find the result interesting.
The conclusion: he’s essentially running a one-stock portfolio.
$NBIS:
• ~60,000 shares currently
• First bought in the $40s
• Averaged up into the $50s
• Said it reached ~99% of his portfolio
• Common shares, no margin
• Uses covered calls + short puts around the position
• At ~$233/share, 60K shares ≈ $14M
A year ago his disclosed book was much more diversified:
56K NBIS
50K ONDS
10K RKLB
1K HOOD
+$1.2M cash
Since then he says he exited ONDS, HOOD and HIMS and increasingly concentrated into NBIS.
Interesting part is the philosophy: typically 1–3 major positions, 2–3 year holds, no leverage, and willing to average UP when conviction increases.
He’s mentioned ALAB and RKLB recently as names he’d buy if starting from zero, but those appear to be recommendations—not confirmed current holdings.
Obviously this is reconstructed from his X posts, not brokerage statements, so the numbers aren’t audited.
But the big picture is pretty remarkable:
Started buying NBIS around $40 → kept averaging up → ~60K shares → essentially built the entire portfolio around one thesis.
Ok, new numbers:
51,900% increase in 13 years.
CAGR of 61.6% over 13 years.
Many thought I was only doing this short term in a bull market.
Nope.
135
Trinity retweeted
Shazam could name any song back in 2002, on flip phones, with zero AI. You dialed the number 2580, held your phone up to the speaker, and hung up. 15 seconds later, a text came back with the song name. That same core trick still runs the app today.
The inventor was Avery Wang, a Stanford PhD in audio signal processing. His problem was brutal. Match a short clip recorded on a 2002 cell phone mic, in a noisy bar, against a database of a million songs, in seconds, over a phone call.
His solution treated music as geometry instead of sound.
The algorithm converts audio into a spectrogram, a picture of the song, then throws almost all of it away. It keeps only the peaks, the loudest frequency points at each moment in time. Bar chatter and blown-out speakers can wreck most of a recording. The peaks survive. Shazam only ever needed the peaks.
Those surviving points form what Wang called a constellation map, because it looks like a star field. Pairs of peaks get converted into hash numbers, and identifying a song becomes a dictionary lookup rather than an audio comparison. That made it fast enough to search a million tracks on 2002 hardware.
Wang published the full method openly in 2003 in a paper called "An Industrial-Strength Audio Search Algorithm." Anyone could read exactly how the magic worked. The moat was the database and the deals with carriers, never the secret.
Apple bought the company in 2018 for a reported $400 million. People have tagged over 100 billion songs since the very first one, Jeepster by T. Rex, during the beta in April 2002.
One deterministic signal-processing trick, written before most people had heard the phrase machine learning, and it's still so good that in 2026 everyone assumes it must be AI.
66
1,915
10,871
544,412
Those 2.04 million shorts do not necessarily mean 2.04 million outright bets that Treasury prices will collapse. A large portion can be part of hedge-fund “basis trades,” where funds short Treasury futures while owning related Treasury bonds.
Think of the Treasury market as a giant tug-of-war
Normally, one side has people buying Treasuries and the other has people selling them.
Right now, hedge funds have an enormous amount of rope pulling toward lower Treasury prices / higher yields.
Remember:
Treasury price ↓ = yield ↑
Treasury price ↑ = yield ↓
So the author’s argument is that today’s stubbornly high 10-year yield may not be purely the bond market calmly saying:
“Inflation and the economy justify 5% yields.”
There may also be a huge crowded trade helping keep pressure in that direction.
Here’s where it gets interesting
Suppose inflation keeps falling and suddenly investors become convinced the Fed can cut substantially.
Treasuries should become more attractive.
Now those hedge funds don’t merely stop pulling the rope—they may need to buy Treasury futures rapidly to close their shorts.
That buying pushes Treasury prices higher → yields lower → forces more shorts to cover → prices rise further.
That’s a classic short squeeze, just happening in bonds rather than a stock.
Why we care about equities
This could be extremely important to our market thesis.
If the 10-year suddenly went, hypothetically, from ~5% toward 4% because fundamentals plus a short squeeze drove yields down:
AI/growth stocks would likely get a major valuation tailwind.
Semiconductors, high-growth tech, small caps and other rate-sensitive/risk assets could benefit disproportionately.
But there is a reverse side: if inflation stays sticky and the Fed remains less restrictive than bond investors want, the crowded trade can persist and yields can stay painfully high.
So this potentially adds a third explanation to our discussion:
Bianco: yields high because growth/inflation remain too strong.
Previous argument: yields high because markets incorrectly expect the Fed to remain too restrictive.
This argument: hedge-fund positioning may be amplifying whichever fundamental force is already pushing yields higher.
View #3 primarily as an accelerant, not the original fire. The fascinating part is that if the fundamental story changes, that same positioning could become an accelerant in the opposite direction.
This Is Not Your Grandfather’s Treasury Market.
Hedge funds are now dominant players in the 10-year futures market, and their short is one of the largest on record. Bessent knows this.
As of the September 29, 2026 report, leveraged funds were short 2.04 million contracts, about 36 percent of the market. The peak was 2.53 million contracts, roughly 45 percent of open interest, on August 26, 2025. The position has eased since then. It has not returned to normal.
History makes the scale clear. Before 2023 this short rarely rose above 1 million contracts. In the 2008 crisis it reached only about 10 percent of the market. In the 2022 bond selloff it reached about 18 percent. From 2006 through 2021 it often switched between long and short and stayed far below today’s level.
The old Treasury market was shaped mainly by banks, dealers, and long-term investors. The buildup that began in 2022 put hedge funds at the center: a larger and more persistent short than in prior cycles. That is concentrated exposure in the benchmark rate that prices mortgages, corporate debt, and government borrowing.
Is this why the bond vigilantes are ignoring the data? A short this large does not need a fresh inflation print to keep yields high. It just needs the Fed to continue with its old flawed playbook.
Now you can see why data that shows inflation declining is ignored and questioned.
The position is already on, and a softer print is a threat to it. The other side is the unwind. If that crowd has to cover at once, a squeeze of historic proportions could follow, a rush to buy back a position bigger than anything seen in 2008 or 2022.
56
"Most people aren't looking to save time, they're looking for ways to spend their time."
9 of 15 consumer internet categories have zero AI products in the Top 100. These built some of the biggest companies of the last two eras:
- Streaming
- Social
- Dating
- Gaming
- Travel
- Retail
- Finance
- Real estate
- Jobs
More charts in our Top 100 Consumer AI Apps breakdown: a16z.news/p/top-100-consumer…
The seventh edition of our Top 100 Consumer AI Apps is here.
New this time: a revenue leaderboard, alongside the usual web and mobile traffic rankings.
Three years ago we published the first edition. ChatGPT was #1, Claude was unranked, and the entire category was chatbots, image generators, and not much else.
In today's edition:
- ChatGPT still holds the throne, now with 1B+ monthly actives on mobile
- Claude has climbed to #3 on web with nearly 1B monthly visits
- The category has expanded to vibe coding (Lovable, Cursor, Replit), music (Suno), design (Figma), voice (ElevenLabs), video (Higgsfield, Kling), agents (Manus), and even hardware (Plaud)
Full breakdown from @omooretweets: a16z.news/p/top-100-consumer…
149
328
2,918
310,555
Trinity retweeted
VOLUME EXPLOSION: The Brazil ETF $EWZ did $8b in volume today, by far a record since its launch 25yrs ago. Also was #3 among ETFs after $SPY and $QQQ. The last record it set was the last time a Bolsonaro was elected in 2018. Nothing excites single country EM traders like a country moving to the right.
36
86
578
117,676
Trinity retweeted
This new ETF $MN thinks the Mag 7 is over and "MANGOS" is next 🥭
So you think this group outperforms $MAGS?
M - $META 21.85%
A - Anthropic 5.07%
N - $NVDA 22.16%
G - $GOOGL 21.79%
O - OpenAI 5.06%
S - $SPCX 22.48%
Today, we're giving investors access to Anthropic & OpenAI through $MN (a Corgi ETF).
Historically, getting exposure to companies like these has largely been limited to private market investors.
We built MN to help change that.
13
8
69
29,931
Where does money invested into the AI buildout actually go?
For every $100 flowing into the supply chain:
- $50 to chips
- $20 to power
- $15 to networking
- $15 to cooling, buildings, and land
More charts in State of Markets II: a16z.news/p/state-of-markets…
Introducing our State of Markets pt 2, along with a companion podcast where we unpack the data and discuss what comes next.
Tech is the everything cycle.
Supply: putting the buildout in context, just passed railroads as % of GDP. The wisdom of Elon is real: the factory (or the datacenter!) is the product.
Demand: diffusion is so, so early. Median AI vendor spending in the top 1% of companies is 8x that of the top 10%. Only about 30% of S&P 500 companies report a quantified AI impact, which means there’s a substantial opportunity in connecting models to a company's data and workflows. Diffusion into companies is one of the main themes of the next 5 years.
We’re entering the agent work period. Only a few million users today, but applicable to billions of internet users with massive surplus created. META/GOOG monetize US users at $200+ per year today. Agent opportunity is much higher.
Mega-trends the next 5 years: Consumer agents, Robotics, Autonomy, AI x bio, Personal health, Diffusion into enterprise, New era of American Dynamism.
Much more in our SoM report here - a16z.news/p/state-of-markets…
@a16z @sarahdingwang @aleximm @santiago__rdz
175
857
4,547
863,667
Trinity retweeted
This is my thesis: no one uses AI. I repeat, absolutely no one. We live in a bubble.
Even among my friends who pay for it, when I ask them to open ChatGPT and show me their queries, it’s the same handful of basic things.
Most don’t even know they can upload a photo and ask questions about it. Connecting Gmail so an agent can read and send emails blows their minds. An agent opening a browser and checking them into a flight? They’ve never even heard of it.
The massive challenge right now is adoption, and then getting people who already signed up to actually use what they’re paying for. Most have absolutely zero clue what’s possible.
Imagine the compute shortage when everyone starts using AI like the top 1% of users do today.
98% of US households aren't paying for AI yet
More charts in State of Markets II: a16z.news/p/state-of-markets…
1,781
530
8,109
3,676,054
The whole argument can be reduced to one idea:
The analogy: the Fed has its foot on the brake
Imagine the economy is a car.
AI, technology, and productivity are giving the car a better engine. The economy can potentially go faster without overheating.
But the Fed sees the car going faster and worries: “It must be overheating—inflation!” So it keeps its foot on the brake by keeping interest rates high.
The author thinks the Fed is making a mistake.
What the bond market currently believes
The 10-year Treasury around 5% essentially says:
“Interest rates are going to stay pretty high for a very long time.”
People blame government debt and huge AI spending for those high yields.
The author says that’s mostly wrong. He thinks the real reason yields are high is that investors expect the Fed to keep rates unnecessarily high.
His prediction:
Eventually the Fed realizes inflation isn’t being driven by excessive demand. AI/productivity are actually increasing supply and lowering costs.
Then:
Fed cuts rates → short-term yields fall → 10-year yield eventually falls toward ~4%.
Why that matters for your stocks
This is potentially very bullish for equities, especially the exact growth areas we’ve been concentrating on.
Lower expected rates increase the present value investors assign to future earnings. That disproportionately helps:
AI / semiconductors / infrastructure / high-growth technology / capital-intensive companies.
Think NBIS, CRDO, DELL, SNDK, ARM, AMD, GOOGL, etc.
It can also help leveraged/risk assets and crypto because financial conditions become easier.
How this fits TIM’s charts @StockPatternPro
This is where the two analyses potentially fit together nicely.
TIM is looking at the market’s price/cycle structure. His charts have been suggesting upward momentum into year-end, but not in a straight line—there can still be October pullbacks and shakeouts.
This author is describing a possible macroeconomic reason why that move could persist.
So think:
TIM = WHEN the market may move.
This thesis = WHY the environment could ultimately support the move.
One important distinction: the author says the Fed’s bigger realization may occur after the midterms, so his full bond thesis doesn’t necessarily require rates to collapse immediately for TIM’s Q4 rally to happen.
Test yourself:
1. According to the author, why is the 10-year Treasury near 5%: mainly too much government debt, or mainly expectations that the Fed will keep rates high?
2. If the market suddenly realizes the Fed will eventually cut much more aggressively, what should generally happen to Treasury yields?
3. Which should benefit more from falling rates: a slow-growth utility or a high-growth AI company whose biggest profits are expected years from now?
4. Most important:
does this thesis mean stocks go straight up from here, or can TIM’s October pullbacks still occur inside a larger bullish move?
The Bond Vigilantes’ Delusion
The bond vigilantes are back, or so Wall Street would have investors believe. Their claim is that Treasury yields must remain high because America has too much debt and artificial intelligence is creating enormous new demand for credit.
It is a seductive story. It is also wrong.
It’s a shame even Fed officials use it.
AI borrowing may lift the term premium at the margin. Deficits may make investors demand more compensation for duration. Neither explains a 5% 10-year Treasury yield, nor makes it a permanent condition.
The real wager is monetary. The 10-year, near 5.2%, reflects a market assumption that the Fed funds rate will average roughly 3.8% over the next decade, plus a positive term premium. The San Francisco Fed’s model decomposition makes the point plainly. It attributes roughly 3.8 percentage points of the 10-year yield to expected short rates over the coming decade and about 1.5 points to the term premium. The New York Fed’s estimate of the premium is lower, closer to 0.9 points. The split is debatable. The message is not.
That 3.8% assumption is a remarkable forecast. It is more hawkish than the Federal Reserve’s own 3.2% longer-run estimate. Markets are not merely assuming that rates settle above the zero-rate era. They are assuming that the Fed will run policy about 60 bps tighter than its own idea of normal for an entire decade.
That is the bond vigilantes’ delusion. Yet who can blame them? The Fed’s recent conduct has encouraged it. It has shown a readiness to tighten into a negative growth shock, to treat tariff-related price changes as persistent inflation, and to mistake supply-side expansion for excess demand.
That is bad theory. Tariffs may change relative prices and impose real costs, but they do not automatically produce a sustained increase in the inflation rate. Nor does faster growth automatically require tighter policy.
When investment, technology and productivity increase the economy’s productive capacity, they permit stronger real growth without a corresponding acceleration in underlying inflation. A central bank that ignores this distinction makes itself the source of the restrictive policy that the bond market now expects.
The debt thesis does not survive contact with history. US non-financial debt rose from about 136% of GDP in 1980 to roughly 250% by 2010. The 10-year yield fell from the low teens to around 3%. Debt then stayed near 250% of GDP through much of the 2010s as yields fell toward 1%. It peaked near 293% in 2020, when long yields were near their lows.
Since then, the debt ratio has declined as nominal GDP rose faster than debt, even as the Fed lifted rates above 5% and the 10-year rose above 4%. The largest move in rates occurred while economy-wide leverage was flat or falling.
Japan and China reinforce the lesson. Both accumulated vast debt burdens without producing a mechanical surge in long yields. Debt can matter at the margin. It does not dictate the cycle.
My estimate of nominal r-star is 2.75%, 2% inflation plus a 0.75% equilibrium real policy rate. Technology is deflationary. AI, capital investment and productivity growth expand supply, lower costs and permit faster growth without persistent inflation.
Yes, a bull steepener awaits. As the Fed’s reaction function catches up, short rates should fall faster than long yields. If the average funds rate converges to 2.75% and the term premium remains positive, the 10-year should settle near 4%, with a normal 100 bps spread over the two-year.
The long end is not going parabolic because of debt. It is high because markets expect the Fed to mistake supply-led growth for inflation and keep policy too tight. That error will eventually fade, likely after the midterms.
2
96
Trinity retweeted
The interesting thing about the “banks have a huge mark-to-market loss” argument is that it ignores the other side of the balance sheet.
Yes, higher rates reduce the theoretical market value of legacy mortgages. But that isn’t the same as an underwriting loss.
Millions of mortgages were originated at low LTVs, borrowers have built enormous home equity, and many have 2–3% fixed-rate loans they are highly incentivized to keep paying.
The bank still gets its contractual cash flows. The collateral is worth dramatically more than the loan balance.
So while there may be a mark-to-market impairment on paper, that does not mean banks have actually lost money on those loans—or that their solvency has meaningfully deteriorated.
If anything, the appreciation in housing has created a massive, largely unrecognized credit cushion on bank balance sheets.
@friedberg @chamath @DavidSacks @Jason @theallinpod
1
1
14
2,850
Think of it like a doorbell instead of you checking the door every five minutes.
Old way (normal AI chat): you ask a question, the AI answers, then it goes quiet. If you want to know whether a new email arrived or a stock hit a price, you have to ask again. That is polling.
New way (MCP Events): you tell the AI once,
“When this happens, do that.” Then you leave. The other app — Slack, email, a calendar — rings the doorbell when the thing actually happens. The AI wakes up and does the job.
That doorbell is a webhook. The pattern is called publish/subscribe: one side publishes (“new message in #feedback”), anyone who subscribed gets it. Nobody has to keep asking.
Fifteen years ago, the same doorbell is what let Stripe tell your shop “payment went through” and GitHub tell your server “someone pushed code.” Apps stopped waiting for a human to click refresh. That is why so many internet products appeared at once.
McCann’s point: agents have been stuck asking. Give them a doorbell, and they can sit in the background and act on their own — a new review comment becomes a code edit, a new lead becomes a follow-up — without you opening the chat.
MCP Events - What Is Old Is New (again)
Or more commonly known in software design as “pub/sub” aka publish subscribe and webhooks.
We are seeing this now with agents.
We saw the same thing 15+ years ago in cloud computing and it enabled a Cambrian explosion of internet apps.
I suspect the same with agents.
developers.openai.com/plugin…
36
