looking for easy decisions inflection.fund | eurodefense.tech
- Tweets 2,064
- Following 1,786
- Followers 544
- Likes 6,992
On the other side of Honing the Craft, there isn’t perfection or a flawless execution, but a mechanical, industrial process.
See boutique vs. Factory
This applies to VC as well btw
Sociologist Richard Sennett wrote a wonderful book about the value of hand craftsmanship in his 2008 book The Craftsman. He traces the long history of why people have valued handmade goods for hundreds of years, even through periods of major technological or industrial advancement, and weaves together an engaging intellectual history involving figures like Aristotle and John Ruskin.
One of the book’s recurring themes is the value of imperfection. Sennett notes that the authors of the Encyclopédie praised the “character” of handmade goods, such as the slightly irregular bubbles in hand-blown glass bottles. He connects this idea to Voltaire, who warned us of the relentless pursuit of perfection. If we learned to embrace these imperfections, Sennett suggests, perhaps we would develop more realistic expectations about life.
This creates an interesting tension at the heart of craftsmanship. A good craftsperson strives to make something as well as they possibly can, yet must ultimately accept that perfection is unattainable because they are imperfect, like all human creatures. Toward the end of the book, Sennett discusses craftsmanship in religious terms. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, he notes, excessive pride is a sin because it risks putting the self in God's place. In this sense, the craftsperson embodies both aspiration and humility.
In Sennett's framing, craftsmanship is not necessarily about whether a machine can replicate the results, but about a human's role in production and what that process can teach us about ourselves. It's not just about materiality, but also spirituality.
27
Jonatan retweeted
Foundational, a London-based #SpaceTech startup developing #infrastructure for a more precise understanding of #Earth and #orbit, has emerged from #stealth with €9.6 million in pre-Seed funding. 🇬🇧 🛰️ 📍
eu-startups.com/2026/10/lond…
1
5
706
They will do great things and we're very happy to be part of their journey.
The picture below is of me, Hira and Dave (+ two awesome, busy Foundational engineers in the building) late on a Wed night or so out at ground station 0.
1
1
24
Today, Foundational are exiting stealth with a €9.6 million pre-seed round led by us at @inflection_fund and joined by a global team of great funds @BackedVC , @ncsh , Final Frontier and @TypeOneVC .
3
20
We've known @HiraVirdee for a couple of years now, most others in the space industry for much longer. He's one of those people that, the more you get to know him, the more you outlandish things you discover about him.
1
4
103
“The short answer is no, and the distinction matters for how the number is read.”
Oh my god, don’t be so weird!!!!
43
RIP prompting. 2023–2026.
Introducing Ava Studio: your AI content team. Drop in your website, and it researches, scripts, and produces on-brand videos you can edit or ship.
RT + comment your website. We’ll build your first video campaign for free.
266
165
743
499,236
Jonatan retweeted
When I stilled worked on biosecurity, I first learned about Debug, a Google project to reduce mosquito populations.
Results from their Singapore pilot are now out.
They crushed mosquito populations, reducing dengue infections by 70% in the process:
There is no good reason for mosquitoes to exist in wealthy countries today.
New technologies can get rid of the mosquito species that cause diseases like dengue, yellow fever, and malaria; and others can prevent them from carrying those diseases.
worksinprogress.co/issue/mos…
So why do mosquitoes still exist?
In a new article for Works in Progress, Maya Rosen explains how state incapacity and risk aversion led to over a decade of delays and billions of unnecessary bites in the United States.
Oxitec, for example, engineered an Aedes aegypti mosquito in such a way that its female offspring would die before adulthood. Through sustained releases, they showed they could reduce local mosquito populations by 80% or more, in field trials.
They sought approval from the USDA in 2010, which then passed it to the FDA, which passed it to the EPA. In 2020, the EPA allowed them to conduct limited field trials in the Florida Keys. Two years ago, their experimental permit expired, and they still need another review before it can be used routinely. Their proposed field trial in California was withdrawn after public opposition.
Another company, MosquitoMate, developed a technique involving Wolbachia, which also suppresses local mosquitoes. They then spent over fifteen years working through the system before finally receiving commercial registration nationwide in 2024.
It seems that, sometimes, the barrier to getting rid of diseases isn’t technology at all. It’s policy and political will.
New products shouldn’t get stuck in regulatory review for so long, especially if the delays are about basic questions like which agency has oversight over the product, rather than testing for safety.
Though some of those uncertainties were being addressed, the broader changes haven’t materialized. After Biden’s 2022 executive order, the agencies planned to update how their coordinated framework was implemented. But Trump rescinded the order last year.
Meanwhile, the EPA unit that reviews new mosquito control products is still a small office backlogged in reviewing a wide range of products.
Mosquitoes are a policy choice. We can get rid of them. Will we choose to?
worksinprogress.co/issue/mos…
78
592
5,563
530,407
Alt-PNT, alt-comms, sovereign high resolution SAR, not to speak of ICBM defense are all things we cannot solve on our own in Europe at the moment. There’s still space to build unjammable, cheap comms and persistent ISR capability in Europe.
1
1
51
The only reason to stick around with your beliefs ends up being that you care abt what is true in technology and business. If there are no good arguments, I will not change my mind.
I’m happy about our radical position here obviously , and it’s the only way I want to invest
1
6
I wrote about starlink jamming for @NewDefenseHQ and the alternatives
1
7
Seeing this upfront by spending time with our hardware companies on the floor. They are all doing everything they can to simplify and avoid fragile autonomy
Robotics companies have all accepted The Bitter Lesson and we now see awesome demos, but most have no idea about The Brittle Lesson and boy are they in for a surprise when trying to productize.
84
That whooshing sound? Yeah it's the mean-reversal accelerating
Very useful insight from a portfolio founder: VCs are using Granola and feeding notes into a poorly prompted version of Claude to evaluate and pick apart what founders are saying mid-pitch. The frustrating thing is that AI tends toward groupthink...so "trends" on the internet (whether true or not) color how VCs respond even more today than historically. This founder is tracking those sometimes unfounded trends and turns of phrase and ensuring he rebuts them right out of the gate.
1
1
129
Jonatan retweeted
Trump 🇺🇸 backs down over 🇬🇱 and accepts an agreement where 🇩🇰 sovereignty and 🇬🇱 right of self-determination is the basis, and where 🇺🇸 augments its military presence. That’s a good result that should satisfy everyone. knr.gl/da/nyheder/mute-b-ege…
66
104
577
28,250
I’m sure you can generate more valuable bio data though!
Anthropic has set up a wet lab in San Francisco, their bio research has advanced beyond in silico. They are now conducting physical research both in-house and with external partners. The NYT also broke the news this morning that Anth now plans to scale its compute to 5 GW by the end of the year, and 10 GW within the next 16 months. Bio is next after math, and I think we are going to see some medical announcements much sooner than people are expecting.
1
97
Jonatan retweeted
Anthropic has set up a wet lab in San Francisco, their bio research has advanced beyond in silico. They are now conducting physical research both in-house and with external partners. The NYT also broke the news this morning that Anth now plans to scale its compute to 5 GW by the end of the year, and 10 GW within the next 16 months. Bio is next after math, and I think we are going to see some medical announcements much sooner than people are expecting.
245
272
2,791
557,937
>be me
>discover effective altruism
>apparently normal charity is inefficient
>why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing
>fair enough
>buy mosquito nets
>save lives
>numbers look good
>feel powerful
>couple years later
>someone asks an innocent question
>why only count people alive today
>huh
>future people matter too
>obviously
>my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet
>reasonable.jpg
>keep following logic
>what about their grandchildren
>also yes
>what about people in 500 years
>sure
>5000 years
>why not
>500 million years
>starting to get weird but morality is morality
>open calculator
>humanity could survive for an astronomically long time
>could colonize galaxy
>could have trillions upon trillions of descendants
>maybe digital people too
>maybe simulated civilizations
>maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds
>calculator starts smoking
>realize currently living humans are rounding error
>8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta
>future contains potentially 10^something people
>can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets
>new moral priority unlocked
>protect the long-term future
>stop thinking in units of "people helped"
>start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved"
>malaria?
>terrible
>but only kills existing humans
>AI extinction could delete the entire light cone
>nuclear war could permanently derail civilization
>bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years
>someone invents wrong constitution in 2140
>quadrillions suffer
>better fund governance workshop now
>friend says maybe we should improve hospitals
>explain opportunity cost
>friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people
>explain scope sensitivity
>friend stops inviting me to dinner
>need to decide what to fund
>easy
>expected value
>suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction
>sounds tiny
>but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives
>multiply
>mother of god
>$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies
>charity evaluation complete
>someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from
>expert judgement
>which expert
>us
>how calibrated
>extremely thoughtfully
>reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative
>still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude
>epistemic robustness achieved
>someone says maybe project doesn't work
>assign 20% chance
>still astronomical
>maybe project makes problem worse
>assign 5% chance
>still astronomical
>why 5
>because 30 felt pessimistic
>publish 46-page report
>contains seventeen sensitivity analyses
>every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign
>critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities
>yes
>that's literally why it's important
>critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical
>make probability smaller
>critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong
>make probability smaller again
>critic begins rubbing temples
>discover AI safety
>perfect longtermist cause
>AI might kill everyone
>or create utopia
>or seize galaxy
>or tile universe with paperclips
>or create billions of conscious software minds
>finally a problem with numbers big enough for me
>start AI safety nonprofit
>mission: prevent dangerous AI
>hire smartest people available
>smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI
>interesting
>we must understand capabilities to understand safety
>we must scale models to study alignment
>we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first
>we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong
>we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous
>outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies
>complicated field
>company releases stronger model
>very concerned
>company begins training even stronger model
>extremely concerned
>company raises $14 billion
>concern reaches unprecedented levels
>need to influence government
>future is at stake
>normal democratic process too slow
>politicians don't understand exponential curves
>public doesn't understand x-risk
>experts must guide them
>who counts as expert
>people who understand x-risk
>who understands x-risk
>our friends
>someone objects that this seems politically convenient
>explain we're representing future generations
>future generations unavailable for comment
>develop concept of value lock-in
>terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever
>therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in
>whose values
>let's circle back
>begin with impartial morality
>end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want
>beautiful arc
>meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things
>voting wrong
>having parochial attachments
>loving family more than strangers
>caring about local community
>getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible
>evolutionary biases everywhere
>explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted
>except intuition that future digital people count
>and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad
>and intuition that our probability estimates are sane
>and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future
>those intuitions survived peer review
>someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter
>inefficient
>could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher
>think of all the simulated people you just killed
>okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly
>PR team says "future generations deserve a voice"
>much better
>journalist asks what longtermism means
>say "future people matter"
>everyone agrees
>great
>journalist asks what follows from that
>well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures
>journalist raises eyebrow
>return to "future people matter"
>motte has entered the chat
>critic: of course future people matter
>me: glad we agree
>critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them
>me: why do you hate our grandchildren
>eventually notice uncomfortable implication
>if future value dominates everything
>then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future
>education matters because future institutions
>health matters because future productivity
>democracy matters because future trajectory
>human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy
>see starving child
>feel compassion
>check spreadsheet
>child's direct welfare contribution negligible
>but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality
>compassion restored
>tell myself this is impartial altruism
>one day assistant asks obvious question
>"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?"
>silence
>open spreadsheet
>increase column width
>add confidence interval
>assistant asks again
>"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?"
>stare into cosmic light cone
>10^50 people staring back
>none of them exist
>none of them can tell me
>none of them can falsify my assumptions
>realize I have invented the perfect constituency
>infinitely important
>completely silent
>and always represented by me
757
2,388
20,387
2,862,644