They stopped asking Bill to fill out the form

Friday, April 10th, 2026

I somehow missed Andy Hertzfeld’s –2,000 Lines Of Code back in the day:

In early 1982, the Lisa software team was trying to buckle down for the big push to ship the software within the next six months. Some of the managers decided that it would be a good idea to track the progress of each individual engineer in terms of the amount of code that they wrote from week to week. They devised a form that each engineer was required to submit every Friday, which included a field for the number of lines of code that were written that week.

Bill Atkinson, the author of Quickdraw and the main user interface designer, who was by far the most important Lisa implementer, thought that lines of code was a silly measure of software productivity. He thought his goal was to write as small and fast a program as possible, and that the lines of code metric only encouraged writing sloppy, bloated, broken code.

He recently was working on optimizing Quickdraw’s region calculation machinery, and had completely rewritten the region engine using a simpler, more general algorithm which, after some tweaking, made region operations almost six times faster. As a by-product, the rewrite also saved around 2,000 lines of code.

He was just putting the finishing touches on the optimization when it was time to fill out the management form for the first time. When he got to the lines of code part, he thought about it for a second, and then wrote in the number: -2000.

I’m not sure how the managers reacted to that, but I do know that after a couple more weeks, they stopped asking Bill to fill out the form, and he gladly complied.

(Hat tip to Gaikokumaniakku.)

People who understand complex systems also understand the importance of minimising that complexity wherever possible

Saturday, April 4th, 2026

Explaining tech debt is, the evidence would suggest, impossible:

Like many I’ve seen archaic systems where something that should take an hour might take a week. The trouble, as anyone who’s ever been in this situation can attest to, is that non-technical managers invariably fail to understand the problem.

Of course the standard claim at this point is that engineers are just bad at communicating. They simply need to re-express their ideas around refactoring etc. in terms of ‘value to the business’ or some such. But I’ve never seen this work. Instead I’ve seen the same thing over and over: people who understand complex systems also understand the importance of minimising that complexity wherever possible; people who have never understood a complex system in their life never ever grasp this and cannot be convinced.

Imagine you’re a dumb non-technical manager. You think coding is basically magic. Sometimes when you ask the engineers to add a feature (which is like casting a spell), they give some weird story about how they could cast the spell quickly, but it’s better to do so slowly to prevent their magic becoming impotent and making future spells take longer. This is obviously unconvincing; it sounds like something slackers would say. So why are we surprised when managers who think like this fail to grasp the importance of controlling tech debt?

The entire economy becomes centered around making decisions that are financially safe rather than those that can lead to major payoffs

Thursday, March 5th, 2026

Labor laws are a large part of the explanation as to why the US is so much wealthier than Europe:

Americans do much better than Europeans, but the US is not clearly economically freer in most areas. For example, Heritage’s 2025 index of economic freedom puts it behind eleven European countries. The US is ranked 27th in the world in overall economic freedom, but 3rd in labor freedom. Given the degree to which the US has surpassed other major nations, perhaps indexes like this are underweighting the importance of this one particular category. America is far from a capitalist paradise; particularly in housing and allowing people to build, we do a pretty poor job.

[…]

Imagine if the entire force of government policy was put toward enforcing a status quo bias in other contexts: government created every possible financial incentive to keep people in the same homes; made sure they continually drive the same cars or buy vehicles from the same companies; or put up an endless number of barriers in the way of them switching grocery stores or banks. Everyone would realize that such policies represent the height of economic illiteracy and would be bound to have all kinds of unintended consequences. Yet we treat labor as different, even though the underlying economic principles are exactly the same.

[…]

In Germany, they not only tell you if you can fire people, but you can’t even decide who to keep! Paying employees indefinitely to leave is the optimistic scenario when they are no longer needed. The worse outcome is that you’re forced to hold on to them indefinitely.

Basically, what this system amounts to is a welfare state, while placing the burden on those who create jobs in the first place. To make another analogy, imagine we wanted to provide healthcare for the poor. But instead of paying for it through general taxation, we said anyone who provides any amount of charity to someone living in poverty must be the one to pick up the tab for their health insurance. How would such a system make sense? And this isn’t simply a matter of finding ways to provide welfare, but something much more extreme, involving locking employers in relationships they can’t get out of. You’re also misallocating labor, since having workers in places where they’re not needed prevents them from making a contribution elsewhere.

[…]

European workers don’t simply go to waste. Rather, the entire economy becomes centered around making decisions that are financially safe rather than those that can lead to major payoffs. The unemployment rate doesn’t look so bad, but you still get society-wide stagnation.

Most managers optimize for being informed

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026

Anish Moonka summarizes the key points of Elon Musk’s interview with Dwarkesh Patel and notes that Elon’s methodology is always asking, what is the limiting factor right now, and how do I remove it?

Chip output is growing exponentially. Electricity production outside China is flat. By the end of this year, Elon predicts AI chips will be piling up faster than anyone can turn them on. The companies that win are the ones that can plug their chips in, not the ones that buy the most.

[…]

Solar panels produce 5x more power in orbit because there is no atmosphere, no day/night cycle, no weather, and no clouds. And you need zero batteries. Combined, that is roughly 10x the economics of ground-based solar. Space solar cells are also cheaper to manufacture because they require no glass or heavy framing.

[…]

Within five years, Elon predicts SpaceX will launch hundreds of gigawatts of AI compute into orbit annually, exceeding the cumulative total on Earth. That is 10,000 Starship launches a year. One launch per hour. 20 to 30 reusable ships rotating on 30-hour cycles.

[…]

Only three casting companies in the world make the specialized vanes and blades for gas turbines. They are backlogged through 2030. Everything else in a power plant can be sourced in 12 to 18 months. But without those blades, you have no turbine and no electricity.

[…]

Digital human emulation means an AI that can do everything a human worker can do at a computer: read screens, click buttons, type, think, and decide. NVIDIA’s output is “FTPing files to Taiwan.” Apple sends files to China. Microsoft, Meta, and Google produce nothing physical. If you can perfectly emulate a human at a computer, you can replicate the output of every one of these companies. Customer service alone is a trillion-dollar market with zero integration barriers.

[…]

Elon argues that programming AI to be politically correct, meaning to say things it does not believe, creates contradictory axioms that could make it “go insane.”

When humans represent less than 1% of total intelligence, it would be “foolish to assume there’s any way to maintain control.” The best case is AI with values that find humanity more interesting alive than converted to raw materials. Elon compares the ideal future to Iain Banks’ Culture novels, where superintelligent AI coexists with humans because it finds them interesting.

[…]

Elon runs weekly (sometimes twice-weekly) engineering reviews with skip-level meetings where individual engineers present without advance prep. He mentally plots progress points across weeks to determine if a team is converging on a solution. Time is allocated not to what is going well, but to whatever the current bottleneck is. If something is working great, he stays away.

Most managers optimize for being informed. Elon optimizes for being useful at the point of highest leverage.

Last Call for Mass Market Paperbacks

Saturday, January 31st, 2026

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood by Quentin TarantinoPublishers Weekly’s Last Call for Mass Market Paperbacks didn’t surprise me terribly — until I saw the timeline:

The format credited with making books more accessible via low prices and widespread availability will all but vanish from the publishing scene in a few weeks.

The decision made this winter by ReaderLink to stop distributing mass market paperback books at the end of 2025 was the latest blow to a format that has seen its popularity decline for years. According to Circana BookScan, mass market unit sales plunged from 131 million in 2004 to 21 million in 2024, a drop of about 84%, and sales this year through October were about 15 million units. But for many years, the mass market paperback was “the most popular reading format,” notes Stuart Applebaum, former Penguin Random House EVP of corporate communications. Applebaum was also once a publicist at Bantam Books, one of the publishers credited with turning mass market paperbacks into what he calls “a well-respected format.”

[…]

According to Book Industry Study Group’s Book Industry Trends 1980, mass market paperback sales jumped from $656.5 million in 1975 to nearly $811 million in 1979, easily outselling hardcovers, which had sales of $676.5 million, and the new, upcoming format, trade paperback, which had sales of about $227 million. And with its much lower price points, mass market paperback unit sales easily dwarfed those of the other two formats, at 387 million in 1979, compared to 82 million for hardcover and about 59 million for trade paperback.

[…]

Jacqueline Susann’s megahit Valley of the Dolls sold 300,000 hardcovers in 1966, while the Bantam paperback sold four million in its first week on sale in 1967, and more than eight million in its first year, Margolis notes. One of the biggest mass market bestsellers of all time was the 1975 tie-in edition to the movie Jaws. According to Applebaum, the edition, whose cover art closely resembled the movie poster, sold 11 million copies in its first six months.

While hardcover reprints were a staple for mass market paperback publishers, some also released mass market originals. One author who thrived using that strategy was the western writer Louis L’Amour. Applebaum, who served as L’Amour’s publicist, says that Bantam has more than 150 million copies of his books in mass market print, and all but four of his more than 130 titles were paperback originals.

Mass market paperback was also the format of choice for publishing instant books. Bantam published its first instant book in 1964 when it released The Report of the Warren Commission in the format.

[…]

A 1988 article in PW pointed to the vibrancy of the format at that time. The year before, 112 mass market titles sold more than one million copies, led by Danielle Steel, whose Family Album, Wanderlust, and Secrets combined to sell almost 12 million copies. Trailing Steel on the PW mass market list for that year was Sidney Sheldon, with Windmill of the Gods and If Tomorrow Comes combining to sell 8.6 million copies. Other authors whose mass market paperbacks racked up more than one million copies in 1987 included such well-known writers as Stephen King and Judith Krantz.

Though mass market paperback sales were over $1 billion in 1996, there were warning signs that interest in the format was cooling. According to BISG, mass market sales fell 3.3% in 1996 compared to the previous year, to $1.35 billion, and unit sales dropped 6.2%.

[…]

According to the 2012 StatShot report (produced that year by AAP and BISG), mass market paperback sales were running neck and neck with e-book sales in 2011 at about $1.1 billion, but the two formats were on markedly different trajectories: from the prior year, mass market paperback sales tumbled by about $500 million and e-book sale soared by roughly $1 billion.

Hasbro is being sued by its own shareholders for printing too many Magic cards

Tuesday, January 27th, 2026

Hasbro is being sued by its own shareholders for printing too many Magic cards:

In a 76-page lawsuit filed in the US District Court of Rhode Island last week (via GoLocalProv), a group of investors allege that Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks, former Wizards of the Coast president Cynthia Williams, and company executives engaged in “breaches of their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of Hasbro” by devaluing the Magic brand, even as shareholders raised concerns about the ramifications of overprinting cards and sets.

In 2022, the lawsuit says, Bank of America issued a report concluding that Hasbro was “overproducing Magic cards, which have propped up Hasbro’s recent results but are destroying the long-term value of the brand.” Despite questioning from shareholders and analysts, however, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants “repeatedly denied such speculation,” issuing “materially false and misleading” statements during shareholder calls where those concerns were raised.

As a result, the plaintiffs claim Hasbro executives “caused the Company substantial harm by causing it to repurchase its own shares at artificially inflated prices,” as Hasbro spent $125 million to repurchase approximately 1.4 million shares of its own stock from April 2022 to July 2022, when share values had been “artificially inflated” by the outpouring of new Magic sets.

“In total, this caused the Company to overpay for repurchases of its own stock by approximately $55.9 million,” the lawsuit says, which became clear when the company announced declining financial results in following quarters.

Throughout that time, Hasbro maintained that “new Magic sets were to be printed to meet demand from new consumer segments,” which the lawsuit says was “false and misleading.”

“Hasbro’s strategy with regard to printing Magic cards was not as carefully thought out as portrayed,” the lawsuit says. “The Company was in fact printing a volume of Magic sets which exceeded consumer demand; the Company’s inventory allocation management was problematic, particularly as it pertained to the Company’s printing strategy for Magic sets; the Company was overloading the market with Magic sets to generate revenue and to offset shortfalls within the Company; as a result of the Company’s overprinting of Magic sets, existing Magic cards were devalued; and the Company failed to maintain internal controls.”

The RPG industry is like a water pipe

Friday, January 23rd, 2026

Ken “Whit” Whitman explains how he learned TSR was dying:

A lot of people ask me: “If you were just the Gen Con coordinator, how do you know so much about TSR’s internal strategy?”

Fair question.

Here’s a little story that might give me some legitimacy.

In 1994, TSR’s VP of Marketing, Rick Behling, convinced Lorraine Williams to spend $150,000 on market research.

That was a MASSIVE amount of money for TSR at the time.

They paid Nielsen—yes, the TV ratings people—to add questions about Dungeons & Dragons to one of their regular surveys.

The results came back.

And I was in the meeting when Rick presented them.

Here’s what we learned:

-9 million people had played D&D at some point in their lives.

-2 million people were actively playing.

-TSR controlled 80% of the role-playing game market.

-The other 20% was “leakage” to competitors.

-On paper, we were crushing it.

But then Rick explained the real problem.

He used a metaphor I’ll never forget:

“The RPG industry is like a water pipe. TSR controls the pipe. But there are little springs—little holes—where water leaks out to other companies.

The problem is, the pipe is only about 7 years long.

Most people get into D&D, play for roughly 7 years, and then get out. Forever.

They don’t come back.”

That’s when I realized TSR was in trouble.

Because if your entire business model depends on:

Capturing new players

Flooding them with so much product they can’t afford competitors

Losing them after 7 years

Then finding NEW players to replace them

…you’re not building a sustainable business.

You’re building a treadmill.

And eventually, you run out of new players.

Rick’s strategy—the one TSR actually used—was this:

“Make so much product, there’s no money left over to buy other people’s product.”

Flood the market.

Capture the entire wallet.

Starve the competition.

It worked for a while.

Until it didn’t.

Three years later—1997—TSR collapsed.

Wizards of the Coast bought us.

Spanked us. Hard. Because Wizards figured out what TSR never did: You don’t win by flooding the market for 7 years.

You win by keeping players for LIFE.

So why was I in that meeting?

I was the Gen Con coordinator.

Gen Con was TSR’s biggest marketing event—30,000+ attendees, vendors, distributors, press.

Rick wanted someone who understood the ground-level reality of the market.

I wasn’t an executive.

But I had access.

I saw things.

I heard things.

I was in rooms where strategy was discussed.

And 30 years later, I remember that meeting like it was yesterday.

Because Rick’s “water pipe” metaphor explained everything:

Why TSR made so many products

Why quality dropped

Why retailers couldn’t keep up

Why players got exhausted

Why we collapsed

We optimized for the wrong thing.

7-year wallet capture instead of lifetime engagement.

I’m telling these stories because:

1. I was there. I witnessed things that aren’t in the history books.

2. For my children. So they understand what Dad did and why it mattered.

3. For the ADHD community. Because my brain is Swiss cheese—I forget names but remember strategic presentations from 30 years ago.

4. For gaming history. Because if I don’t tell these stories, they disappear.

All enterprise software sellers today speak a common vocabulary, and that vocabulary was invented by John McMahon

Saturday, January 10th, 2026

Qualified Sales Leader by John McMahonIt’s interesting to consider which professions obsess over lineages, John Psmith says:

For instance an academic philosopher and a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu fighter may not have much in common, but they can both tell you not just who their teacher-mentor was, but who that guy’s teacher-mentor was, and so on, sometimes going back centuries.1 This is not true in most fields, but you may be surprised to learn that it is true in B2B enterprise software sales. Talk to a successful sales guy, and he will find a way to slip into the conversation that he came up under so-and-so, and that so-and-so worked for the legendary Mark Cranney (Ben Horowitz’s head of sales). But talk to enough of them, and you will start to notice that a huge proportion of their lineages all converge back on a single guy named John McMahon.

You may never have heard of John McMahon, but he’s one of the most influential people alive today (there are many such people, because the world is fractally interesting). American economic growth is increasingly dominated by a handful of companies that sell software subscriptions at eye-watering margins to other large companies, and most such companies are run by John McMahon’s disciples. All enterprise software sellers today speak a common vocabulary, and that vocabulary was invented by John McMahon. Enterprise software sellers, like all professions, have weird feuds and religious disputes about what exactly the letters in various acronyms should stand for, but the acronyms were invented by John McMahon. The rival factions and schools in enterprise software sales mostly argue about the correct way to interpret John McMahon’s thought, because he is the great teacher and systematizer who laid down the laws of their world.

The reason certain fields care about lineages is that they are dominated by process knowledge that cannot be written down, so the best signal of quality is not some credential, but rather which master you trained under. Imagine how silly it would be to think that you could read a book about martial arts, and then you would know as much as the person who had written it. Some things can only be learned through grueling practice, preferably grueling practice under the observation of somebody who notices all the tiny little indescribable things you get wrong, and shows you how to do them right instead.

[…]

Selling software (really, selling anything) is another such activity. And while John McMahon is the guy who has done the most to change it from an art into a science, he is acutely aware that nothing he writes down in a book can help you unless you already understand the thing that he is trying to say. So like all good religious teachers, he speaks mostly in koans and riddles and parables. It worked for the Zen masters, it worked for Nietzsche, it worked for Jesus Christ, so why wouldn’t it work for John McMahon? The whole book is an extended allegory in which John McMahon is called in to advise a failing software sales team, notices the defects in their technique, and says or does something, at which point they are enlightened.

(Hat tip to Byrne Hobart.)

It had tested blood samples from the American Red Cross, which came from the general population and should have been free of fluorochemicals

Wednesday, September 24th, 2025

Kris Hansen had worked as a chemist at 3M for about a year, back in 1997, when her boss gave her an unusual assignment, to test human blood for chemical contamination:

Johnson explained to Hansen that one of the company’s fluorochemicals, PFOS — short for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid — often found its way into the bodies of 3M factory workers. Although he said that they were unharmed, he had recently hired an outside lab to measure the levels in their blood. The lab had just reported something odd, however. For the sake of comparison, it had tested blood samples from the American Red Cross, which came from the general population and should have been free of fluorochemicals. Instead, it kept finding a contaminant in the blood.

[…]

In subsequent weeks, Hansen and her team ordered fresh blood samples from every supplier that 3M worked with. Each of the samples tested positive for PFOS.

In the middle of this testing, Johnson suddenly announced that he would be taking early retirement.

[…]

What Hansen didn’t know was that 3M had already conducted animal studies — two decades earlier. They had shown PFOS to be toxic, yet the results remained secret, even to many at the company. In one early experiment, conducted in the late ’70s, a group of 3M scientists fed PFOS to rats on a daily basis. Starting at the second-lowest dose that the scientists tested, about 10 milligrams for every kilogram of body weight, the rats showed signs of possible harm to their livers, and half of them died. At higher doses, every rat died. Soon afterward, 3M scientists found that a relatively low daily dose, 4.5 milligrams for every kilogram of body weight, could kill a monkey within weeks. (Based on this result, the chemical would currently fall into the highest of five toxicity levels recognized by the United Nations.) This daily dose of PFOS was orders of magnitude greater than the amount that the average person would ingest, but it was still relatively low — roughly comparable to the dose of aspirin in a standard tablet.

In 1979, an internal company report deemed PFOS “certainly more toxic than anticipated” and recommended longer-term studies. That year, 3M executives flew to San Francisco to consult Harold Hodge, a respected toxicologist. They told Hodge only part of what they knew: that PFOS had sickened and even killed laboratory animals and had caused liver abnormalities in factory workers. According to a 3M document that was marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” Hodge urged the executives to study whether the company’s fluorochemicals caused reproductive issues or cancer. After reviewing more data, he told one of them to find out whether the chemicals were present “in man,” and he added, “If the levels are high and widespread and the half-life is long, we could have a serious problem.” Yet Hodge’s warning was omitted from official meeting notes, and the company’s fluorochemical production increased over time.

Hansen’s bosses never told her that PFOS was toxic. In the weeks after Johnson left 3M, however, she felt that she was under a new level of scrutiny. One of her superiors suggested that her equipment might be contaminated, so she cleaned the mass spectrometer and then the entire lab. Her results didn’t change. Another encouraged her to repeatedly analyze her syringes, bags and test tubes, in case they had tainted the blood. (They had not.) Her managers were less concerned about PFOS, it seemed to Hansen, than about the chance that she was wrong.

[…]

Fluorochemicals had their origins in the American effort to build the atomic bomb. During the Second World War, scientists for the Manhattan Project developed one of the first safe processes for bonding carbon to fluorine, a dangerously reactive element that experts had nicknamed “the wildest hellcat” of chemistry. After the war, 3M hired some Manhattan Project chemists and began mass-producing chains of carbon atoms bonded to fluorine atoms. The resulting chemicals proved to be astonishingly versatile, in part because they resist oil, water and heat. They are also incredibly long-lasting, earning them the moniker “forever chemicals.”

In the early ’50s, 3M began selling one of its fluorochemicals, PFOA, to the chemical company DuPont for use in Teflon. Then, a couple of years later, a dollop of fluorochemical goo landed on a 3M employee’s tennis shoe, where it proved impervious to stains and impossible to wipe off. 3M now had the idea for Scotchgard and Scotchban. By the time Hansen was in elementary school, in the ’70s, both products were ubiquitous. Restaurants served French fries in Scotchban-treated packaging. Hansen’s mother sprayed Scotchgard on the living-­room couch.

[…]

After Hansen started her PFOS research, her relationships with some colleagues seemed to deteriorate. One afternoon in 1998, a trim 3M epidemiologist named Geary Olsen arrived with several vials of blood and asked her to test them. The next morning, she read the results to him and several colleagues — positive for PFOS. As Hansen remembers it, Olsen looked triumphant. “Those samples came from my horse,” he said — and his horse certainly wasn’t eating at McDonald’s or trotting on Scotchgarded carpets. Hansen felt that he was trying to humiliate her. (Olsen did not respond to requests for comment.) What Hansen wanted to know was how PFOS was making its way into animals.

She found an answer in data from lab rats, which also appeared to have fluorochemicals in their blood. Rats that had more fish meal in their diets, she discovered, tended to have higher levels of PFOS, suggesting that the chemical had spread through the food chain and perhaps through water. In male lab rats, PFOS levels rose with age, indicating that the chemical accumulated in the body. But, curiously, in female rats the levels sometimes fell. Hansen was unsettled when toxicology reports indicated why: Mother rats seemed to be offloading the chemical to their pups. Exposure to PFOS could begin before birth.

[…]

There was nothing wrong with her equipment or methodology; PFOS, a man-made chemical produced by her employer, really was in human blood, practically everywhere. Hansen’s team found it in Swedish blood samples from 1957 and 1971. After that, her lab analyzed blood that had been collected before 3M created PFOS. It tested negative. Apparently, fluorochemicals had entered human blood after the company started selling products that contained them. They had leached out of 3M’s sprays, coatings and factories — and into all of us.

[…]

Newmark, a collegial man with a compact build, told Hansen that, more than 20 years before, two academic scientists, Donald Taves and Warren Guy, had discovered a fluorochemical in human blood. They had wondered whether Scotchgard might be its source, so they approached 3M. Newmark told her that his subsequent experiments had confirmed their suspicions — the chemical was PFOS — but 3M lawyers had urged his lab not to admit it.

[…]

The executives seemed to view her diligence as a betrayal: Her data could be damaging to the company. She remembers defending herself, mentioning Newmark’s similar work in the ’70s and trying, unsuccessfully, to direct the conversation back to her research.

[…]

After that meeting, Hansen remembers learning from Bacon that her job would be changing. She would only be allowed to do experiments that a supervisor had specifically requested, and she was to share her data with only that person. She would spend most of her time analyzing samples for studies that other employees were conducting, and she should not ask questions about what the results meant. Several members of her team were also being reassigned. Bacon explained that a different scientist at 3M would lead research into PFOS going forward.

How much more does an Indian IT worker make in the US than in India?

Monday, September 22nd, 2025

I recently asked Grok, how much more does an Indian IT worker make in the US than in India?

Absolute Difference: An Indian IT worker earns approximately $116,600 more per year in the US compared to India ($125,000 vs. $8,400).

Multiplier: This represents about 15 times the salary in India (125,000 / 8,400 ? 14.9x).

Wow.

80,000 cameras pointed at highways and parking lots

Saturday, September 6th, 2025

Since its founding in 2017, Flock, which was valued at $7.5 billion in its most recent funding round, has quietly built a network of more than 80,000 cameras pointed at highways and parking lots across the U.S.:

Growth has been explosive, with revenue up some 70% from the estimated $175 million it booked in 2023. It’s not yet profitable and has no imminent plan to be as it prioritizes growth, backed by a $275 million March funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz. Those numbers were more than sufficient to land Flock on Forbes’ 2025 Cloud 100 list of the top private cloud computing companies. Langley says turning Flock into a $100 billion business is “very within reach.” Ilya Sukhar, an early investor and partner at VC firm Matrix who sits on Flock’s board, agrees. “It’s a bit cliché, but it does feel like we’re just getting started,” he says. “It’s not hard for me to project to a place where we get to that level.”

Each Flock license plate reader cam costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with an additional fee for FlockOS, the operating system that makes all the data Flock collects accessible via a browser or a mobile app, based on either the number of users or cameras. Dunwoody PD, for instance, pays around $500,000 annually for its array of 105 cameras, gunshot detectors, that skittering DJI drone and the software that controls it all.

Flock’s growth isn’t solely fueled by its 5,000 law enforcement customers across 49 states (it hasn’t yet installed its cameras in Alaska). It has 1,000 corporate customers, including blue chips like FedEx, Lowe’s and Simon Property, America’s largest mall owner. Then there are housing and homeowner associations, small businesses, schools and organizations like the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta, which has installed 64 Flock cameras across different properties in the city, including a community center that has reported a recent spike in antisemitic threats to Dunwoody police. All these customers can choose to grant the police access to their camera feeds, further expanding the surveillance coverage Flock can offer law enforcement. Many do.

Langley had no experience in police tech when he and fellow Georgia Tech alums Matt Feury, 36, and Paige Todd, 40, started the company in 2017. Previously they’d worked together on an app Langley cofounded for upgrading sports or concert seats to VIP-status events, where Feury and Todd were early employees. (It was acquired by Atlanta-based conglomerate Cox Enterprises and no longer exists.) Inspired by an unsolved robbery in Langley’s neighborhood, the trio started work on the first Flock prototype, an Android phone camera in a waterproof box that took pictures of cars and picked out license plates that could then be searched via an app.

These “farmer tools” greatly simplified Ford’s machining operations

Sunday, August 31st, 2025

Origins of Efficiency by Brian PotterFord’s status as a large-volume car producer began with the predecessor to the Model T, Brian Potter notes, the Model N, a four-cylinder, two-seater car initially priced at $500:

Many of the Model N’s parts were made of vanadium steel, a strong, lightweight, durable steel alloy. Vanadium steel allowed for a lighter car (the Model N weighed only 1,050 pounds), and was “machined readily.” This was important because Ford also made increasing use of advanced machine tools that allowed it to produce highly accurate interchangeable parts. In 1906, Ford advertised that it was “making 40,000 cylinders, 10,000 engines, 40,000 wheels, 20,000 axles, 10,000 bodies, 10,000 of every part that goes into the car…all exactly alike.” Only by producing interchangeable parts, Ford determined, could the company achieve high production volumes and low prices. Furthermore, Ford’s machine tools were arranged in order of assembly operations rather than by type, allowing parts to move from machine to machine with minimal handling and travel distance. It also made extensive use of production aids such as jigs, fixtures, and templates. These “farmer tools” — so called because they supposedly made it possible for unskilled farmers to do machining work — greatly simplified Ford’s machining operations.

The Model N was so popular that demand exceeded capacity, which allowed Ford to plan production far in advance. This meant Ford could purchase parts and materials in large quantities at better prices and schedule regular deliveries, ensuring a steady, reliable delivery of material, which allowed it to maintain just a 10-day supply of parts on hand.

Is air travel getting worse?

Wednesday, August 20th, 2025

Is air travel getting worse? Yes, Maxwell Tabarrok reports, in some important ways:

  • Long delays have become much more common. A 3-hour delay is 4x more likely in 2024 than in 1990, but airlines have masked this increase by padding scheduled flight times.
  • Air travel remains safe; accidents are still on a slow downward trend
  • Airfare has become much cheaper over the past 10 years

How do you manage genius?

Sunday, June 8th, 2025

The Idea Factory by Jon GertnerAreoform explains why Bell Labs worked:

Alexander Graham Bell was prolific. His interests spanned hydrofoils (see footage above), metal detectors, optical data transmission, aviation, genetics, acoustics and early electrification. Bell used his first big liquidity event to start Volta Laboratory and Bureau, a lab that Bell led with an enlightened management style that would become Bell Labs’ signature. “[Bell] suggested the basic lines of research, furnished the financial resources, and then allowed his associates to receive the credit for many of the inventions that resulted.”

Mervin Kelly, the man who built Bell Labs, shared this attitude. Starting in the late 1920s and accelerating in the 1930s, Kelly went about scouting and (indiscriminately) assimilating every talented person he could find. From The Idea Factory:

It was curious, in a way, who they were, these men coming to Bell Labs in New York. Most [...had been flagged by professors...] and their names had been quietly passed along to Kelly or someone else at the Labs. [Typically, these recruits grew up] with a peculiar desire to know more about the stars or the telephone lines or (most often) the radio, and especially their makeshift home wireless sets. Almost all of them had put one together themselves, and in turn had discovered how sound could be pulled from the air.

Bell Labs’ antecedent was founded by a prolific maker and researcher, and it was led from the very start by makers and researchers. As a working scientist, Mervin Kelly understood the golden rule, “How do you manage genius? You don’t.” And it worked.

During WW2, Bell Labs reversed engineered and improved on the British Magnetron within 2 months. Helped create the “Bazooka.” Built an electronic computer that semi-autonomously controlled anti-aircraft guns, invented an acoustic homing torpedo, proximity fuzes, echo-ranging SONAR, pulse code modulation, the first anti-aircraft missile (the Nike) and the klystron.

By all accounts, Kelly stayed true to his philosophy. None of these projects were micro-managed by Kelly. People did things because they wanted to do them. And they kept doing them after the war.

Bell Labs is the furnace wherein the American century was forged.

[…]

The reason why we don’t have Bell Labs is because we’re unwilling to do what it takes to create Bell Labs — giving smart people radical freedom and autonomy.

The freedom to waste time. The freedom to waste resources. And the autonomy to decide how.

[…]

The Bell Labs formula can be briefly described as,

  • Use good taste to find great, ambitious people.
  • Surround them with other great, ambitious people.
  • Hire smart, technical makers to be around them.
  • Cross-pollinate between the two groups as necessary.
  • Make sure people talk to each other every day.
  • Create a school so they teach one another.
  • Encourage everyone to study and improve.

Palantir’s Meritocracy Fellowship

Tuesday, May 27th, 2025

Opaque admissions standards at many American universities have displaced meritocracy and excellence, so Palantir has announced its Meritocracy Fellowship:

Based solely on merit and academic excellence, students will be invited to interview, and select applicants will receive an internship offer at Palantir.

Upon successful completion of the Meritocracy Fellowship, fellows that have excelled during their time at Palantir will be given the opportunity to interview for full-time employment at Palantir.

Skip the debt. Skip the indoctrination. Get the Palantir Degree.

[…]

What We Require

  • U.S High school certificate of graduation at the start of the internship
  • 1460 or higher SAT score / 33 or higher ACT score
  • Candidates cannot be enrolled in an accredited US university
  • Taking the full fall 2025 semester off (4 months) to work at Palantir. Candidates cannot be enrolled in university classes

Salary

The salary range for this position is estimated to be $5,400/month.