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.

When it comes to comics in America, there is the Big One

Tuesday, March 4th, 2025

Amulet by Kazu KibuishiWhen it comes to comics in America, forget the Big Two:

Dab Pilkey’s Dog Man: The Scarlet Shedder released in March sold just under 1.3 million copies, the best selling children’s book of the year. Dog Man and, to a lesser extent, Cat Kid dominated, with two Dog Man releases in 2024 topping sales, with the backlist filling much of the rest of it. But also a strong presence for the Amulet, Baby-Sitters Club and Wings Of Fire graphic novels, with Five Nights at Freddy’s and Smile making it in. And every single one published by Scholastic/Graphix, at this stage establishing them as the biggest publisher of print comics in the world. Forget the Big Two, when it comes to comics in America there is the Big One.

The US VC industry is causally responsible for the rise of one-fifth of the current largest 300 US public companies

Tuesday, February 25th, 2025

Will Gornall and Ilya A. Strebulaev examine The Economic Impact of Venture Capital:

Venture capital-backed companies account for 41% of total US market capitalization and 62% of US public companies’ R&D spending. Among public companies founded within the last fifty years, VC-backed companies account for half in number, three quarters by value, and more than 92% of R&D spending and patent value. The US did not spawn top public companies at a higher rate than other large, developed countries prior to 1970s ERISA reforms, but produced twice as many after it. Using those reforms as a natural experiment suggests that the US VC industry is causally responsible for the rise of one-fifth of the current largest 300 US public companies and that three-quarters of the largest US VC-backed companies would not have existed or achieved their current scale without an active VC industry.

If there was a correlation with HR and improved outcomes it would be rational for leaders to invest more

Tuesday, December 31st, 2024

Pamela Dow explains how human resources captured the nation of Great Britain:

Until I started working in the Cabinet Office in 2020 I hadn’t paid much attention to human resources (HR). I had rolled my eyes at more time wasted circumventing another rigid recruitment policy, which, although introduced to make things better, was in fact making them worse. I assumed HR was unavoidable in large organisations, and mostly there to help.

My role was to restore relevance and rigour to civil service training, from entry to leadership. It brought me close to the gatekeepers of employee relations.

[…]

Why were recruitment processes taking so long? To ensure fairness. Who decides what’s fair? The Public Sector Equality Duty, in precedents set by courts and interpreted or pre-empted by employment lawyers and HR advisers.

Why were so many employee grievances settled at such great expense, before and after employment tribunals? Because there were so many transgressions of HR policy, often by the very people who had codified the rules.

Why did every internal meeting start with a lengthy “emotional check-in”? For psychological safety. Where are people learning about that, and similarly subjective concepts? In acquiring vocational credentials from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and other HR representative bodies, and attending their courses. In September, Sam Bowman, Ben Southwood and Samuel Hughes published their “Foundations” essay, which attracted significant attention in the national policy debate. It details how Britain is an outlier, lagging behind comparable G7 nations since the financial crisis, and struggling with growth, productivity, and weak state capacity.

The authors explain why, with clarity and precision: private investment is over-regulated and distorted by complex tax codes; infrastructure projects are stymied by lobbyists and lawyers; and the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act removed the incentive for local councils to permit building infrastructure.

The essay does not mention that Britain is also an international outlier in its dominant and expanding HR sector. We have one of the largest in the world, second only to the Netherlands. HR jobs have been growing steadily in most Western countries but the UK is top of the league* (turn over to see tables evidencing this). The British Labour Force Survey (LFS) shows a steady, 83 per cent increase, from just under 300,000 workers in 2011 to more than 500,000 in 2023. Might this also be an explanation for our national sluggishness?

[…]

Alongside good pay and job security, in many organisations HR allows influence on high-status topics, incommensurate with position: global social justice and identity campaigns.

[…]

In Britain the share of HR directors on boards has increased sharply, from 47 per cent in 2005 to 85 per cent in 2017. More than 70 per cent of FTSE 100 companies have a chief HR or people officer on their executive committee.

The UK legal and policy framework has also been fertile ground for HR growth over the past 20 years. The Equality Act assigns rights that have been interpreted well beyond their intent of fair opportunity, and definitions of “protected characteristics” are increasingly unhelpful. For example, graduates checking “disability” on their application to the Civil Service Fast Stream rose from 11 per cent in 2014 to 23 per cent in 2020. At the time, this allowed candidates to skip an assessment stage, perhaps an incentive to disclose an anxiety disorder. The civil service now is less certain how many people are blind, bipolar, using a wheelchair, or with self-diagnosed ADHD. It’s not a great leap to appreciate both the work this creates for HR, as well as the impact it has on productivity.

If we could track trends towards higher retention, happier workers, fewer grievances, this growth would be welcome. If there was a correlation with HR and improved outcomes it would be rational for leaders to invest more. There is evidence for the opposite. As HR roles have increased so too have the number of tribunals and days lost to work-related illness, while productivity has flatlined. HR expansion is not coinciding with desirable things and appears to be coinciding with undesirable ones.

Joe Rogan interviews Marc Andreessen

Wednesday, November 27th, 2024

I’ve been watching fascinating snippets of this interview with Marc Andreessen, and he makes some alarming points:

Even SpaceX looks like small potatoes next to an industry like global logistics

Saturday, October 19th, 2024

Cargo airships could be big, Eli Dourado notes, because the performance of an airship gets better as it gets bigger:

If your airship performance isn’t good enough, just double it in size. The lift will increase by a factor of 8, the drag will increase by a factor of 4, and the lift-to-drag ratio will therefore double. Still not good enough? Do it again.

To do cargo airships right, we need to make the biggest flying objects ever created. A modern cargo airship would make the Hindenburg puny by comparison.

[…]

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, average revenue per domestic ton-km is about 83¢ for air freight, 11¢ for trucks, and 2¢ for water transportation (in spite of the Jones Act).

[…]

What we observe under these conditions is that, domestically, most of both the tonnage and value of cargo is transported via truck. Trucks are neither the fastest nor the cheapest mode of transport, but they provide a great value proposition—you get your stuff in a few days for much cheaper than air freight.

[…]

Let’s say airships captured half of the 13 trillion ton-km currently served by container ships at a price of 10¢ per ton-km. That would equal $650 billion in annual revenue for cargo airships, notably much bigger than the $106 billion Boeing reports for the entire global air freight market. If one company owned the cargo airship market, taking only half of only the container market, it would be the biggest company in the world by revenue.

[…]

If each airship can carry 500 tons, cruises at 90 km/h, and is utilized two-thirds of the time, that adds up to around 260 million ton-km per year per airship. To produce 6.5 trillion ton-km per year would require 25,000 such airships. This is about the number of airliners in the world today.

[…]

When I initially started thinking about cargo airships, I thought it would make sense to take a cue from Hindenburg, which cruised at 125 km/h. As I will discuss below, maybe that is still the right choice, but even at that speed, you are on the wrong side of some unpleasant math.

The power needed to drive an airship is proportional to velocity cubed. Because the mission takes less time when the ship is moving faster, the total mission fuel required is proportional only to velocity squared. The net effect is that transport efficiency decreases quadratically with cruise speed.

[…]

Cargo airships would probably be among the easiest vehicles to make unmanned. The sky is big and empty, but it’s especially empty over the ocean at the lowish altitudes, below airliners’ Class A airspace, where airships would fly.

[…]

The USGS estimates the private sector price of helium to be $7.57/m³, while hydrogen is sometimes available for $0.11/m³. It would cost almost $8 million to fill our 500-ton airship with helium, and just over $100k to fill it with hydrogen. Lifting gas doesn’t get used up the same way as fuel does, but through leaks and venting, it wouldn’t be just a one-time charge. Hydrogen is cheap enough that you can design to vent it to help keep the ship trim.

[…]

The USGS estimates that the entire planet has helium reserves of around 40 billion m³. Global helium production is only around 160 million m³ per year, enough for about 141 airships.

[…]

Ideally, airship fuel would be neutrally buoyant, the same density as the surrounding air. This would ensure that as the fuel burned off throughout the journey, there would be no need to vent lifting gas. You could do this by using as fuel a mixture of the slightly heavier-than-air propane (C?H?) and the slightly lighter-than-air ethane (C?H?).

[…]

With real-time wind data, it should be possible to plan a route that uses winds to minimize fuel burn and increase overall performance. It would be bringing a form of sailing back, only using tons of atmospheric data and autonomous route planning to do it in modern style.

[…]

We’ve been assuming a cargo airship can do 260 million ton-km/year at 10¢/ton-km for annual revenue of $26 million/airship. The fuel cost of doing 260 million ton-km would be around $4 million, leaving $22 million/year for other costs including insurance, capex amortization, ground support, maintenance, and profit. This depends on a lot of assumptions, but if you can build the airship at rate production at a cost around $100 million, the math is getting close to working.

[…]

In my experience, once you start thinking about giant cargo airships, it’s hard to stop.

Indeed, he kept thinking about airships:

You can cross the Pacific in a plane in less than a day. You can pay for parcel service that will get you your package in 2 to 3 days. But for air freight service, end-to-end delivery takes a week or more, involving multiple parties: in addition to the air carrier and freight forwarder, at both the origin and destination, there is a trucking company, a warehouse, a customs broker, and an airport. Each touchpoint adds cost, delay, and the risk of theft or breakage.

Once you account for all these delays and costs, the 4 to 5 days it takes to cross the Pacific on an airship starts to look pretty good. If you can pick up goods directly from a customer on one side and deliver them directly to a customer on the other, you can actually beat today’s air freight service on delivery time.

This changes everything. Since airships are, after all, competitive with 747s on delivery time, you can earn the full revenue associated with air freight, not just the lower trucking rates I had assumed. Cargo airship margins, therefore, can be much higher than I had realized.

Today’s 747 freighters have almost no margin. They operate in an almost perfectly competitive market and are highly sensitive to fuel costs. They simply won’t be able to compete with transpacific airships that are faster end to end, less subject to volatile fuel prices, and operating with cushy margins. A cargo airship designed to compete head to head in the air freight market could take the lion’s share of the revenue in the air cargo market while being highly profitable.

[…]

Many software investors eschew hard tech startups because of their capital intensity, but it’s hard to deny that huge returns are possible in hard tech: just consider SpaceX. Bring me another SpaceX! the reluctant investors might say.

But even SpaceX looks like small potatoes next to an industry like global logistics. For a Falcon 9-sized investment, instead of revolutionizing a $2 billion/year (10 years ago) commercial launch market, you could transform a market that is at least 30 times bigger, with similar unit economics to SpaceX