Marketing Strategist for Hyper Competitive Markets
Toronto Canada
Joined February 2009
- Tweets2.7K
- Following2.1K
- Followers1.6K
- Likes3.4K
Justin Jones retweeted
The guy who invented Amazon Prime disappeared for six years. He came back this week with $250 million and a factory that turns lines of code into tiny working machines. Type different code, a different machine comes out the other end.
That sounds fake. Here's why it took six years.
A chip fab is the most precise factory humans have ever built, and it makes exactly one kind of thing. Flat silicon that processes information. The moment you want moving parts, multiple materials, or real 3D structure, you leave the fab for a world where getting one new device into production takes years and tens of millions of dollars. Engineers call it one product, one process. It's the reason micro-machines never got their Moore's Law.
Holden's Matter Compiler kills the per-product process entirely. Features down to a few microns, no new tooling, and the system measures and corrects every step while it builds, then feeds what it learned into the next design.
His first product is the tell on how sharp the strategy is.
PrimeSwitch is a 150-amp relay for 800-volt power in AI data centers. It opens in roughly 50 microseconds, about 1,000x faster than a normal contactor. So the first thing to come out of a universal factory is aimed at the one market where demand is basically infinite and a faster switch means less fried hardware.
Neal Stephenson wrote the Matter Compiler as fiction in 1995. Holden just shipped the first real product out of one, and it's a light switch for AI data centers.
After six years in stealth, Atomic Machines is out. Our mission: on-demand, universal command of matter. First beachhead: the Matter Compiler, an AI-native manufacturing system that builds working micro-machines from code alone. No per-product tooling. No process development. Different code, different machine.
Justin Jones retweeted
Elon Musk: “If you want to recruit talented and driven people, you must state the mission, the problem to solve, and show you’re willing to pour blood, sweat, and tears into it with a convincing reason why it matters.
Motivation comes from three things: enjoying the work itself, fair financial rewards, and knowing the work will make a real difference in the world.”
Justin Jones retweeted
Buying 900,000 $BTC in 2009 and then disappeared from internet.
No interviews, podcasts.
No “gm” threads.
Just generational wealth and silence.
how peaceful is her life today?
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
This video is AI-generated. It was impossible to acquire 900,000 Bitcoins in March 2009 as that many did not yet exist. Bitcoin launched on January 3, 2009, and only a fraction of that amount had been mined by mid-March. misbar.com/en/editorial/2… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
Justin Jones retweeted
Elon Musk avait dit un truc qui m'avait marqué sur l'allocation de ressources. En substance : passé un certain niveau de richesse, l'argent n'est plus de la consommation, c'est de l'allocation de capital.
Cette phrase change tout.
L'économie, dans le fond, c'est juste un problème d'allocation. Tu as des ressources finies et des usages infinis. Qui décide où va quoi ?
Imagine une cour de récré. 100 enfants, des paquets de cartes Pokémon distribués au hasard. Tu laisses faire. Très vite, un ordre émerge. Les bons joueurs accumulent les cartes rares, les collectionneurs trient, les négociateurs trouvent des deals. Personne n'a planifié. Et pourtant chaque carte finit dans les mains de celui qui en tire le plus de valeur. Le système maximise le bonheur total de la cour. C'est ça, la main invisible.
Maintenant fais entrer la maîtresse. Elle trouve ça injuste. Léo a 50 cartes, Tom en a 3. Elle confisque, redistribue, impose l'égalité. Trois effets immédiats. Les bons joueurs arrêtent de jouer, à quoi bon. Les mauvais n'ont plus de raison de progresser, ils auront leur part. Les échanges s'effondrent. La cour est égale, et morte. Elle a maximisé l'égalité, elle a détruit le bonheur.
Le problème de la maîtresse, c'est qu'elle ne peut pas avoir l'information que la cour avait collectivement. C'est le problème du calcul économique de Mises, formulé en 1920. L'URSS a essayé de le résoudre pendant 70 ans avec le Gosplan. Résultat : pénuries, queues, effondrement. Pas parce que les Soviétiques étaient bêtes, parce que le problème est mathématiquement insoluble en mode centralisé.
Quand Musk a 200 milliards, il ne les consomme pas, il les alloue. SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, xAI. Chaque dollar est un pari sur le futur. Et lui a un track record. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX. Il a démontré qu'il sait identifier des problèmes immenses et y allouer des ressources avec un rendement spectaculaire.
L'État aussi a un track record. Hôpitaux qui s'effondrent, éducation qui décline, dette qui explose, services publics qui se dégradent malgré des budgets en hausse constante. Le marché identifie les bons allocateurs, la politique identifie les bons communicants.
Le profit n'est pas une finalité, c'est un signal. Il dit : tu as alloué des ressources rares vers un usage que les gens valorisent suffisamment pour payer. Plus le profit est gros, plus la création de valeur est grande. Quand Starlink est rentable, ça veut dire que des millions de gens dans des zones rurales ont enfin internet. Quand un ministère est en déficit, ça veut dire qu'il consomme plus qu'il ne produit. L'un crée, l'autre détruit, et on appelle ça redistribution.
Dans nos sociétés il y a deux catégories d'acteurs. Les entrepreneurs et les bureaucrates. L'entrepreneur prend un risque personnel pour identifier un problème, mobiliser des ressources, créer une solution. S'il se trompe il perd. S'il a raison, ses clients gagnent, ses employés gagnent, ses fournisseurs gagnent, l'État collecte des impôts. Il est la cellule de base du progrès humain.
Le bureaucrate ne prend aucun risque personnel. Son salaire est garanti. Au mieux il maintient une rente existante. Au pire il la détruit par excès de réglementation, mauvaise allocation forcée, incitations perverses qui découragent ceux qui produisent. Mais dans aucun cas il ne crée.
Regarde les 50 dernières années. iPhone, internet civil, SpaceX, Tesla, Google, Amazon, Stripe, mRNA, ChatGPT. Toutes des inventions privées, portées par des entrepreneurs, financées par du capital risque. Pas un seul ministère n'a inventé quoi que ce soit qui ait changé ta vie au quotidien.
La France est devenue le laboratoire mondial de la dérive bureaucratique. 57% du PIB en dépenses publiques, record absolu. Une administration tentaculaire, une fiscalité qui pénalise la création de richesse. Résultat : décrochage face aux États-Unis, à l'Allemagne, à la Suisse. Fuite des cerveaux. Désindustrialisation. Dette qui explose.
Et le pire c'est que la mauvaise allocation s'auto-renforce. Plus l'État prélève, moins les entrepreneurs créent. Moins ils créent, moins il y a de base fiscale. Plus l'État s'endette et taxe. Boucle de rétroaction négative parfaite. La maîtresse pense qu'elle aide, et chaque année la cour produit moins.
Dans nos sociétés, ce sont les entrepreneurs, toujours, qui font avancer la civilisation. Les bureaucrates au mieux maintiennent une rente, au pire la détruisent. Aucune société n'a jamais progressé en taxant ses créateurs pour subventionner ses gestionnaires.
La question n'est jamais qui a combien. C'est qui alloue le mieux la prochaine unité de ressource pour maximiser le futur de l'humanité. La réponse depuis 200 ans n'a jamais changé. Ce ne sont pas les fonctionnaires.
Justin Jones retweeted
Bezos wrote the playbook for this in his 2015 shareholder letter, and most CEOs still haven't read it.
He splits every decision into two categories. One-way doors: irreversible, high consequence, go slow. Two-way doors: reversible, low consequence, go fast. His exact threshold is 70% of the information you wish you had. At 70%, decide. At 90%, you waited too long.
The problem is organizational, not intellectual. As companies scale, they default to treating every decision like a one-way door. Three rounds of review for a button color change. Executive sign-off on an A/B test. Legal review on a landing page. Bezos named this failure mode directly: the tendency to use the heavyweight decision-making process on decisions that could be reversed tomorrow.
Amazon built an internal experimentation platform called Weblab. First year: 546 experiments. Within a few years: over 12,000 annually. That 22x increase in decision velocity is the actual competitive advantage. AWS, Prime, one-click ordering, personalized recommendations. Every one of those started as a two-way door experiment that a small team pushed through without executive approval.
When Bezos was asked what Day 2 looks like at Amazon, his answer was four words: "Day 2 is death." Stasis, then irrelevance, then decline. The mechanism that kills companies is the same every time: they start requiring certainty before acting, which means they stop learning, which means they stop adapting.
The counterintuitive part is that Bezos also calls himself Amazon's "chief slow down officer" on the decisions that actually matter. Selling a division, entering a new country, acquiring a company. He goes painfully slow on those. The speed comes from knowing which 95% of decisions can be reversed tomorrow.
Most companies get this exactly backwards. They spend three months deciding on reversible product changes and three days on irreversible org restructures.
If AI is "changing everything," why does the job market look so quiet?linkedin.com/pulse/why-ai-wo… via @LinkedIn
Justin Jones retweeted
Bayes’ theorem is probably the single most important thing any rational person can learn.
So many of our debates and disagreements that we shout about are because we don’t understand Bayes’ theorem or how human rationality often works.
Bayes’ theorem is named after the 18th-century Thomas Bayes, and essentially it’s a formula that asks: when you are presented with all of the evidence for something, how much should you believe it?
Bayes’ theorem teaches us that our beliefs are not fixed; they are probabilities. Our beliefs change as we weigh new evidence against our assumptions, or our priors. In other words, we all carry certain ideas about how the world works, and new evidence can challenge them.
For example, somebody might believe that smoking is safe, that stress causes mouth ulcers, or that human activity is unrelated to climate change. These are their priors, their starting points. They can be formed by our culture, our biases, or even incomplete information.
Now imagine a new study comes along that challenges one of your priors. A single study might not carry enough weight to overturn your existing beliefs. But as studies accumulate, eventually the scales may tip. At some point, your prior will become less and less plausible.
Bayes’ theorem argues that being rational is not about black and white. It’s not even about true or false. It’s about what is most reasonable based on the best available evidence. But for this to work, we need to be presented with as much high-quality data as possible. Without evidence—without belief-forming data—we are left only with our priors and biases. And those aren’t all that rational.
Justin Jones retweeted
Birds sometimes build complex nests to mislead predators, hiding their eggs deep inside for safety.
Justin Jones retweeted
Elon Musk: "People get confused sometimes they think an economy is money , But money is a database
for the exchange of goods and services and for time-shifting the exchange of goods and services. Money is a database. Money does not have power in and of itself
You can run the thought experiment: if you are shipwrecked on a remote island and you have a trillion dollars in a Swiss bank account, "it's worthless"
You’d rather have a can of soup. You can have all the Bitcoin in the world and you’re still going to starve
The actual economy is goods and services”
Justin Jones retweeted
Our Town Council keeps raising taxes.
So I showed up with an English Lord’s wig to speak in *favor* of taxes.
“If you can’t pay your taxes…don’t be poor.”
