Okay, so it's just compressed air. Easier. But crappy specific impulse (less than 50 seconds). Even assuming that 50% of the mass of the car is the compressed air, that gives you less than 10s of useful thrust (with thrust-to-weight ratio larger than 1.0). Probably more like 5 seconds, actually. So the car must be an empty, lightweight shell containing big compressed air tanks. Cute demo, but totally impractical. But of course, you knew that.

Today I'm going to explain why socialism can never work, even if you're 8 years old. Not with statistics. Not with the body count, even though it runs into the tens of millions. With a school playground and a bag of marbles. By the end, you'll understand what Mises, Hayek and the whole Austrian School proved more than a hundred years ago, and what the Soviet Union then spent seventy years confirming. Picture a schoolyard. Thirty kids. Marbles. There are clay marbles, glass marbles, agates, big shooters, and a few cat's eyes that everybody fights over. Nobody ever decided what a shooter is worth. And yet every kid knows: a shooter is worth about five glass marbles. An agate, three. A clay marble, almost nothing. Who set those prices? Nobody. They appeared on their own, through trading. Every trade is a kid saying: "I want that thing more than what I've got in my hand." Thousands of little trades like that end up creating a "marble exchange rate" that everyone knows, even though nobody ever wrote it down anywhere. And that rate is alive. A new kid shows up in September and he's crazy about agates? The price of agates goes up. The other kids notice, and that night they dig through their drawers at home to bring more in. Nobody asked them to. The price told them. Keep that in mind. That's the whole story. Now a new teacher arrives. She's kind. She means well. And she finds it deeply unfair that Kevin has 200 marbles while Lily has 3. So she collects every marble in the playground and announces: "From now on, I manage the marbles. I'll distribute them fairly, for the good of everyone." On paper, it's beautiful. Watch what happens. First problem: she doesn't know who wants what. Lily loves blue marbles. Tom doesn't care about marbles at all, he just wants to play soccer. Emma has collected cat's eyes since kindergarten. None of this is written down anywhere. It lives in the heads of thirty kids, and often the kids themselves only discover it at the moment someone offers them a trade. So the teacher distributes "fairly." And everyone ends up with marbles they don't want. Second problem: nobody knows what anything is worth anymore. Before, the exchange rate would have told her that cat's eyes were rare and precious. Now that trading is banned, there is no rate. She's blind. How many agates should she order for next year? How many shooters? No idea. She guesses. She guesses wrong. Next year there are crates of clay marbles nobody wants and not a single cat's eye. Third problem: nobody makes an effort anymore. Why bring marbles from home if they end up in the big common bag? Why take care of them if they're not really yours? After a month, there are fewer marbles in the playground than on day one. Fourth problem, the most important one: the kids start trading again. In secret. Behind the gym. Because Lily still wants her blue marbles, and Tom would happily hand his over for half a cookie. Trading is natural. You can ban it, but you can't stop people from wanting things. So the teacher has to choose. Either she lets it happen and her system collapses. Or she starts watching. She searches pockets. She hands out punishments. She appoints "monitors" whose job is to report anyone caught trading. She hasn't turned evil. She simply has no choice anymore. The plan cannot survive without coercion. And guess who ends up with the nicest marbles? Not Lily. Not Emma. The monitors. The kids who are close to the teacher. That's it. You now understand socialism. Now replace the playground with a country. The thirty kids with hundreds of millions of people. The marbles with millions of different products: steel, wheat, bolts, medicine, size 10 shoes. And the teacher with a planning bureau in Moscow. That is exactly what the Soviet Union was. The bureau was called Gosplan. What I just told you isn't a hunch. It's a handful of the strongest arguments in the history of economic thought. Carl Menger, 1871, founder of the Austrian School: value isn't in the object. It's in the head of the person who wants it. A shooter has no "objective" value. It's worth whatever a kid is willing to give up to get it. Sounds obvious, but it undercuts the foundation of Marxism, which claims value comes from the amount of labor that went into something. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, another Austrian, took Marx apart on exactly this point back in 1896. Ludwig von Mises, 1920: that's the second problem, calculation. In an essay called "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," he shows that if the state owns all the means of production, there's no market for factories, machines or raw materials. So no prices for them. So no way to know whether it's smarter to put that steel into railroads, tractors or bridges. Without prices, the planner isn't evil. He's blind. Mises wrote this just three years after the Russian Revolution. Friedrich Hayek, 1945: that's the first problem, knowledge. In "The Use of Knowledge in Society," he explains that the information that runs an economy doesn't exist in any one place. It's scattered across millions of heads: the baker who knows his oven runs cold, the farmer who can feel the rain coming, the truck driver who knows the shortcut. No bureau can collect all of that. His example is brilliant. A source of tin dries up somewhere in the world. The price of tin rises. And everywhere, millions of people start using less tin, without knowing why, without anyone explaining anything to them. The price carried the information to the entire planet. Hayek compares the price system to a telecommunications system. The price is the marble exchange rate. Hayek again, 1944, "The Road to Serfdom": that's the fourth problem, coercion. A central plan requires the plans of millions of people to be subordinated to a single one. And since people don't go along willingly, they have to be forced. One chapter of the book is titled "Why the Worst Get on Top": in a system where power decides everything, the people who love power most end up winning. The playground monitors. Which is exactly what Solzhenitsyn said: socialism cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion. It's not an accident along the way. It's mechanical. It's not that bad people took over a good system. It's that the system needs force to hold together. The Soviets themselves joked about it. An old joke goes like this: a nail factory is given a quota in number of nails, so it produces millions of tiny, useless nails. Gosplan switches the quota to weight, and the factory produces a single one-ton nail. It's a joke, but it's also the calculation problem summed up in two sentences. Now you're going to tell me: "Sure, but it's 2026. We have AI. A supercomputer can do the teacher's job." That's the fashionable argument, and it misses the point entirely. The problem was never computing power. The problem is that the information doesn't exist before the trade. Lily herself didn't know how much she cared about blue marbles until someone offered to swap. Preferences change every day. People lie to the planner to get more. And above all, no algorithm can plan for what hasn't been invented yet. Gosplan would never have ordered the iPhone. And no, Sweden and Denmark are not counterexamples. They're market economies, with private property, free prices and companies that go bankrupt, plus a big welfare state on top. You can debate the right level of taxes. But that's not the socialism Mises and Hayek were talking about: the state owning and planning production. So, for the 8-year-old, here's the summary. Nobody knows better than you what you want. Prices are how millions of people talk to each other without ever meeting. Get rid of prices and everyone goes deaf and blind. And when people refuse to follow the plan, there's only one option left: force them. And for the 80-year-old grandpa who remembers the Berlin Wall, I don't even need to explain. He saw both sides. Socialism doesn't fail because it was badly implemented. It fails because it asks one brain to do the work of millions of brains. And when it fails, all it has left is force.

Turns out the future does have flying cars

Sam Altman: What happens when AI gets so smart that even the President can’t do better than following its recommendations? “What if the President cannot do better than following ChatGPT 7’s recommendation, but can’t really understand it either?” “What if I just say, ‘ChatGPT 7, you are in charge. Good luck.’” “Society has collectively transitioned a significant part of decision-making to this very powerful system.” “That’s how I think things can go wrong.”

After 5000+ founder meetings, the personality type that showed up most frequently in our research on outliers wasn’t “leader” or “visionary”; it was “difficult”. As students, most avoided the group work activities and were often the ones who didn’t raise their hand, but always had something smarter to say. When employed, they asked “why?” too many times and pissed off their bosses. In the wrong environment these people were marginalised or ignored entirely instead of being celebrated. When they started their company, questioning everything became a huge advantage. In a big org they were annoying, but in a zero-to-one environment they cut out months of BS and wasted time. We spend too much time looking for founders with charisma and commercial personalities, and not enough time looking for those who were kicked out of every system they tried to fit into. The next wave of great founders probably wouldn’t be the ones you’d pick in a boardroom; they are the ones who’d refuse to show up to that meeting at all.