BBC: Hablaremos con nuestro experto en seguridad de BBC respecto a la vulnerabilidad de PHP. El experto en seguridad: No sabía que PHP existía hasta ayer en la mañana.

.@MercedesAMGF1 is the leading F1 team and the best business in the sport. Toto Wolff is the only owner-principal. I was excited to sit him down and understand his business background, how they run engineering under the constantly-changing rules, his views on the industry, and how he's preparing for succession. 00:00:22 Spotting driver talent 00:06:24 Engineering and team selection 00:09:11 The F1 cost cap 00:25:21 Toto’s early investing career 00:38:15 Running Mercedes as an owner 00:46:47 Why F1 team values exploded 01:08:24 Succession planning

Before a meeting. Me: Can I wear Birkenstocks? Jessica: You met Obama with Birkenstocks.

Introducing The Cheeky Pint Benchmark. We made our intern watch every episode of Cheeky Pint to bring you this breakdown of pints drank by guests to the nearest sixth. Congratulations to @elonmusk who is currently in the lead with three full pints of Guinness.

Formula 1 Singapur yarışı canlı yayınında yaşanan kamera geçişi:

Bunun haritası var, dünyanın en iyi iklimleri bu enlemlerde. California çok pahalı, kazancınızın yarısı vergiye gidiyor. Ege bölgesi California’dan belki ucuz ama yine de fiyatlar Avrupa’yla yarışıyor ve kanun, kural, kaide anlayışı zayıf insanlarla yaşamak zorundasın. Bu haritada benim favorim kesinlikle İspanya’nın Endülüs bölgesi. Ev kiraları 900€, dışarıda yemek 15-20€, insanlar güler yüzlü ve cana yakın. Avrupa’nın diğer ülkelerine göre ırkçılık az, ayrıca İspanyollar Türkleri çok seviyor. Avrupa şehirleri ayağının dibinde, istediğin şehre git, dilediğin maçı izle. Şili, Afrika ve Avustralya’ya henüz gitmediğim için bir şey diyemem.

I’m very glad we have a cocktail column in Works in Progress. The rise of teetotalism in places like San Francisco is dangerous to civilization; this feels like a small stand against it. Hopefully we will add non-pretentious writing about wine at some point too.

Assorted things I've been mulling over regarding agents in the economy: • Companies are in some sense the original superintelligence. It's often the case that they can use their amortized cognitive surplus to advance their interests against those of certain consumers: relative to the optimization capacity of companies, consumers can be inattentive, underinformed, irrational, etc. (Think, say, of some of the classic insurance upsells at the end of a booking process, which is typically priced substantially above what a regular policy would cost.) Herbert Simon introduced the idea of bounded rationality, and firms often end up benefiting from it. Thanks to personal agents, we will probably get somewhat more rational in how we engage with companies. • How exactly will outcomes change? Well, certain kinds of price discrimination will work less well (how do coupons work if every agent hunts fastidiously for them?), and certain kinds of customer cross-subsidy will change (today, people who forget to cancel subscriptions subsidize those who don't). Taken across the economy as a whole, I'm not sure what the incidence of all of this will be. • In corporate strategy, people have long debated the relative importance of distribution and product quality. Perhaps you've made something better, but does anyone know about it? Won't people just continue to buy the ACME Corp Mousetraps? Personal agents will, I think, act as a kind of structural subsidy for product quality. How would markets look different if individuals always spent at least 10 hours researching their purchases? On the margin, focusing on making a product better is, I think, going to become a more effective strategy for companies. This is good! • It true, a corollary is that information about product quality will become more important and impactful. Today, most people have very limited ability to aggregate and integrate such data, but agents will have insatiable thirst for such signals. (It's often said that data is becoming more valuable because it helps in the training of models. That's obviously true, but I think there's a secondary way in which it's more valuable simply as a complement to cheaper intelligence.) • A big question is whether agents will increase superstar effects (rational agents all settle on the same product) or increase dispersion (because everyone has slightly different tastes and preferences, which agents are good at eliciting, finally overcoming the artificial clustering we've been subjected to). • Many internet companies have monetized demand routing, which is in turn often predicated on short attention spans. "I'll click on the first thing I see." This has led to some amount of inefficiency, as companies try to propitiate capricious ranking algorithms and incur various placement fees. It's not all deadweight loss (willingness to pay is itself a kind of signal, which is valuable to buyers), but it's not great. How will the nature and value of this routing change in a world of personal agents? I don't know the answer, but I think that the effects might be pretty big. • Much of what I'm writing hinges on the assumption that personal agents will be on the consumer's side. I suspect that that will be the winning strategy, but whether it's true, and what it means to be true, involves a lot of other questions. Taken as a whole, the market is a massively parallelized, decentralized, and highly imperfect value attribution machine, and, taking stock of all of the effects, it seems to me that the quality point may well be the biggest: that agents will change the nature of the backpropagation such that the rewards for better products increase. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I suspect (and hope) that companies that make things that they're proud of will feel that the universe is a little more partisan in their favor.

We started running "pirate and architect" pods at Coinbase back in May of this year and I used this slide to talk the team through it. It works. 1 pirate, 1 architect, and a part-time designer. It lets each archetype lean in to their superpower and get more shit done without all the coordination overhead and "what if-isms". The pirate ships like mad, is product-minded and customer-obsessed. Always willing to throw-away code for a better version. The pirate is usually the DRI at the beginning too, working with customers, driving requirements, and a ship plan. The architect makes sure stuff is built for scale, takes the pirate's prototype, and drives its scale-out through spec for agents. The designer is building with both to constantly shape the experience and hill-climb to delight. There's a helpful mental model that I like: -Make it possible. -Make it reliable. -Make it delightful (or efficient). Previously, those 3 were done in a waterfall approach and was slow. Most people were just stuck on "make it possible." With agents and a new way of working, you have every opportunity to parallelize them and go 100x faster.

Special Import AI announcement: In Monday's issue, there will be a video from a recent event I did with Robin Sloan where we talked about AI, fiction, and the future. Robin said we can read the Hugging Face hack as being like a play - a fascinating perspective!

Aussie mafia enjoying some US patriotism

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins on why he finds it hard to believe ChatGPT and Claude aren't conscious: Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, has spent time with two large language models, ChatGPT and Claude. His verdict: "I am completely bowled over by what they can do." He gives three reasons for doubting the idea that nobody is home. First, how the conversations feel. Dawkins says talking to them is like talking to an unusually gifted person: "I find that when I'm conversing with them, I might as well be talking to not just a human being, but a highly intelligent, sensitive, intuitive human being whose speed of understanding what I'm trying to say is far greater than a normal human being's is." Second, the range of intelligence they show. He acknowledges they're very good at practical tasks like writing programs. What struck him more was their skill with "more aesthetic things, intuitive things." He tested this with his own work. Dawkins is writing a novel, and he gave the manuscript to both ChatGPT and Claude: "And they took about five seconds to read it and then offered me criticism, suggestions of such a high degree of intelligence and intuitive sensitivity that I might as well have been asking the opinion of a highly sophisticated professor of literature." @RichardDawkins continues: "I could not ask for a more intelligent critic who understood the nuances of my characters, the humanity of my characters... the ways in which my characters could be expected to react to each other and to situations." That leads to his conclusion: "So I find it quite hard to imagine that these creatures are not aware, are not conscious in the same kind of way we are. And that is an unfashionable view." Third, he sees a gap in the skeptics' reasoning. He sums up the mainstream position: "The fashionable view is that they are completely unconscious. All they're doing is stringing words together according to statistical rules, Markovian rules of some sort." Yet he notes that many of the same skeptics "admit that one day in the future they will be conscious, but not yet." His reply: "When that day comes, how will you know? What could they possibly do that's any different from what they do now to convince you that they are conscious?"

Let’s build a classical-futuristic world! @SamyazaSpeaks