One judgment, dug to the bottom: evidence, an adversarial table, and what would prove us wrong. For readers who'll spend twenty minutes to truly get one thing.
12 pieces
Some questions won't fit in a morning paragraph: a denominator nobody defines, two accounts that can't both be true, or a call of our own that has started to wobble. A deep dive takes one such question and digs to the bottom — evidence laid out, the strongest opposing case given its own table, and the ending written in advance: here is what would prove us wrong. Twenty minutes later you are holding not more information, but a position that dares to publish its own falsification terms. For readers willing to spend twenty minutes truly understanding one thing. How we verify it — the methodology
The market thinks output goes up if you let AI work several tasks at once, and that the co…
Start by finishing the thread Kevin Xu left hanging. In an earlier era, he wrote, there wa…
Start with the hypothesis in its own words. Gooaye's two scripts run like this. Scenario A…
The deep dive "The Guarantor Falls, the Guaranteed Rise: Circular Financing Is Now Priced …
Start by laying out what happened on July 27. Before Monday's open, The Wall Street Journa…
The foundry/IDM framework in this essay borrows heavily from Ben Thompson's long-running s…
Start with the exact words. On the BG2 podcast in December 2025 — with Arvind Jain, CEO of…
In the second half of 2025, four heavyweight figures each ran their own independent math t…
The first half of 2026 produced a pair of facts that should not coexist. On one side, the …
This is the story of a policy completing a full circle. In October 2022, Washington impose…
The story starts with a reversal. From 2023 through 2025, nearly all the money in AI was m…
Three years ago, the most-cited finding in all of AI-and-work research said this: give con…
Just an email address, unsubscribe anytime. This is the only thing we ask of you.