No, the sophomoric LLM argument does not apply here. The world is not a big computer.
The point is that the rate-limiting step in producing something infective is a couple million dollars in special lab equipment, skilled practitioners, and incredibly tricky and tedious procedures that take time and repetition to master.
So yeah, you can try to pay someone who has that expertise to make your top-sekret superbug (good luck with that), or you can do what any real threat actor is going to do, and put in the time and investment. That's the hard part, not asking ChatGPT for a genome sequence.
Let me put it another way: despite the synthesis pathways for many common illegal drugs being widely known and trivial enough that an undergrad O-chem major could do them, in fact doing this is a very good way to get caught and arrested. And that's easy.
Your example of how easy it is to control outputs behind specialized knowledge is a thing (recreational drugs) that exist in mass quantities every place on the planet at consumer-accessible prices?
> Uhhh right... but all the other hard parts are being solved too, correct? LLMs are clearly going to solve a part that, 10 years ago, one would've assumed would be one of the highest and last barriers to go down.
No.
No, the barriers I'm talking about aren't coming down. Not quickly anyway.
No, nobody assumed this was the "highest and last barrier". That's the point you keep missing.
LLMs are not "solving" the rate-limiting step here. It only looks that way if you don't know what's involved.
Not really sure what the grift is here. Great Salt Lake Rising seems pretty reasonable reading their website https://gslrising.org/
To quote:
“We are coordinating across 30+ organizations to get water back to the lake. The immediate goal: 500,000 acre-feet of annual water savings by 2027.
- Acquire and retire U.S. Magnesium water rights — 80,000 acre-feet annually
- Aggressively remove invasive phragmites consuming 100,000+ acre-feet per year
- Restore Newfoundland Basin — 30,000 acre-feet
- Partner with agricultural water users through split-season leasing and crop optimization
- Expand secondary water metering for accountability and conservation
- Purchase and lease water rights to permanently return water to the lake
- Refine policy tools to make leasing, delivery, and conservation easier”
Seems to be associated with an all star group of Utah philanthropists. Not seeing what the angle would be other than restoring the lake.
Very cool, thanks for the detail. This leads me to wonder....why haven't Windows and Linux done any similar optimizations? I assume they do lots of hardware optimizations in all sorts of places, but this seems pretty core.
The challenge is that the competitive and economic pressures make this moot.
A person, entering the field via AI driven development, will have none of the qualms about skill, seniority, understanding the codebase, or craftsmanship. Those arguments are handwringing by the previous generation of engineers. Their focus is solely on the outcome and value produced from the input prompt. That aligns closer to how businesses see their codebase: something they have to prompt their engineers to produce in order to generate business value.
Similarly, new AI driven companies focused on delivering value at speed and lower costs will have none of the baggage of the legacy code companies with engineers stuck debating these questions. These new gen companies will be focused on delivering value, doing so at quicker speeds and lower costs, raising the level of competition for existing incumbents.
Will existing businesses be willing to spend money to purchase services from these new gen companies of AI developed products? Seems like it.
There are real problems with these AI developed codebases. They tend to collect baggage and start to feel like a house of cards. A big open question is whether AI models will continue to improve in order to patch all the vibe-holes being generated. Seems like they will improve.
Agree with this. I have Codex do analysis and feedback for Claude code. For whatever reason, Claude code seems to produce successful code more frequently, but it tends to have blind spots in performing analysis that Codex does a good job of picking up. The two together feel like a step up in state of the art.
I need a tool to put them in a loop together to get this done more efficiently…I guess I’ll plug this in as a prompt and go from there!
I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not.
His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues.
The electric induction cooktop he and his team has made is pretty cool! I'd check it out.
Unless you believe there needs to be a plan for CA to secede in the future and thus it needs to be self-sufficient, why does manufacturing need to be in CA? As you stated, the Impulse stove makes heavy use of outsourced manufacturing to other parties; as long as those parties are within the US (which I'm not claiming they are, but there are states like TX that are far less concerned about environmental impact than CA is and thus could pick up any such slack), why is there a security concern here?
As for the economic concern, it seems like this is backwards: I'd argue it's the HCOL that drives industry with the need for low-wage labor away to non-CA locations. There's nothing stopping non-polluting corporations from working and hiring large numbers of people in CA.
This is too strong of a statement. There are perfectly sensible reasons to NIMBY certain activities. For instance, burning wood is probably ok in general, but a horrible idea in heavily populated cities.
Obviously, California is not composed exclusively of heavily populated cities. But it does contain a lot of them! So it is not completely insane that the regulation is skewed in favour of this.
Of course, for things that are equally polluting no matter where you do them (like burning fossil fuels), moving production outside of the location but still buying produced materials is simply passing the buck. But it's not totally clear to me that's what's happening here.
That's exactly why the Bay Area Air Quality Management District exists (established decades before the federal EPA):
> Charged with regulating stationary sources of air pollution emissions, the Air District drafted its first two regulations in the 1950s: Regulation 1, which banned open burning at dumps and wrecking yards, and Regulation 2, which established controls on dust, droplets, and combustion gases from certain industrial sources.
> Much research and discussion went into the shaping of Regulation 2, but there was no doubt about the need for it. During a fact-finding visit to one particular facility, Air District engineers discovered that filters were used over air in-take vents to protect the plant's machinery from its own corrosive emissions! This much-debated regulation was finally adopted in 1960.
Fossil are not equally polluting. There's a difference between living next to a generator with exhaust at ground level, a properly designed smoke stack, and just being further away so the reactive emissions can dilute and degrade.
CO2 might be a long term problem, but it isn't the core health concern of living near combustion facilities - moving those away from residential areas isn't passing the buck, it's just good sense.
> It makes no sense to say "oh, we need to manufacturer this stuff... just not here." That's basically NIMBYism for electronics.
This statement doesn't acknowledge why NIMBYism is odious. The reason is that we all need housing, but new housing may devalue current housing. While some may wish to protect their housing values/community feel/etc, others wish and may rightly deserve, access to housing at the same levels of access as earlier generations.
The analogy to manufacturing does not exist—to suggest it does ignores the real negative externalities to people who live next to polluting facilities, especially those where the pollutant was not recognized during use.
They are not fundamentally different. The underlying hypocracy of NIMBYism is wanting the positive outcomes from something (more housing, factories producing goods) with someone else having to suffer the downsides. How obnoxious it is depends on that upside/downside risk, but fundamentally if you want a thing to happen but you want it to happen near someone else, you are part of the NIMBY problem. (Note that wanting it to not happen at all, or wanting a version that is more expensive but nicer to be near, is not the same, so long as you're happy to bear the outcome of that thing being more expensive)
I think it’s reasonable to want factories and pollution to be far from anyone’s dwelling, no? And for all factories to have appropriate pollution control.
But is that really California's stance? Or is it more "if you do it here, do it the right way" and then everyone uses the more polluting production methods in a state that doesn't care
The outcome is the same as long as only California does it, but the ethics of it and the outcome if every state acted like that is vastly different
The notion of comparative advantage says you don't. It's not NIMBYism. And it's not a good faith argument when it comes from folks who have a bunker in New Zealand.
Similarly saying “you can’t have slavery but you can buy stuff made by enslaved people abroad” is morally inconsistent. I don’t know the obvious answer to this though.
Why? Manufacturing,design and engineering need highly different skill sets it's just not feasible to have both in one location because of the workforce required. It's the same in every other country some parts are industrial hubs and some design/engineering.
And, yes, it's a really neat stove... for wealthy people. At an installed cost of ~$8k (more if you're having to replace a standalone oven/cooktop since you need the stand for it), it's competing with lower-end Viking gas ranges that include an oven, and those have an extensive service network that Impulse doesn't (yet) have.
I mean, that's pretty normal right. The product starts out as a bit niche and expensive, and then as it scales in manufactured volume, variants & competitors become available at lower price points.
I saw this being hyped on YouTube the other day. My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.
Their website says
> We’re designing and manufacturing the stovetop, battery pack, and key internal components to comply with all relevant UL standards and other applicable compliance requirements.
but this device appears to be for sale, right now. Either it is designed for safety already or it isn’t. WHICH UL safety standards? Is there an emergency shutoff? A regular old fire extinguisher probably is not going to cut it.
> My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.
It's an induction stovetop. It doesn't itself get hot, other than whatever heat gets transferred to the top of the stove because it is in contact with the hot pot or pan sitting on top. I don't know about this one specifically but with most induction stovetops that just makes it warm to the touch in the area right under the pot or pan.
That's not going to be hot enough to be a problem for the battery even if for some reason they mounted it in contact with the bottom of the top surface, which I doubt they did.
> That's not going to be hot enough to be a problem for the battery even if for some reason they mounted it in contact with the bottom of the top surface, which I doubt they did.
My point is that’s what safety standards are for. Do they do safe things or not? You might be surprised to hear how many manufacturers do dumb things for one reason or another. If they really do comply with safety standards then they should be able to say which ones. Why don’t they say?
This guy is just mad that Copper murdered them by making an actual product people can actually buy, partly because, I imagine, Impulse CEO was busy making visuals for his Libertarian propaganda campaign.
The Copper stove is made in Berkeley, California, by the way.
I am sure the 5th largest economy in the world is truly suffering under their draconian regulations. Everyone in California making the 5th highest median income in the country wishes they were working at a local oil refinery.
To your last point, I am somewhat doubtful that this website is being honest about automotive paint shops being banned in California. Am I to believe that the 3,000 auto body shops in Southern California sit on their hands all day? Was West Coast Customs just a fake TV show filmed in Texas?
If this website’s author is correct I’m supposed to believe that no paint gets applied to cars in Canada.
As another nitpick, let’s also not forget that nobody else is building oil refineries in the US. The newest one in the entire country was built in 1976. Oil demand in the US is relatively flat since decades ago; there isn’t a pressing need for new refineries.
I also think that readers in this thread should remember that California has strict air quality regulations because its geography especially in Southern California lends itself to bad air quality. These regulations are very much written in blood. Globally, almost 7 million people die prematurely every year due to air pollution.
To me at least this appears to be a smoking gun for the creator not being able to function in good faith. Whether that's intentional or self delusion, who knows.
From the page itself, "A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA." This point is trotted out and reframed multiple times on the page but it's literally self contradictory. It's not something you can't do in California, it's something you can't do without approval in the Bay Area Air District.
It's not a good place to be doing such an activity, as the area already can't successfully keep the air healthy enough to stay within federal limits due to environmental factors that trap particulate low to the ground. If you're at all familiar with the area you know concerns about air quality are not overblown and. Go further away from people or meet strict VOC regulations if you absolutely need to be doing that kind of work in the area, seems completely reasonable to me.
Is there any reason to assume that there's a dire need for more shops to apply paint in cars in California? If not, regulating to prioritize the air quality over increasing competition isn't unreasonable.
Is there any reason to assume that air quality standards can be maintained only by 50-year-old paint shops, and not by newer ones built to higher standards?
See also the counterproductive legacy of the anti-nuclear movement.
I think this requires us to buy the premise in the first place, which might be questionable.
Some guy’s website claims with big red scary graphics that this stuff is banned and these poor downtrodden business owners can’t operate.
I can’t imagine that nobody has opened an auto body shop in California in the last decade or two.
When it comes to businesses like large factories opening up that’s more of something that often gets approved on a case by case basis.
E.g., we can’t just say that the Chicago Bears are banned from building a new stadium in Chicago just because they aren’t willing to pay the costs required to do so and aren’t willing to meet the city’s requirements to get the approval vote they need.
There's reason to assume that _some_ paint shops are needed, based on the fact that the existing ones are staying in business, and reason to assume that more paint shops would mean more pollution, based on addition. There's not really any other way to limit the number of them other than regulation than gives the state the ability to prevent new ones, and while you obviously are against that idea in practice, I don't think it's nearly as obviously a bad policy goal as you're implying.
What should be the basis for comparison? The locality with the most permissive rule on each aspect of manufacturing? Is there any absolute floor on the morality? Should California allow slavery to be used in factories if some other locality allows it?
Working estimate (gross, podcast‑only): $2.3M – $3.7M per year for ads + its share of memberships. Mid‑case lands near $2.9M/yr gross; after typical platform/processing fees and less‑than‑perfect ad sell‑through, a net in the low‑to‑mid $2Ms seems plausible.
---
Quick answers
How many listeners: 175K downloads per episode, ~1.4–2.1M monthly downloads, demographics skew U.S., median age ~36.
How much revenue? $2.3M– $3.7M/yr gross from ads + memberships attributable to the STM show
Would love to see nuclear do this, but the challenges to getting nuclear built are myriad. Regulatory burdens, cost to build reactors, painfully slow learning rate for nuclear reactor design and buildout.
Solar, while certainly not ideal, is comparatively trivial to build out. Functionally you buy and lay out cheap panels. Far smaller political challenges. Some friction around land use and interconnect, but compared to nuclear, orders of magnitude easier and the way forward seems clear with the existing political realities and economies of scale in action for solar panels.
The best part about using nuclear for fuel generation is that you get to sidestep the biggest problem with nuclear - when you build a power plant you want to build it near people (who may object on safety grounds), but you can build a DAC fuel generator way out in the middle of nowhere.
Even better, you could build your nuclear DAC fuel generator in an old natural gas field, where there's ready-made transportation infrastructure for your product to where it's needed!
>The best part about using nuclear for fuel generation
The main point of this operation is to utilize free surplus energy from solar and wind to store fuel for days where solar and wind can't produce enough. Free-as-in-beer surplus, since the energy would otherwise be wasted or sold at negative prices, like what we have been seeing lately in certain markets.
Nuclear can always produce electricity, so converting to fuel has no benefits it's just a loss compared to using the electricity directly. Also, nuclear electricity is never free but always very expensive because you need a large amount of very highly educated people and expensive infrastructure to deal with it.
>you can build a DAC fuel generator way out in the middle of nowhere.
If things go very badly with a nuclear reactor, there's no such thing as a "middle of nowhere" that's far enough away. The fallout from Chernobyl made certain foods as far away as the arctic circle unsuitable for human consumption.
Nuclear can always produce electricity, but spinning plants up and down takes time. More importantly, a nuclear plant has a design lifetime, and most of the cost comes from building the plant in the first place, not from the fuel. It therefore costs a lot of money to let a nuclear plant sit idle. Furthermore, building a small nuclear plant is almost as expensive as building a large one, because of the regulatory hurdles and the effort needed to design it. So not building a nuclear plant as big as you possibly can has a cost as well. The difficulty is that you then need a consumer capable of using all that excess power, which necessitates putting it next to large population centers, who are likely to complain about the risk of nuclear. Being able to build a large reactor out in the middle of nowhere, and be able to rely on always having a consumer for its power even if at a very low price would make it much more viable.
>most of the cost comes from building the plant in the first place, not from the fuel.
I don't think that's correct. The costs of handling spent fuel is ongoing for an unknown amount of time. Eventually the running costs add up.
The main storage site in the UK (which admittedly does more than just store waste) costs around USD 3 billion per year, basically as much as building a new nuclear plant every 5 years.
Then you have unforeseen events that can drastically change the calculations. Like the Asse II mine in Germany where a storage site started leaking and has to be relocated at an estimated cost of at least 3.7 billion euro over the coming decades. After that is completed, the relocated waste will continue to cost money to handle as well.
Such cost are generally NOT included, or has a fraction of the true liability included, in the cost estimates of nuclear power.
When you take such things into account it quickly becomes clear that nuclear is not nearly as cheap as many have been lead to believe, but instead very expensive and very heavily subsidized.
Consider also that even if it were cheap, it is strategically (both in a military sense and for reliability) a bad idea to have few large power plants instead of many smaller ones. The most recent nuclear reactor in the EU has had several emergency stops already and causes severe stress on the grid since it provides such a large percentage of the total power.
Having a geographically diverse set of solar and wind plants combined with local batteries, gas generators and small peak-handling gas plants has to be a better solution than nuclear power. More resilient, cheaper and faster to build, easier to maintain, not to mention a much more predictable total cost.
