You just drive up, drop your keys and go, your car is parked in a long line of cars that they can asynchronously drive off to long stay. The key thing is the location - you're a 30 second walk over a bridge into the terminal. Probably a hundred cars can be sitting waiting to be driven off to the long stay at the time, so they can handle the drop off/pick up of many cars at once. Whereas with this solution each "bay" will be occupied for a time while the autonomous robot drives off the previous vehicle, so you either need to over-provision - have many robots servicing a single bay to cope with peak times, or you'll need some local skid buffer.

From a customer point of view. This is on the outskirts of the airport so it's a much longer walk without a covered path (so you'll get wet because at some point it will start raining again in the UK). It's maybe slightly better than long stay, where you do need a bus journey (which tbh isn't that bad). But I'm not sure how much juice is in this application to squeeze.

Can Google steal it and present it in an AI overview? Well kinda. Today Google is doing a trick - they're saying "You can refuse to consent to being fed into the slop machine, but if you do we won't crawl you for Google so you'll get no search traffic. But you're not going to get search traffic anyway! So you might as well opt out of being fed into the slop machine. And companies are starting to do that [1]

It's really interesting, because essentially what it means is Google is turning into a walled garden, but there's nothing growing inside it so they have to continually import new plants to live in their walled garden and they're going to have to pay to do that. So soon Google will be paying news sites for the right to plumb their feed into the slop machine.

[1]: https://www.wsj.com/business/media/google-search-publishers-...

Second, hiring at startups is massively different to hiring at big companies. At big companies you have a website and a linkedin and a recruiter and external recruiters and they're all funnelling CVs to you dozens at a time. You're glancing over a CV and if it looks roughly right you'll do a phone screen. People lie on their CVs. So you need a few questions like this just drop the 90% of candidates who have literally no chance at getting the job. Keep in mind, the external recruiters will interview the candidates you reject, find out your interview questions, find the answers and tip off future candidates.

We're also hiring for a different set of skills. At a start up everyone is doing everything. Does it matter how well you can talk to customers? Maybe! That could be useful. In a large company if you ever talk to a customer as an engineer you will have been at the company for years, you'll have a Sales guy, Technical Sales guy, an Account Manager, your manager, and maybe a Project Manager all in the room if you ever get to see a customer.

This was scarily accurate, and I think the options for the answers were fairly representative of peoples' different views.

I think what's interesting is that on social media we're generally discussing one of those 15 questions, not all of them in context. Multiple things can be happening in parallel. I'm not convinced about it's use in medical imaging and I think the companies are going to probably mostly go bankrupt, but much like the internet or railroads something of value will emerge from the other side. It's not like crypto in the fact that there is actually something of value there beyond just crime.

The problem is that only works if aggregate demand is higher than supply. At some point, all these new data centres are going to come on line, and the frothy "throw AI at everything with no regard to costs" is going to drawn down across the industry. And this supply will be much larger - because everyone thought the down side was limited.

At that point you're going to have all of these companies trying to dump their excess capacity on the market and it suddenly won't be true that you can just sell capacity to your competitors.

Obviously this won't bankrupt Meta - it'll just eat into their profits from their ads business. But it likely will drive a bunch of neo-clouds out of business very quickly, and the technology providers like Nvidia etc will suddenly come back to reasonable P/Es.

It's actually striking that what they're promising it can do is almost nothing, and that it still won't be able to do what they claim. "Folds and puts clothes away" - ok, can I see any video of it taking clothes out of a washing machine (it can't), folding them, identifying where the clothes should go and then putting them there, and for example, opening a wardrobe and putting the clothes into the right place - possibly underneath other stuff that's already in there.

I guess the cursor guys will be happy because they got their pay day, but I'd be very aware if I were them that their future is at the whim of whoever Musk appoints and it's difficult to tell who that would be right now.

I guess now is the time to take bets, so I'm going to bet an early OpenAI employee like Sutskever gets the job and they acquihire him in. Here's a bit of a laugh - at this stock price Musk could probably tempt Demis to come over, that would be wild.

So everything else is kind of academic. Of course they were losing money in 2025, they had a technology that was kind of cool - clearly eventually going to deliver something great, but they didn't actually have anything somebody should pay for. Now they have a thing that people will pay for. So who cares what they lost in 2025?

So what's important today is - how competitive are they with Anthropic in delivering that product. How do the economics of companies using AI agents for coding work. That's all. I don't think there's really an argument about them losing money on inference any more.

It's also smart for them to make sure the billing is going direct from Anthropic to the developer. The initial thought is "That means Apple's not taking a cut", but from the other side of it, developers who use this API are going to have to expose that cost to customers somehow, and that translates to subscription/InAppPurchase etc. on top of which Apple will get it's 30%.