There are, then, a lot of discussions about the tradeoffs to different pre-emption approaches to handle that, but having a single set of rules for the Internet that isn't restricted by state boundaries makes some amount of sense.

So I'm sure someone like David Sacks probably explained to him the very, very basics of the preemption debate, but needed an example that would get through his thick skull. So "well woke states might pass woke laws" was likely one that they knew would work on Trump.

Sitting on a train reading this dissent and am just repeatedly stifling the desire to yell "what the actual fuck?" out loud and scaring others in the car. I don't think I've seen a dissent quite this unhinged and unprofessional. View quoted note →

... catch the next big wave of tech successfully. Silicon Valleys in the late 90s became totally obsessed with the concept among both the old guard (I was at Intel in '97 and it was talked about A LOT) and the new guard. Zuck has long been obsessed by it, and explains...

For 27 years, there's never really been a huge threat to Google's search money-printing machine. Social was a slight concern, and Google dabbled there, but it never really chipped away. But ChatGPT is *absolutely* chipping away at Google search.

And people within Google absolutely know that. And they also know the Innovator's Dilemma mantra that if they overprotect their cash cow, they could face an existential threat and miss out on the next wave. And thus, they're willing to cannibalize themselves upfront...

Silicon Valley has spent the last 30 years obsessing over Clay Christensen's innovator's dilemma, ever since he published his HBR piece on it in 1995 (the book came out two years later). Before that you had the obvious pattern that CC described of big companies being too slow and lumbering to...

... why he had no problems throwing a ridiculous amount of money at Insta/WhatsApp and the boondoggle of VR. CANNOT MISS THE NEXT WAVE. The lesson from The Innovator's Dilemma is that missing the next big wave is existential. Spending $50 billion on the wrong things may not be.