He said the crawlers were costing him money. Maybe stealing could be viewed as avoiding the ads? Don't know what license he had on his publicly available content, but if his site was not being crawled heavily, then it sounds like he might not have taken it all down. I wonder about hosting it on Github / GH-pages or something. Maybe at some volume it becomes a problem or maybe they disallow ads which he wants to profit from?
I used to follow him years ago and liked his content but I drifted away long before AI.
I wonder given his deep expertise how much he could get into teaching how to spot and fix bad AI JS code.
The fortune article is more informative and paints a long standing problem. A lot of the issue is that the region has competing government controls being spread across California for rates, Nevada for power, and feds for doing whatever they do. This is the energy company's side of it:
>Katie Jo Collier, a spokesperson for the utility, said the transition was rooted in a longtime understanding with Liberty “well before data center load growth was a consideration,” calling it “a planned transition for many years, not a reaction to recent developments.” NV Energy sold its California electric assets to Liberty in 2009 and agreed to keep supplying power temporarily. That arrangement was extended in 2015, again in 2020, and once more in late 2025, and each time because Liberty had not yet secured an independent supply, a timeline corroborated by regulatory documents reviewed by Fortune.
>But independent experts have questioned whether NV Energy’s own demand projections are reliable. In testimony filed with Nevada regulators in Oct. 2024, energy economist Rose Anderson of Synapse Energy Economics warned that NV Energy’s major-project load forecast is ‘highly uncertain’ and that existing customers could end up paying for infrastructure built to serve industrial demand that never materializes.
>In statement to Fortune, NV Energy reiterated its spokesperson’s statement about the transition having been planned for years. “It is important to note that the NV Energy’s wholesale agreement with Liberty Utilities was always intended to be temporary and transitional, with a clear timeline and multiple extensions over the years to support Liberty’s long-term planning efforts to secure its own access to energy supply. To ensure reliable ongoing service to Lake Tahoe customers, NV Energy agreed in 2025 to continue providing energy service to Liberty’s customers until their transmission access is available and/or until Greenlink is online.”
>“NV Energy has provided reliable service to Liberty’s customers in the Lake Tahoe Basin for years and fully intends to continue that commitment while Liberty secures its own transmission access and energy to supply those customers,” the utility added. “NV Energy has taken proactive steps to ensure there is no service disruption to Liberty customers, now or in the future.”
>Rates were already climbing
>The supply crisis arrives on top of an existing affordability fight. In its 2025 general rate case, Liberty originally sought a 19.1% revenue increase—about $37.51 more per month for the average residential customer, according to CPUC filings. The CPUC approved a smaller increase: 11.4%, with a 9.75% return on equity rather than Liberty’s requested 11%.
We are at a fork in the road with lots of potential darkness, but simply thinking any old social safety net is going to work is not going to cut it. Nets can be, and generally are, used to capture.
An interesting multi-pronged approach is post labor economics which is being promoted by David Shapiro: https://www.youtube.com/@DaveShap
The basic premise is that currently we have households being supported by labor, capital, and transfers. With labor largely going away, the leaves capital and transfers. Relying on transfers alone will lead to ownership of the people by government. So we have to find ways to generate way more distributed capital ownership by the masses. This is what he plans, discusses, and promotes.
A generality about 1 word of a metaphor is not a legitimate argument.
I read what David Shapiro called concrete interventions.[1] They were public ownership, redistribution, public ownership or redistribution systems he called predistribution, shorter work weeks, and under developed blockchain ideas.
Links to my projects. I am a mathematician, Bohmian (quantum mechanical theory where particles have definite positions guided by the quantum mechanical wave function), Sudbury staffer, hobbyist programmer (now hobbyist manager of AI coders). Currently into exploring fully embracing families of rational intervals as real numbers.
I'd be curious about their analysis of the Nvidia self-driving car project which uses world models(?) to train them in far more extensive scenarios, though simulated, than possible in real world case. That keynote was after this article of course.
But I did check their dismissive claim about the 90% coding at anthropic by watching the link they provided. The Anthropic guy said that 90% was achieved at various teams within Anthropic and also hedged about the exact nature of it; it is a messy metric to be precise about. I thought the other was not generous in interpreting it which makes me skeptical of the edge of the rest of the article.
The optimal version of a PE is to take a failing business and either turn it around or carve up assets and reallocate people to do something useful and profitable. The more a business is failing, the cheaper it is to takeover and for the PE to do the work of a fungus. But this process can also become a disease if it is too easy for them to takeover, taking a healthy host and carving it up. This is mimicked in real life when conditions turn a fungus into a hostile organism on something that is living; maybe it is just a little sick but the environmental conditions help the fungus more than it ought to leading to it being a killer instead of a resource freer.
The real question to ask is why can they take on so much debt? And for that, one needs to acknowledge the fact that, particularly for the well-connected, debt is easy to obtain as banks essentially create money for loans. There are constraints (otherwise the banks would make themselves trillionaires), but the constraint is not the quantity of money. This creation of money through lending leads to inflation which further supports operating via debt as those who take out loans see the real value of the loans decrease. The banks just made up the money so there isn't a direct loser from the inflation other than everyone who has to deal with increased prices. You can think of it as a broad, regressive tax on the population to fund these firms doing far more than they should.
With an actual constrained money supply tied to real wealth in the economy, the PE firms would have to focus on the best deals which means the businesses that are truly dying and their role is to turn the nonproductive assets into something productive.
---
I asked ChatGPT to critique my answer (which is unaltered above) and it said to tone down the lending being propped up by inflation and instead emphasized the following:
>Inflation can help leveraged borrowers, but in PE the bigger structural advantages are:
• Interest deductibility (a massive tax subsidy to debt)
• Limited liability (upside captured, downside partially socialized)
• Fee extraction independent of performance
• Ability to load debt onto the acquired company, not the PE fund
I then asked it to answer the question without regards to my context and it basically said PE is different because of
> • short ownership horizons
• high leverage
• strong control
• financial returns as the primary goal
Why shouldn't her medical providers be responsible for continuing critical health care regardless of payment? Why is it on the employer who is only tangentially related to this versus the people actually charging large sums of money for medically necessary treatment?
Also, the same health insurance can be continued after termination (with some external payment, of course) in addition to medicaid probably being available. None of that may be easy for someone with mental issues to navigate, but that is systematic.
As for the minor extension, is it clear how long she was on leave and what the conversation had been before the termination? The post said that they asked for small time extension, but did not give any indication as to what was happening before, neither length of time employed before taking the leave, what caused the leave, what was said in terms of a return, how long the absence was, etc. I feel like plugging in different answers for those questions would change how I feel about the culpability of the company in the current legal regime.
The usual answer is that there are other people who also need things and cannot pay, so then how should the provider pick between them fairly? (And likely some have a "free clinic", and as you mentioned there are options.)
Still almost all of the responsibility is on the patient, which is a terrible situation to be in for mental health patients. And even if the courts will find that the termination was wrongful it's unlikely that matters, because employers are not responsible for keeping employees alive and happy, they are responsible for making the usual safety precautions (see OSHA) and disability accommodations.
All the great perks of our cherished individualism suck when you have no one to enjoy them with.
reply